George Offerman
There is a debate going on now concerning whether to use ‘scarce pro life resources’ to pass the personhood amendment in places like Colorado, when it seems there is not much of a chance it will pass. (The personhood amendment lost something like 74-26%) One of the arguments utilized by the side that is against passage of the personhood amendment at this time, Steven Ertelt of life news, believes the way to do it is through the electoral process and the courts. This side also used the classic ‘insanity’ argument, which states the definition of insanity is ‘doing the same things but expecting different results’. Well, then by judging from history and results, those opposed to the personhood amendment, those who embrace incrementalism and the likes of Steven Ertelt qualify as insane.
Incrementalism has been the deadly sin of the pro-life movement ever since compromise was introduced as the ‘winning strategy’ about 30 years ago. If anyone wants to debate this as a ‘winning’ strategy, they truly pass the insanity test as we have had two new young justices placed on the Supreme Court in the past 18 months, and have elected the most pro death president ever. These same groups were nowhere to be found in this fight, as their 501 c 3 statuses disallowed them to name names, and hence, muzzled them from the real battle. Those who have been elected under the ‘pro life’ banner, have time and time again, thrown us under the bus, yet the same insane pro life organizations continue to encourage their re elections in the hope these wayward officials will ‘see the light’.
The people and organizations that embrace incrementalism and the idea we need to ‘retake’ the government via Republicant ‘pro lifers’ are those who are truly insane. They have not learned from the recent past when the Bush II regime had 6 years of the legislative branch to get this done, and they did little but pass some peripheral legislation that was overturned by appellate courts. So those who do not study history, or learn from what they live through are advocating for ‘more of the same’ and will end up killing more babies than admitting they have been misguided and have embraced a cursed route that will end up in, no pun intended, a dead end. These people and organizations are too filled with pride to admit they don’t know the way, nor is their way going to result in victory.
There is not even enough integrity to admit it was the tea party that turned the elections in this cycle, and the tea party is now advocating their candidates now let go of the ‘social issues’ and focuses on the economic issues. This was actively discussed and pushed this last election cycle, yet the pro-life organizations have claimed since then that they were the ones who influenced the massive changes in the numbers of new republicans in the House. The fact of the matter is, the pro-life movement had a negligible effect, if any at all in this past election cycle. To sit there and openly deceive themselves, and those who fund them is the height of insanity, the pro life organizations and individuals who fight against the personhood amendment are showing how truly inane they are if they believe their own hype, or as some have said in the 1960’s “They are smoking their own dope”.
Sadly, the reality is the majority of the ‘newly elected’ are going to vote on economic issues, and basically blow off the pro-life issue. This prediction is easy to make, given that those who are the supposed leaders pay little attention to reality, and want to sell their snake oil as real efforts. All this will accomplish is to demoralize those on the front line who have been sold this garbage as real efforts and actually believed these leaders who made bogus complaints. Then the insanity will continue when some incremental change occurs, and the fund raising and bogus claims of victory will once again, fool many of those into funding them. It is in this way the insanity is perpetuated and legalized child killing continues on unabated in its killing fields.
Showing posts with label LIFE NEWS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label LIFE NEWS. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
MISSING THE NUANCES OF THE FIGHT
George Offerman
I had some people point out how it seems I am doing the same behaviors I am accusing many of the other pro life organizations of, and that is attacking and being hypercritical of ‘our own’. I believe I have covered this point in several postings in the past, but because I do not want this to be a stumbling block for some, I will address this the best way that I can.
The first point has to be: understanding the difference between constructive criticism and personal attacks. I have always attempted to practice issue driven postings that make their point on their own merits. I don’t think anyone can look at any of the postings and find personal attacks in them, in which I drag in perceived ‘weaknesses’ or trash family members, or bring out old sins and hang them out to dry. I have posted and called people out on their unchristian behaviors and cited what their behaviors were, but this is not a personal attack. It is addressing the merits of the issues, and not directed at the individual’s character, faith, family or other ad hominen attacks that many of my so called critics have engaged in.
Then there is the issue of what the pro life movement is about. It seems the majority in the pro life movement would describe the pro life movement as existing to: change hearts, educate the masses, conversion of many to the faith, and to the culture of life, and to end abortion. (The reason I put ending abortion last, is many in their own mission statements will discuss education and changing hearts as the main goal). The true nature of the pro life agenda (not movement) is: to end legalized child killing from conception to birth. Based upon 38 years of experience, education and changing hearts has not worked and babies continue to die, unabated 3,500 per day. To call out those who embrace this strategy that has not worked is not hate speech, nor is it a personal attack; it is issue driven. Just because the majority may not agree with this, does not make it wrong, nor does it disallow me to openly speak about it.
When I have attempted to engage many of the ‘leaders’ in dialogue, and ask the tough questions, it has generally been them who then use belittling language, or want to call me out on my ‘status’ in this movement, and then will go onto question my beliefs and faith. What is generally not covered during this process is an open and honest look at the issues brought forth, and communication is effectively cut off with some snippety comment like “You are not Christian”, “Babies will die now”, “you have an anger issue”, “and your mother wears combat boots ”, “ you, you, you….” There is no looking at the behaviors or attitudes called on, but a sense of “I’m on a mission from God, and don’t you DARE SAY ANYTHING to me that I may not like”. These people then make themselves sole arbiters of right and wrong, a position only God Almighty Himself can claim.
A case in point was a recent email exchange between Randall Terry and Steven Ertelt of life news. In this exchange was an opportunity to look at the pro life strategy and analyze whether it is working or not. Mr. Eltert took the position that the new media is the new way to get things done, while Mr. Terry advocated good old fashioned protests, and having eyeball to eyeball contact instead of depending on warfare from a distance. The disturbing part of what Mr. Ertelt embraced in his retorts to Mr. Terry are unfortunately too mainstreamed in the common consciousness of the pro life movement, and that is not needing to get ones hands dirty, and forgetting or neglecting the victories of old, all throughout history. Mr. Ertelt seemed to be belittling the historical aspects of war and conquest, and it is actually his loss for it. There is no such thing as a clean war, or an unbloody war. It will NEVER be won from a computer keyboard, living room or Church. It will be won in the battlefield by soldiers properly trained in combat, and there will be a price to be paid and there will be casualties. Anyone or any organization that states otherwise is delusional.
So, while many of these groups want to cry ‘foul’ and want to wimp out when in comes to criticism, seem to have no problem ‘heaping it onto their critics’. Seems very hypocritical, doesn’t it? We grow when our weaknesses and mistakes are pointed out. We grow when we have the humility and grace to hear things that are unpleasant, and sometimes hurt. But without this information, ultimately we will die, and most likely take others with us. Jesus warned us that his way is taking up the cross daily. Jesus never said to get on a party boat, or that once becoming a Christian, things will go your way all of the time. We have to be willing to give and take constructive criticism, and we need to be able to grow by obtaining feedback from those in the fight regardless of how it feels.
I had some people point out how it seems I am doing the same behaviors I am accusing many of the other pro life organizations of, and that is attacking and being hypercritical of ‘our own’. I believe I have covered this point in several postings in the past, but because I do not want this to be a stumbling block for some, I will address this the best way that I can.
The first point has to be: understanding the difference between constructive criticism and personal attacks. I have always attempted to practice issue driven postings that make their point on their own merits. I don’t think anyone can look at any of the postings and find personal attacks in them, in which I drag in perceived ‘weaknesses’ or trash family members, or bring out old sins and hang them out to dry. I have posted and called people out on their unchristian behaviors and cited what their behaviors were, but this is not a personal attack. It is addressing the merits of the issues, and not directed at the individual’s character, faith, family or other ad hominen attacks that many of my so called critics have engaged in.
Then there is the issue of what the pro life movement is about. It seems the majority in the pro life movement would describe the pro life movement as existing to: change hearts, educate the masses, conversion of many to the faith, and to the culture of life, and to end abortion. (The reason I put ending abortion last, is many in their own mission statements will discuss education and changing hearts as the main goal). The true nature of the pro life agenda (not movement) is: to end legalized child killing from conception to birth. Based upon 38 years of experience, education and changing hearts has not worked and babies continue to die, unabated 3,500 per day. To call out those who embrace this strategy that has not worked is not hate speech, nor is it a personal attack; it is issue driven. Just because the majority may not agree with this, does not make it wrong, nor does it disallow me to openly speak about it.
When I have attempted to engage many of the ‘leaders’ in dialogue, and ask the tough questions, it has generally been them who then use belittling language, or want to call me out on my ‘status’ in this movement, and then will go onto question my beliefs and faith. What is generally not covered during this process is an open and honest look at the issues brought forth, and communication is effectively cut off with some snippety comment like “You are not Christian”, “Babies will die now”, “you have an anger issue”, “and your mother wears combat boots ”, “ you, you, you….” There is no looking at the behaviors or attitudes called on, but a sense of “I’m on a mission from God, and don’t you DARE SAY ANYTHING to me that I may not like”. These people then make themselves sole arbiters of right and wrong, a position only God Almighty Himself can claim.
A case in point was a recent email exchange between Randall Terry and Steven Ertelt of life news. In this exchange was an opportunity to look at the pro life strategy and analyze whether it is working or not. Mr. Eltert took the position that the new media is the new way to get things done, while Mr. Terry advocated good old fashioned protests, and having eyeball to eyeball contact instead of depending on warfare from a distance. The disturbing part of what Mr. Ertelt embraced in his retorts to Mr. Terry are unfortunately too mainstreamed in the common consciousness of the pro life movement, and that is not needing to get ones hands dirty, and forgetting or neglecting the victories of old, all throughout history. Mr. Ertelt seemed to be belittling the historical aspects of war and conquest, and it is actually his loss for it. There is no such thing as a clean war, or an unbloody war. It will NEVER be won from a computer keyboard, living room or Church. It will be won in the battlefield by soldiers properly trained in combat, and there will be a price to be paid and there will be casualties. Anyone or any organization that states otherwise is delusional.
So, while many of these groups want to cry ‘foul’ and want to wimp out when in comes to criticism, seem to have no problem ‘heaping it onto their critics’. Seems very hypocritical, doesn’t it? We grow when our weaknesses and mistakes are pointed out. We grow when we have the humility and grace to hear things that are unpleasant, and sometimes hurt. But without this information, ultimately we will die, and most likely take others with us. Jesus warned us that his way is taking up the cross daily. Jesus never said to get on a party boat, or that once becoming a Christian, things will go your way all of the time. We have to be willing to give and take constructive criticism, and we need to be able to grow by obtaining feedback from those in the fight regardless of how it feels.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
TREACHERY TOWARDS THE PERSONHOOD AMENDMENT
This is an exchange between Randall Terry and Steve Ertelt of life news. In this exchange, the personhood amendment is debated and the validity of the personhood amendment seems to be validated by Mr. Terry. This is a long posting, and I ask the reader to be patient and read this in it’s entirety.
Hi Steve (and all), Since you (Steve) responded to my article, I reprinted your response, and my response to your response. It is a great teaching moment. (We can go back and forth on this as long as you like.) Please feel free to use this any way you want. Those of you I have copied are free to cut and paste this as you see fit.
Randall Terry
Personhood Amendments:
A Righteous Battle for Life
Why are Catholics Betraying the Personhood Amendment?
Dear Friend,
While Missy Smith's heroic effort to run TV ads in DC showing aborted babies (see ads at www.MissySmith2010.com and help her if you can!) another battle is raging. It concerns the "personhood amendment" efforts in several states.
The goal of these efforts, are to declare at the state level, that a "person" (as a legal being, whose rights can be protected by law) is present at conception.
Conceptually, this could pave the way for laws protecting "persons" from assault or murder to apply to "persons" who yet reside in their mothers womb.
Here are samples of the wording:
Colorado:
Section 32. Person defined. As used in sections 3*, 6**, and 25*** of Article II of the state constitution, the term "person" shall apply to every human being from the beginning of the biological development of that human being.
Florida:
SECTION 28. Person Defined.--
(a) The words “person” and “natural person” apply to all human beings, irrespective of age, race, health, function, condition of physical and/or mental dependency and/or disability, or method of reproduction, from the beginning of the biological development of that human being.
(b) This amendment shall take effect on the first day of the next regular legislative session occurring after voter approval of this amendment.
Other states have similar projects under way.
Catholic Treachery?
Two evangelical men - both of whom I consider friends; both of whom are fine, Christian men with a heart for the babies - were discussing why three different groups (who are predominantly Catholic) and certain Catholic bishops have spoken or fought against the "personhood amendment movement" that is afoot in several states.
I responded to them at length, and thought this discussion warranted the chance to help teach our readers. Sadly, a young man named Steven Ertelt, who operates LifeNews.com defended those who attack and subvert the personhood effort. So, I printed his words at the end, and my response to him. You may feel free to cut and paste this, and use it as you see fit.
The State Battles for Personhood for the Unborn
By Randall A. Terry
Those Catholic groups who stand against the personhood amendment initiatives are wrong on four fronts: 1) ethically; 2) historically; 3) politically; and 4) judicially. I will shortly prove my point.
But first, concerning the Catholic bishops who oppose these efforts,we should fear for their souls; they have led their flocks astray on a life and death matter, and will give account for this at a dreadful judgment.
I proffer that the opposition of certain Catholic bishops to the personhood amendments is not connected to their Catholicism - which would demand that they fight for babies with all their might, according to the duties laid down in Evangelium Vitae by John Paul II - but rather their refusal to follow genuine Catholic teaching. I think the opposition we see (from cleric and layman, Catholic and protestant) is a brew of ignorance, arrogance, perhaps laziness, and for certain, a fear of conflict, bad press, and of drawn out sacrifice. Please let me make my case.
1) Ethically, we have no right to not fight. We must fight as if our own lives hung in the balance. If you were about to be ripped apart, and the personhood initiative had the remotest chance to save your life (I will explain how it could in a moment), neither I, nor any bishop, nor any lay political activist has the right to say "It is not the right time." Jesus said, "Do unto others what you would have them do unto you." If you or I were threatened with murder, we would want every tool available used for our rescue, however slim the chance of success.
Second (in regards to ethics), abortion is murder. It is a violation of the command, "You Shall not Murder." That command is above all the laws of men, and that command must be heralded far and wide. Moreover, Romans 13 teaches us (along with many other passages) that civil authority exists to reflect and enforce the criminal laws of God (i.e., the second tablet of the Law.) Bringing civil law in conformity with God's law is a demand from heaven, and a duty among men. To fight to make all child-killing illegal from conception to birth - state by state - legislature by legislature - at the federal legislative level, and in every court we can - is a duty on our part. To not fight is a dereliction of duty. Consider the vantage point of the victims. Can anyone really believe that the souls of the babies who have been dispatched into eternity by the abortionist's knife would say: "No! Do NOT try for a personhood amendment! The time is not right now!"
2) Historically, they are wrong. I invite you to ponder the social revolutions of the past. Think of the defeat of the Stamp Act; ponder the Boston Tea Party; consider the abolitionists and the underground railroad; think well on the suffragettes or those who ended child-labor. And finally, remember the words and images of the Civil Rights Movement. (I urge you to read Mother Mary Jones autobiography, and Martin Luther King's "Letter from the Birmingham Jail.") If you study these movements - their rhetoric, their actions, and the images they used - you will see just how incorrect the opponents of personhood amendments are. It is PRECISELY because we have NOT used tactics like these sundry movements that babies continue to die. It is (in part) because we have NOT pushed for personhood amendments at the state level - in conjunction with a tenth amendment demand for state autonomy and states' rights - that child-killing by abortion is still with us. Every single social revolution I mentioned above was won by people who did and said and showed things that were "ill timed" or "imprudent" etc. Finally, to recount the sacrifices and risks - and victories against all odds - that the heroes and martyrs of the Church have given us would take an encyclopedia.
3) Politically, the opponents of personhood eforts are mistaken as well. When looking at the histories of other social revolutions, it is safe to say that the proponents of change rarely - if ever - possessed a majority. Samuel Adams said: "It is not necessary to have a majority to prevail, only an irate tireless minority, keen to set brush fires in the minds of men." We have forgotten - or betrayed - this truth. The reason the pro-life movement has SO LITTLE political strength - and it is waining by the year - is because our political activities contradict our message. I ask you: Is abortion murder, or not? If it is, then why are we so timid and tepid? We should do EVERYTHING in our power to make it illegal again. When the abolitionists or the suffragettes fought politically against all odds, year after year, and were shot down again and again, they did not resort to the silliness of "We need a better time..." or "We need to educate people more." No; they screamed louder. They became more shrill in their cries for justice. That is why they prevailed politically. They were to politics, what the importunate widow was to prayer.
Concerning saving lives now - as I alluded to above - we will save more lives now by this type of activity than without it. Let me explain.
If a young woman sees, hears, or reads a news story about those "crazy people" making all these sacrifices to pass a personhood amendment because "abortion is murder," she may choose life for her baby (if she is considering killing the child.) I know of what I speak: After my appearance on Oprah years ago, in two separate cities I was approached by two separate women, who both placed a baby in my arms, and told me they saw me on Oprah. Both of them had abortions scheduled, and both of them cancelled their appointment, and gave life to their child. How many other babies were saved because of my appearance on Oprah? I did not have pictures of babies; I was not counseling those ladies; I was simply declaring the truth that abortion was murder on a TV show. And by the way: I was on Oprah because I was making a fuss; I wasn't waiting for the "timing to be right." I was screaming my lungs out - in word and deed - and it was newsworthy. This is critical to any social revolution. The opponents of personhood whine that they get bad press, or no press. Well, do something newsworthy - like trying to change the state constitution - and you will get a lot of press!
4) Judicially, those opposed to personhood amendments are wrong as well. The pipeline to the Supreme Court can take 3 - 10 years. If one of these efforts in any state prevails, it could be the case that actually overturns Roe. We cannot wait for the perfect 5 - 4 majority to bring a case. Our next President could appoint the final vote to overturn Roe, but we cannot wait to find out. The pipeline should be FILLED with cases from as many states as possible. The more states that demand personhood, and the more pressure that is thereby brought to bear in the judiciary, the more judges look like tyrants and fools for justifying murder and harboring murderers. And who knows; maybe a Governor with some backbone will tell the federal courts to "go to hell"; that he/she intends to uphold the state's constitution, including protecting the "persons" of the unborn.
Moreover, judicially - in my opinion - the single greatest source of the loss of life, liberty, and justice in America, is the Supreme Court, followed by various state courts such as in Vermont and Massachusetts. Think of how many evils the Courts have unleashed on us. But what is worse than this - may God forgive us, and our forbears inspire us to battle - is that our founders saw the danger of a judicial oligarchy, and gave us protection against it in article 3, Section 2 of the Constitution. I.e., congress can pass a law, and tell the Court they have no jurisdiction in that area.
America has been overrun by judicial tyrants who - with their lifetime appointments - are beyond the grasp of voters. If our elected federal officials had used the above remedy (Article 3, Section 2), child-killing and a host of lesser evils would have been destroyed. Moreover, the ability to impeach judges who violate their oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States (such as in the case of a judge who decrees a "right" to murder our offspring) has been left to rot. Our political leaders are often cowards and traitors, by virtue of their sins of omission; i.e, they submit to judicial decrees, rather than defying them, and impeaching the lawless judges. Think what would have happened in Massachusetts if Governor Romney and the State Legislature had refused to obey the State Court when it ORDERED them to create homosexual marriage, and rather proceeded to impeach the judges that "so ordered" that abomination. Instead, Romney and company groveled like the frightened Roman Senate before Caesar, and thereby dragged the nation close to the abyss.
I will not belabor the point. The simple fact is that ethically, historically, politically, and judicially, the "personhood amendment movement" is correct in its mission. For that matter, so is anyone who calls for a federal law to outlaw all child-killing from conception till birth, with an Article 3, Section 2 prohibition of Court review.
These efforts do more to "educate people" than most (if not all) of the other efforts combined. Why? Because these efforts show that someone actually believes that abortion is murder, that babies should be protected by law, and is therefore trying to pass a law or amendment to protect babies. The press coverage alone is worth its weight in gold, because the conflict and controversy surrounding the amendment forces people to think; it "educates" them.
Those who oppose these efforts - and sit (alive) in their comfort, pontificating follies, speaking of "better timing" - are simply wrong. But far worse; in my opinion, many of them have become like the Vichy government of France that collaborated with the Germans in the 1940s. Think about it. Child-killing could not continue without the silence, inactivity, fear, and treachery of those who "wait for a better time."
It is not the Catholicism of those who oppose personhood that misguides them, but rather their refusal to obey it.
Your Servant in Christ, and a Slave to the Battle to End Legalized Child-killing,
Randall Terry
--------- Steve Ertelt's Response Follows, Word for Word-------
Note from Randall: I would not normally print a response to an article like the one above. However, the man who responds below holds himself out as a "news source" for pro-life news. He does have several thousand readers. Those readers need to know that Mr. Ertelt's ethical compass is badly damaged, as his response (and my response to him) clearly shows.
Here is Mr. Ertelt's response to my above article.
Let me provide you with the counter view, and the one I believe Phyllis understands:
There are many pro-life groups and millions of pro-life people (including perhaps hundreds of thousands in Colorado who will be voting no on Amendment 62 soon) that the personhood amendment strategy will not be successful at this juncture in the abortion battle. That doesn't mean anyone who disagrees with the strategy does not accept the fact that an unborn child is a human being, or person, starting at the moment of conception (fertilization). They do believe that wholehertedly.
Their position is not against personhood amendments, but for the pro-life movement to do some due diligence first. Otherwise we're casting our pearls before swine, if you will.
The only way to ever get a personhood amendment upheld at the Supreme Court level, where it will assuredly go after the pro-abortion side files a lawsuit against it, is to have a pro-life Supreme Court. At best, we have a Supreme Court that is pro-abortion on a 5-4 margin.
The only way to have a pro-life Supreme Court is to have a pro-life president to select nominees and a pro-life Senate to confirm them. The first part of that battle (the Senate) takes place next month. The second part of the battle takes place in 2012 (replacing Obama with a pro-life president).
Once we get to the point that a personhood amendment will be upheld in court and not be overturned (adding to the pro-Roe, pro-abortion case law further establishing unlimited abortion as a legal precedent) then, and only then, does pressing for one make sense. (And even then, the best legal strategy would likely be an abortion ban similar to the South Dakota measures, rather than a personhood amendment, but that's another debate).
What's sadly ironic to me is that the personhood amendment backers here in Colorado suggest there's perhaps not even a single pro-life member of the Supreme Court willing to uphold a personhood amendment (I strongly disagree). That, of course, makes the case further because it makes it more abundantly clear that the time and money spent on a personhood amendment is entirely wasted by running into a 9-0 Supreme Court that will overturn it immediately and make Colorado taxpayers pay for Planned Parenthood's legal bills.
Thus, those in the pro-life movement who believe the personhood amendment strategy is currently misguaded aren't pro-abortion or against personhood. What they're for is relying on sound legal and political strategy and principles to actually have the Supreme Court overturn Roe and uphold an abortion ban or a personhood amendment rather than not doing our homework beforehand and setting ourselves up for a big loss and the mainstream media printing the pro-life movement's obituary.
Blessings,
Steven
-----------------My Response to Steve Ertelt Follows--------------
Note From Randall: This is the core of the issues at hand. I pray each of you "get it"
Hi Steve and All.
I was very shocked and disappointed by your [Steve's] response.
It appears you did not read my response carefully before you responded, because you did not respond to key historical facts and principles of social revolution. If you did read it carefully, then you are a danger to yourself and others; to perpetrate that which is untrue after having been told the truth shows arrogance, or an unteachable spirit, or a lack of intellectual integrity. The simple truth is that after 38 years, the outline you gave has left us 50,000,000 dead babies, with no end in sight.
What makes your statement dangerous are that parts of it are true; most of what you said regarding the process of the Court, the President, etc is accurate; what makes the conclusions false is what you left out.
I will use parts of your response to show the inaccuracy of your position.
For example, to state that the judicial overturn of a personhood amendment would bring back unlimited child-killing, including the 24 hour waiting periods, or the parental involvement laws in the states that have them, is simply untrue. Many efforts and laws have been made - including the first so called "partial birth abortion" ban - that have been struck down by courts, but have left other meager gains the pro-life movement has made intact. To say otherwise is untrue.
We could have 100 defeats in the courts - but that would not necessarily set us back; it might bring us closer to victory. Study the cases brought against the government regarding the Vietnam war. While they did not prevail in Court, they prevailed in the court of public opinion, which led to a change in the administration's position.
Next, the pro-life movement doing its "due diligence" would mean that we assess our tactics and strategy for the last 38 years. In any other arena, or in any business, we [the pro-life movement] would be defunct. We would be out of business, because we have failed in our clear, simple objective; namely, to make child-killing illegal again from conception till birth, including making illegal the pill, IUDs, Norplant, etc. The "due diligence" you speak of would lead us to conclude that our major leaders and groups have failed, and that their strategies - or at least their judgment - must be suspect, or even disregarded. I.e., when Neville Chamberlain's appeasement policy failed, and the fallacy of his "peace in our times" trust in Hitler showed itself for what it was, England threw him out, and replaced him with Churchill.
Next, the "pearls before swine" line lacks meaning. How could telling people that babies are persons who need to be recognized by law be putting "pearls before swine?" Rather, it shows people what we believe. Use your logic and rhetoric in the fight to end slavery. "Telling slave owners that we must recognize slaves as persons is throwing our pearls before swine." One would think the slaves would have a different view of our efforts. Also, given your logic, we would never fight for laws to protect the babies. What better time than now to say that babies who have landfills for graves should be considered persons?
You say that pro-life opposition to the personhood amendment is "relying on sound legal and political strategy and principles to actually have the Supreme Court overturn Roe and uphold an abortion ban or a personhood amendment rather than not doing our homework beforehand and setting ourselves up for a big loss and the mainstream media printing the pro-life movement's obituary."
First of all, history has shown - both the pro-life movement's history, and the successful social revolutions of which I spoke - that what you propose is not sound; rather, it has failed. Partly it has failed because it lacks urgency. NOTHING you wrote rings of urgency for the babies; nothing screams "MURDER!" The lack of urgency tells the world that we do not really believe babies are being butchered, and thrown in landfills.
Second, the "mainstream media" has already tried to write "the pro-life movement's obituary", and nearly did so in the Presidential election of 2008. It was a "non-issue." But since then, the "mainstream media" has covered the pro-life "war on the ground" at Notre Dame, the fight against Sotomayor (including the arrests), the fierce battle against health care - including the disruption of Howard Dean's meeting on national TV, and the sit in and arrests at Nancy Pelosi's office - the burning in effigy of various politicians who support child-killing or supported Kagan, and now Missy Smith's incredible campaign for the U.S. House in which she is showing murdered babies in her TV ads.
You see my point, Steve. If it was not for the fierce and unflagging efforts of our Insurrecta Nex team (and others like us) in these and other battles, the "pro-life movement" would be ignored. But - thanks be to God - the mainstream press has had the integrity to report accurately what we have done. It is not an obituary they write, but rather an account of our calls to battle. We will do the same in the battle for personhood.
I tell you, Steve, and the others reading this: I have been on the front lines for over a quarter of a century: The pro-life movement became the pro-life establishment; then the pro-life establishment became the pro-life industry; then the pro-life industry became pro-life collaborators with the child-killers.
I will write more on that theme soon.
I will also continue to expose the curse of the 501c3 tax exempt deal with the devil, that keeps these "pro-life groups" from getting behind Missy Smith, or even sending people to her web site. By the way, I have looked at your site regarding Missy Smith's campaign, and noticed that you did not have the integrity to put a link to her ads at www.MissySmith2010.com. Are you one of those tax exempt groups that has taken the bit and bridle of the IRS for the sake of a few pieces of silver?
I rest my case from my first response about the personhood amendments, knowing that you have not disproved anything I have said historically or tactically; rather, you have confirmed it.
Go ahead Steve, read Mother Mary Jones Autobiography, and Dr. King's Letter from the Birmingham Jail. And take the time to read what I wrote concerning this battle in Colorado and elsewhere. See how real social revolution works. And when you are ready to fast, and pray, and ponder those great masterpieces (not including mine!), if you have the clarity of mind and wisdom of God, you will turn from the failed strategy you propose, and become a true "abolitionist."
Sincerely,
Randall Terry
P.S. By the way, I am glad you pulled down the comment about your 5,000 releases on your web site, and the hope for 5,000 more. You do not want people to see that you have no plan to end child-killing soon, and that your vision is to stay comfortable in your chair in front of your computer for the next 17 years. Come to DC, Steven, and our battle proven war-band will teach you what real social revolution
This is an exchange between Randall Terry and Steve Ertelt of life news. In this exchange, the personhood amendment is debated and the validity of the personhood amendment seems to be validated by Mr. Terry. This is a long posting, and I ask the reader to be patient and read this in it’s entirety.
Hi Steve (and all), Since you (Steve) responded to my article, I reprinted your response, and my response to your response. It is a great teaching moment. (We can go back and forth on this as long as you like.) Please feel free to use this any way you want. Those of you I have copied are free to cut and paste this as you see fit.
Randall Terry
Personhood Amendments:
A Righteous Battle for Life
Why are Catholics Betraying the Personhood Amendment?
Dear Friend,
While Missy Smith's heroic effort to run TV ads in DC showing aborted babies (see ads at www.MissySmith2010.com and help her if you can!) another battle is raging. It concerns the "personhood amendment" efforts in several states.
The goal of these efforts, are to declare at the state level, that a "person" (as a legal being, whose rights can be protected by law) is present at conception.
Conceptually, this could pave the way for laws protecting "persons" from assault or murder to apply to "persons" who yet reside in their mothers womb.
Here are samples of the wording:
Colorado:
Section 32. Person defined. As used in sections 3*, 6**, and 25*** of Article II of the state constitution, the term "person" shall apply to every human being from the beginning of the biological development of that human being.
Florida:
SECTION 28. Person Defined.--
(a) The words “person” and “natural person” apply to all human beings, irrespective of age, race, health, function, condition of physical and/or mental dependency and/or disability, or method of reproduction, from the beginning of the biological development of that human being.
(b) This amendment shall take effect on the first day of the next regular legislative session occurring after voter approval of this amendment.
Other states have similar projects under way.
Catholic Treachery?
Two evangelical men - both of whom I consider friends; both of whom are fine, Christian men with a heart for the babies - were discussing why three different groups (who are predominantly Catholic) and certain Catholic bishops have spoken or fought against the "personhood amendment movement" that is afoot in several states.
I responded to them at length, and thought this discussion warranted the chance to help teach our readers. Sadly, a young man named Steven Ertelt, who operates LifeNews.com defended those who attack and subvert the personhood effort. So, I printed his words at the end, and my response to him. You may feel free to cut and paste this, and use it as you see fit.
The State Battles for Personhood for the Unborn
By Randall A. Terry
Those Catholic groups who stand against the personhood amendment initiatives are wrong on four fronts: 1) ethically; 2) historically; 3) politically; and 4) judicially. I will shortly prove my point.
But first, concerning the Catholic bishops who oppose these efforts,we should fear for their souls; they have led their flocks astray on a life and death matter, and will give account for this at a dreadful judgment.
I proffer that the opposition of certain Catholic bishops to the personhood amendments is not connected to their Catholicism - which would demand that they fight for babies with all their might, according to the duties laid down in Evangelium Vitae by John Paul II - but rather their refusal to follow genuine Catholic teaching. I think the opposition we see (from cleric and layman, Catholic and protestant) is a brew of ignorance, arrogance, perhaps laziness, and for certain, a fear of conflict, bad press, and of drawn out sacrifice. Please let me make my case.
1) Ethically, we have no right to not fight. We must fight as if our own lives hung in the balance. If you were about to be ripped apart, and the personhood initiative had the remotest chance to save your life (I will explain how it could in a moment), neither I, nor any bishop, nor any lay political activist has the right to say "It is not the right time." Jesus said, "Do unto others what you would have them do unto you." If you or I were threatened with murder, we would want every tool available used for our rescue, however slim the chance of success.
Second (in regards to ethics), abortion is murder. It is a violation of the command, "You Shall not Murder." That command is above all the laws of men, and that command must be heralded far and wide. Moreover, Romans 13 teaches us (along with many other passages) that civil authority exists to reflect and enforce the criminal laws of God (i.e., the second tablet of the Law.) Bringing civil law in conformity with God's law is a demand from heaven, and a duty among men. To fight to make all child-killing illegal from conception to birth - state by state - legislature by legislature - at the federal legislative level, and in every court we can - is a duty on our part. To not fight is a dereliction of duty. Consider the vantage point of the victims. Can anyone really believe that the souls of the babies who have been dispatched into eternity by the abortionist's knife would say: "No! Do NOT try for a personhood amendment! The time is not right now!"
2) Historically, they are wrong. I invite you to ponder the social revolutions of the past. Think of the defeat of the Stamp Act; ponder the Boston Tea Party; consider the abolitionists and the underground railroad; think well on the suffragettes or those who ended child-labor. And finally, remember the words and images of the Civil Rights Movement. (I urge you to read Mother Mary Jones autobiography, and Martin Luther King's "Letter from the Birmingham Jail.") If you study these movements - their rhetoric, their actions, and the images they used - you will see just how incorrect the opponents of personhood amendments are. It is PRECISELY because we have NOT used tactics like these sundry movements that babies continue to die. It is (in part) because we have NOT pushed for personhood amendments at the state level - in conjunction with a tenth amendment demand for state autonomy and states' rights - that child-killing by abortion is still with us. Every single social revolution I mentioned above was won by people who did and said and showed things that were "ill timed" or "imprudent" etc. Finally, to recount the sacrifices and risks - and victories against all odds - that the heroes and martyrs of the Church have given us would take an encyclopedia.
3) Politically, the opponents of personhood eforts are mistaken as well. When looking at the histories of other social revolutions, it is safe to say that the proponents of change rarely - if ever - possessed a majority. Samuel Adams said: "It is not necessary to have a majority to prevail, only an irate tireless minority, keen to set brush fires in the minds of men." We have forgotten - or betrayed - this truth. The reason the pro-life movement has SO LITTLE political strength - and it is waining by the year - is because our political activities contradict our message. I ask you: Is abortion murder, or not? If it is, then why are we so timid and tepid? We should do EVERYTHING in our power to make it illegal again. When the abolitionists or the suffragettes fought politically against all odds, year after year, and were shot down again and again, they did not resort to the silliness of "We need a better time..." or "We need to educate people more." No; they screamed louder. They became more shrill in their cries for justice. That is why they prevailed politically. They were to politics, what the importunate widow was to prayer.
Concerning saving lives now - as I alluded to above - we will save more lives now by this type of activity than without it. Let me explain.
If a young woman sees, hears, or reads a news story about those "crazy people" making all these sacrifices to pass a personhood amendment because "abortion is murder," she may choose life for her baby (if she is considering killing the child.) I know of what I speak: After my appearance on Oprah years ago, in two separate cities I was approached by two separate women, who both placed a baby in my arms, and told me they saw me on Oprah. Both of them had abortions scheduled, and both of them cancelled their appointment, and gave life to their child. How many other babies were saved because of my appearance on Oprah? I did not have pictures of babies; I was not counseling those ladies; I was simply declaring the truth that abortion was murder on a TV show. And by the way: I was on Oprah because I was making a fuss; I wasn't waiting for the "timing to be right." I was screaming my lungs out - in word and deed - and it was newsworthy. This is critical to any social revolution. The opponents of personhood whine that they get bad press, or no press. Well, do something newsworthy - like trying to change the state constitution - and you will get a lot of press!
4) Judicially, those opposed to personhood amendments are wrong as well. The pipeline to the Supreme Court can take 3 - 10 years. If one of these efforts in any state prevails, it could be the case that actually overturns Roe. We cannot wait for the perfect 5 - 4 majority to bring a case. Our next President could appoint the final vote to overturn Roe, but we cannot wait to find out. The pipeline should be FILLED with cases from as many states as possible. The more states that demand personhood, and the more pressure that is thereby brought to bear in the judiciary, the more judges look like tyrants and fools for justifying murder and harboring murderers. And who knows; maybe a Governor with some backbone will tell the federal courts to "go to hell"; that he/she intends to uphold the state's constitution, including protecting the "persons" of the unborn.
Moreover, judicially - in my opinion - the single greatest source of the loss of life, liberty, and justice in America, is the Supreme Court, followed by various state courts such as in Vermont and Massachusetts. Think of how many evils the Courts have unleashed on us. But what is worse than this - may God forgive us, and our forbears inspire us to battle - is that our founders saw the danger of a judicial oligarchy, and gave us protection against it in article 3, Section 2 of the Constitution. I.e., congress can pass a law, and tell the Court they have no jurisdiction in that area.
America has been overrun by judicial tyrants who - with their lifetime appointments - are beyond the grasp of voters. If our elected federal officials had used the above remedy (Article 3, Section 2), child-killing and a host of lesser evils would have been destroyed. Moreover, the ability to impeach judges who violate their oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States (such as in the case of a judge who decrees a "right" to murder our offspring) has been left to rot. Our political leaders are often cowards and traitors, by virtue of their sins of omission; i.e, they submit to judicial decrees, rather than defying them, and impeaching the lawless judges. Think what would have happened in Massachusetts if Governor Romney and the State Legislature had refused to obey the State Court when it ORDERED them to create homosexual marriage, and rather proceeded to impeach the judges that "so ordered" that abomination. Instead, Romney and company groveled like the frightened Roman Senate before Caesar, and thereby dragged the nation close to the abyss.
I will not belabor the point. The simple fact is that ethically, historically, politically, and judicially, the "personhood amendment movement" is correct in its mission. For that matter, so is anyone who calls for a federal law to outlaw all child-killing from conception till birth, with an Article 3, Section 2 prohibition of Court review.
These efforts do more to "educate people" than most (if not all) of the other efforts combined. Why? Because these efforts show that someone actually believes that abortion is murder, that babies should be protected by law, and is therefore trying to pass a law or amendment to protect babies. The press coverage alone is worth its weight in gold, because the conflict and controversy surrounding the amendment forces people to think; it "educates" them.
Those who oppose these efforts - and sit (alive) in their comfort, pontificating follies, speaking of "better timing" - are simply wrong. But far worse; in my opinion, many of them have become like the Vichy government of France that collaborated with the Germans in the 1940s. Think about it. Child-killing could not continue without the silence, inactivity, fear, and treachery of those who "wait for a better time."
It is not the Catholicism of those who oppose personhood that misguides them, but rather their refusal to obey it.
Your Servant in Christ, and a Slave to the Battle to End Legalized Child-killing,
Randall Terry
--------- Steve Ertelt's Response Follows, Word for Word-------
Note from Randall: I would not normally print a response to an article like the one above. However, the man who responds below holds himself out as a "news source" for pro-life news. He does have several thousand readers. Those readers need to know that Mr. Ertelt's ethical compass is badly damaged, as his response (and my response to him) clearly shows.
Here is Mr. Ertelt's response to my above article.
Let me provide you with the counter view, and the one I believe Phyllis understands:
There are many pro-life groups and millions of pro-life people (including perhaps hundreds of thousands in Colorado who will be voting no on Amendment 62 soon) that the personhood amendment strategy will not be successful at this juncture in the abortion battle. That doesn't mean anyone who disagrees with the strategy does not accept the fact that an unborn child is a human being, or person, starting at the moment of conception (fertilization). They do believe that wholehertedly.
Their position is not against personhood amendments, but for the pro-life movement to do some due diligence first. Otherwise we're casting our pearls before swine, if you will.
The only way to ever get a personhood amendment upheld at the Supreme Court level, where it will assuredly go after the pro-abortion side files a lawsuit against it, is to have a pro-life Supreme Court. At best, we have a Supreme Court that is pro-abortion on a 5-4 margin.
The only way to have a pro-life Supreme Court is to have a pro-life president to select nominees and a pro-life Senate to confirm them. The first part of that battle (the Senate) takes place next month. The second part of the battle takes place in 2012 (replacing Obama with a pro-life president).
Once we get to the point that a personhood amendment will be upheld in court and not be overturned (adding to the pro-Roe, pro-abortion case law further establishing unlimited abortion as a legal precedent) then, and only then, does pressing for one make sense. (And even then, the best legal strategy would likely be an abortion ban similar to the South Dakota measures, rather than a personhood amendment, but that's another debate).
What's sadly ironic to me is that the personhood amendment backers here in Colorado suggest there's perhaps not even a single pro-life member of the Supreme Court willing to uphold a personhood amendment (I strongly disagree). That, of course, makes the case further because it makes it more abundantly clear that the time and money spent on a personhood amendment is entirely wasted by running into a 9-0 Supreme Court that will overturn it immediately and make Colorado taxpayers pay for Planned Parenthood's legal bills.
Thus, those in the pro-life movement who believe the personhood amendment strategy is currently misguaded aren't pro-abortion or against personhood. What they're for is relying on sound legal and political strategy and principles to actually have the Supreme Court overturn Roe and uphold an abortion ban or a personhood amendment rather than not doing our homework beforehand and setting ourselves up for a big loss and the mainstream media printing the pro-life movement's obituary.
Blessings,
Steven
-----------------My Response to Steve Ertelt Follows--------------
Note From Randall: This is the core of the issues at hand. I pray each of you "get it"
Hi Steve and All.
I was very shocked and disappointed by your [Steve's] response.
It appears you did not read my response carefully before you responded, because you did not respond to key historical facts and principles of social revolution. If you did read it carefully, then you are a danger to yourself and others; to perpetrate that which is untrue after having been told the truth shows arrogance, or an unteachable spirit, or a lack of intellectual integrity. The simple truth is that after 38 years, the outline you gave has left us 50,000,000 dead babies, with no end in sight.
What makes your statement dangerous are that parts of it are true; most of what you said regarding the process of the Court, the President, etc is accurate; what makes the conclusions false is what you left out.
I will use parts of your response to show the inaccuracy of your position.
For example, to state that the judicial overturn of a personhood amendment would bring back unlimited child-killing, including the 24 hour waiting periods, or the parental involvement laws in the states that have them, is simply untrue. Many efforts and laws have been made - including the first so called "partial birth abortion" ban - that have been struck down by courts, but have left other meager gains the pro-life movement has made intact. To say otherwise is untrue.
We could have 100 defeats in the courts - but that would not necessarily set us back; it might bring us closer to victory. Study the cases brought against the government regarding the Vietnam war. While they did not prevail in Court, they prevailed in the court of public opinion, which led to a change in the administration's position.
Next, the pro-life movement doing its "due diligence" would mean that we assess our tactics and strategy for the last 38 years. In any other arena, or in any business, we [the pro-life movement] would be defunct. We would be out of business, because we have failed in our clear, simple objective; namely, to make child-killing illegal again from conception till birth, including making illegal the pill, IUDs, Norplant, etc. The "due diligence" you speak of would lead us to conclude that our major leaders and groups have failed, and that their strategies - or at least their judgment - must be suspect, or even disregarded. I.e., when Neville Chamberlain's appeasement policy failed, and the fallacy of his "peace in our times" trust in Hitler showed itself for what it was, England threw him out, and replaced him with Churchill.
Next, the "pearls before swine" line lacks meaning. How could telling people that babies are persons who need to be recognized by law be putting "pearls before swine?" Rather, it shows people what we believe. Use your logic and rhetoric in the fight to end slavery. "Telling slave owners that we must recognize slaves as persons is throwing our pearls before swine." One would think the slaves would have a different view of our efforts. Also, given your logic, we would never fight for laws to protect the babies. What better time than now to say that babies who have landfills for graves should be considered persons?
You say that pro-life opposition to the personhood amendment is "relying on sound legal and political strategy and principles to actually have the Supreme Court overturn Roe and uphold an abortion ban or a personhood amendment rather than not doing our homework beforehand and setting ourselves up for a big loss and the mainstream media printing the pro-life movement's obituary."
First of all, history has shown - both the pro-life movement's history, and the successful social revolutions of which I spoke - that what you propose is not sound; rather, it has failed. Partly it has failed because it lacks urgency. NOTHING you wrote rings of urgency for the babies; nothing screams "MURDER!" The lack of urgency tells the world that we do not really believe babies are being butchered, and thrown in landfills.
Second, the "mainstream media" has already tried to write "the pro-life movement's obituary", and nearly did so in the Presidential election of 2008. It was a "non-issue." But since then, the "mainstream media" has covered the pro-life "war on the ground" at Notre Dame, the fight against Sotomayor (including the arrests), the fierce battle against health care - including the disruption of Howard Dean's meeting on national TV, and the sit in and arrests at Nancy Pelosi's office - the burning in effigy of various politicians who support child-killing or supported Kagan, and now Missy Smith's incredible campaign for the U.S. House in which she is showing murdered babies in her TV ads.
You see my point, Steve. If it was not for the fierce and unflagging efforts of our Insurrecta Nex team (and others like us) in these and other battles, the "pro-life movement" would be ignored. But - thanks be to God - the mainstream press has had the integrity to report accurately what we have done. It is not an obituary they write, but rather an account of our calls to battle. We will do the same in the battle for personhood.
I tell you, Steve, and the others reading this: I have been on the front lines for over a quarter of a century: The pro-life movement became the pro-life establishment; then the pro-life establishment became the pro-life industry; then the pro-life industry became pro-life collaborators with the child-killers.
I will write more on that theme soon.
I will also continue to expose the curse of the 501c3 tax exempt deal with the devil, that keeps these "pro-life groups" from getting behind Missy Smith, or even sending people to her web site. By the way, I have looked at your site regarding Missy Smith's campaign, and noticed that you did not have the integrity to put a link to her ads at www.MissySmith2010.com. Are you one of those tax exempt groups that has taken the bit and bridle of the IRS for the sake of a few pieces of silver?
I rest my case from my first response about the personhood amendments, knowing that you have not disproved anything I have said historically or tactically; rather, you have confirmed it.
Go ahead Steve, read Mother Mary Jones Autobiography, and Dr. King's Letter from the Birmingham Jail. And take the time to read what I wrote concerning this battle in Colorado and elsewhere. See how real social revolution works. And when you are ready to fast, and pray, and ponder those great masterpieces (not including mine!), if you have the clarity of mind and wisdom of God, you will turn from the failed strategy you propose, and become a true "abolitionist."
Sincerely,
Randall Terry
P.S. By the way, I am glad you pulled down the comment about your 5,000 releases on your web site, and the hope for 5,000 more. You do not want people to see that you have no plan to end child-killing soon, and that your vision is to stay comfortable in your chair in front of your computer for the next 17 years. Come to DC, Steven, and our battle proven war-band will teach you what real social revolution
Monday, October 25, 2010
FR. FRANK PAVONE INTERVIEW
George Offerman
I had the opportunity to interview Fr. Frank Pavone last Friday, and this posting will touch on the highlights of this interview. As mentioned before, representatives from Priests for Life reached out to me to do this interview and the timing of this happened to coincide with Missy Smith’s campaign for the congressional seat in Washington, D.C. The interview, originally scheduled for 15 minutes, went 40 minutes, and for the sake of brevity, I had to condense as much as possible without changing the esence of what was said. I had pre determined questions, but due to the nature of the discussion, we went into other aspects of the pro life organizations and the general problems with them. I will write the questions, and then give Fr. Frank’s response.
Does the 501c3 tax exempt status hurt the Churches ability to address politicians and laws?
Fr. Frank: Not if the Church has allowed the organization to do the work. As far as PFL (Priests for Life) is concerned, we have to deal not only with civil law, but Church law. We have the ability to put out non partisan voter guides, but cannot explicitly point out or endorse any specific candidates. However, the Church does need to allow for the full extent of the c3 laws, and in some quadrants, there is some hesitancy to do this. Church teachings often are opposed to the reality of the situation, in that they do not always teach with the conviction that they need to. There can be many reasons for this, but much of it can be attributed to sometimes being out of touch with the common man and his situation. Then there is the larger church culture that seems to imply ‘don’t push this too much”.
You have talked about influencing the 2010 elections, yet you are a 501c3. Is it true that you cannot advocate for the defeat of a candidate by name that supports the murder of babies?
Fr. Frank: I cannot communicate that through the PFL channels. As a private individual, I would be able to do so, but it is a very fine line between identifying my own beliefs as opposed to my association with PFL. There are not only civil laws I must be aware of, but church law since I am a Priest. Traditionally speaking, the church has attempted to stay clear of partisan politics, and discourages priests from doing this activity.
Fr. Frank, you have a great deal of influence and I think it would make a big difference if you did get out there and make a clear statement about Missy Smith’s candidacy, especially given the fact she is showing graphic images, that corresponds with your own statement “America will not reject abortion until America sees abortion”.
Fr. Frank: I know Missy Smith very well, and am all for her doing what she is doing. I do believe America needs to see these images and what she (Missy) is doing is very courageous and needs to be supported by the pro life movement. But I want you to know that I use images on my television show and advocate for others to do the same. I think there is a hesitancy to do this with many of the pro life organizations due to various reasons, and there seems to be a significant amount of discomfort with these ads.
Fr Frank, your television show is’ preaching to the choir’. Missy Smith’s ads are going into the ‘belly of the beast’ and are garnering a great deal of ‘hate mail’. Missy informed me that she needs to empty her voice mail at least 2 times per day from all of the hate and vile messages left for her. Her spots are hard hitting and have to be run, unedited on the MSM airwaves. This is unprecedented not only in politics, but in the nation’s capital, and for the first time that I can remember; the pro death camp is on the defensive. Then we have an organization such as the Susan B. Anthony List that is embroiled in a dispute over billboards in Ohio. It is beyond me that many in this ’movement’ cannot distinguish between spending a great deal of money defending billboards that will do little to nothing, versus a fair amount of money in showing the graphic nature of abortion to the nation’s capital, where many of the politicians will have to see it. Talk about not understanding the nature of the battle, or knowing where to spend the money in a very cost effective way. Where is the coverage and support for Missy Smith if we really need to show America what abortion is?
Fr Frank: First, I agree with you. It is unprecedented for the nation’s capital, and needed. However, there seems to be among many in the pro life movement a lack of political savvy, political willfulness. There is also a level of discomfort and even a fear of being explicit with the images used. There have also been debates about how to best deal with the elections and many of the groups have done what they think they need to do with getting candidates elected. Many want to stay out of controversy in order to get many of these candidates into office.
Here’s the problem with that. Most of these so called ‘pro life’ candidates, once elected, don’t follow through on their promises. We have had too many instances in which supposed pro life candidates, once in office, turn on us, such as Lindsay Graham, then get re elected, and are supported by the PRO LIFE ORGANIZATIONS! Then you have people like Steve Ertelt of life news, stating the way to ‘win’ is to get a majority of pro lifers in the legislative and executive branches. Maybe he does not remember, but we had that opportunity with Bush, and it didn’t happen. We had the Sotomayor and Kagan nominations, and virtual silence by nearly all of the pro life movement, and I have this well documented. Many in the ‘pro life movement’ seem to have no clue about this fight, and even when they do identify a source of the front, do little to nothing about it.
Fr. Frank: Accountability is a problem. It seems as time goes on the passion begins to wane. The church moves slow because it is institutionalized and sometimes it takes longer to get things going due to the precedents set….
Sorry to interrupt you, but the Church is 2000 years old, and it’s understandable for institutionalization there, but the pro life movement is 38 years old, and there is really no excuse for it to be institutionalized already.
Fr. Frank: yes, it seems to have happened quickly. Many seemed to have lost touch with the mission of what we need to do.
I’m glad you said that. I’m telling you now, that there will be a great deal of anger by the ‘man on the street’ after this is said and done, after the election. There is no passion, no ‘urgency’ in this movement anymore. Things just plod along. The vast majority of the ‘leadership’ is out of touch with the front line people in this movement. Missy Smith’s ads will get out there after the election, and many of the front line people are going to be furious with much of the leadership because they didn’t inform them of this option, and they took it upon themselves to make decisions for these people. I consider myself a front line pro lifer. I get up on Saturday mornings, regardless of the weather, and stand out at the mills and counsel women. I am sick of doing this, and I want to see this holocaust end. Unfortunately, there are organizations that have huge budgets, nice offices, some of the leaders are well compensated for speeches, and get invited to activities. They would be in ‘existential angst’ if legalized child killing ended tomorrow. Unlike them, I have a career, and pay my bills through those means, and want to see every worthwhile tool used to end this holocaust. Most of the front line people think the way I do, and don’t think these organizations have the ‘right’ to speak for us. These organizations are going to be in trouble once the front line people find out the opportunity was there, but they didn’t pass this on. And by the way, we are documenting who is helping and who is not. And we will be publishing a list shortly after the election with names of the organizations and individuals with who did and did not respond. Good luck to their fund raising then.
Fr. Frank: Yes, I am surprised at how quickly this movement has been institutionalized. I believe the organizations need to get back to their roots. There needs to be passion in this movement, and the leadership needs to do these things. First, they need to get back to their roots. They need to be praying regularly in front of abortion mills. They need to look at the images and view the videos we use on a regular basis to remind themselves of the mission, and to keep the urgency alive. They especially need to talk to the women who either are going in for abortions, or are post abortive. They need to understand and hear for themselves the pain and agony of these women. There is no greater motivator than that. There needs to be more hands on and way more involvement by the leadership, and yes, there needs to be urgency in this matter.
Last question Fr. Frank. We have requested of all the leadership in the various organizations to do three things: Personally donate to Missy Smith’s campaign, personally endorse her, and pass her information along to their distribution lists. This can be done without violating 501c3 and non profit status as demonstrated by Jack Ames. Will YOU personally commit to doing these same things for Missy Smith?
Fr. Frank: Being mindful of the organization, I can send out a memo with Missy’s information on it and encourage people to look at it and act on the information. I can also put Missy Smith on the voter guide and encourage support for her candidacy in that way. I also can endorse her and give her a ‘plug’ in my communications.
Thank you for your time and I’m sure I will be speaking to you in the near future.
So, we have it on record that Fr. Frank is supporting and endorsing Missy Smith for Congress. This is an unprecedented opportunity, and it is good to have the one who coined the term “America will reject abortion when America sees abortion.” We have a week or so left to make a significant impact on the nation’s capital, and we need to make this happen.
To donate to Missy Smith’s campaign, go to www.missysmith2010.com
I had the opportunity to interview Fr. Frank Pavone last Friday, and this posting will touch on the highlights of this interview. As mentioned before, representatives from Priests for Life reached out to me to do this interview and the timing of this happened to coincide with Missy Smith’s campaign for the congressional seat in Washington, D.C. The interview, originally scheduled for 15 minutes, went 40 minutes, and for the sake of brevity, I had to condense as much as possible without changing the esence of what was said. I had pre determined questions, but due to the nature of the discussion, we went into other aspects of the pro life organizations and the general problems with them. I will write the questions, and then give Fr. Frank’s response.
Does the 501c3 tax exempt status hurt the Churches ability to address politicians and laws?
Fr. Frank: Not if the Church has allowed the organization to do the work. As far as PFL (Priests for Life) is concerned, we have to deal not only with civil law, but Church law. We have the ability to put out non partisan voter guides, but cannot explicitly point out or endorse any specific candidates. However, the Church does need to allow for the full extent of the c3 laws, and in some quadrants, there is some hesitancy to do this. Church teachings often are opposed to the reality of the situation, in that they do not always teach with the conviction that they need to. There can be many reasons for this, but much of it can be attributed to sometimes being out of touch with the common man and his situation. Then there is the larger church culture that seems to imply ‘don’t push this too much”.
You have talked about influencing the 2010 elections, yet you are a 501c3. Is it true that you cannot advocate for the defeat of a candidate by name that supports the murder of babies?
Fr. Frank: I cannot communicate that through the PFL channels. As a private individual, I would be able to do so, but it is a very fine line between identifying my own beliefs as opposed to my association with PFL. There are not only civil laws I must be aware of, but church law since I am a Priest. Traditionally speaking, the church has attempted to stay clear of partisan politics, and discourages priests from doing this activity.
Fr. Frank, you have a great deal of influence and I think it would make a big difference if you did get out there and make a clear statement about Missy Smith’s candidacy, especially given the fact she is showing graphic images, that corresponds with your own statement “America will not reject abortion until America sees abortion”.
Fr. Frank: I know Missy Smith very well, and am all for her doing what she is doing. I do believe America needs to see these images and what she (Missy) is doing is very courageous and needs to be supported by the pro life movement. But I want you to know that I use images on my television show and advocate for others to do the same. I think there is a hesitancy to do this with many of the pro life organizations due to various reasons, and there seems to be a significant amount of discomfort with these ads.
Fr Frank, your television show is’ preaching to the choir’. Missy Smith’s ads are going into the ‘belly of the beast’ and are garnering a great deal of ‘hate mail’. Missy informed me that she needs to empty her voice mail at least 2 times per day from all of the hate and vile messages left for her. Her spots are hard hitting and have to be run, unedited on the MSM airwaves. This is unprecedented not only in politics, but in the nation’s capital, and for the first time that I can remember; the pro death camp is on the defensive. Then we have an organization such as the Susan B. Anthony List that is embroiled in a dispute over billboards in Ohio. It is beyond me that many in this ’movement’ cannot distinguish between spending a great deal of money defending billboards that will do little to nothing, versus a fair amount of money in showing the graphic nature of abortion to the nation’s capital, where many of the politicians will have to see it. Talk about not understanding the nature of the battle, or knowing where to spend the money in a very cost effective way. Where is the coverage and support for Missy Smith if we really need to show America what abortion is?
Fr Frank: First, I agree with you. It is unprecedented for the nation’s capital, and needed. However, there seems to be among many in the pro life movement a lack of political savvy, political willfulness. There is also a level of discomfort and even a fear of being explicit with the images used. There have also been debates about how to best deal with the elections and many of the groups have done what they think they need to do with getting candidates elected. Many want to stay out of controversy in order to get many of these candidates into office.
Here’s the problem with that. Most of these so called ‘pro life’ candidates, once elected, don’t follow through on their promises. We have had too many instances in which supposed pro life candidates, once in office, turn on us, such as Lindsay Graham, then get re elected, and are supported by the PRO LIFE ORGANIZATIONS! Then you have people like Steve Ertelt of life news, stating the way to ‘win’ is to get a majority of pro lifers in the legislative and executive branches. Maybe he does not remember, but we had that opportunity with Bush, and it didn’t happen. We had the Sotomayor and Kagan nominations, and virtual silence by nearly all of the pro life movement, and I have this well documented. Many in the ‘pro life movement’ seem to have no clue about this fight, and even when they do identify a source of the front, do little to nothing about it.
Fr. Frank: Accountability is a problem. It seems as time goes on the passion begins to wane. The church moves slow because it is institutionalized and sometimes it takes longer to get things going due to the precedents set….
Sorry to interrupt you, but the Church is 2000 years old, and it’s understandable for institutionalization there, but the pro life movement is 38 years old, and there is really no excuse for it to be institutionalized already.
Fr. Frank: yes, it seems to have happened quickly. Many seemed to have lost touch with the mission of what we need to do.
I’m glad you said that. I’m telling you now, that there will be a great deal of anger by the ‘man on the street’ after this is said and done, after the election. There is no passion, no ‘urgency’ in this movement anymore. Things just plod along. The vast majority of the ‘leadership’ is out of touch with the front line people in this movement. Missy Smith’s ads will get out there after the election, and many of the front line people are going to be furious with much of the leadership because they didn’t inform them of this option, and they took it upon themselves to make decisions for these people. I consider myself a front line pro lifer. I get up on Saturday mornings, regardless of the weather, and stand out at the mills and counsel women. I am sick of doing this, and I want to see this holocaust end. Unfortunately, there are organizations that have huge budgets, nice offices, some of the leaders are well compensated for speeches, and get invited to activities. They would be in ‘existential angst’ if legalized child killing ended tomorrow. Unlike them, I have a career, and pay my bills through those means, and want to see every worthwhile tool used to end this holocaust. Most of the front line people think the way I do, and don’t think these organizations have the ‘right’ to speak for us. These organizations are going to be in trouble once the front line people find out the opportunity was there, but they didn’t pass this on. And by the way, we are documenting who is helping and who is not. And we will be publishing a list shortly after the election with names of the organizations and individuals with who did and did not respond. Good luck to their fund raising then.
Fr. Frank: Yes, I am surprised at how quickly this movement has been institutionalized. I believe the organizations need to get back to their roots. There needs to be passion in this movement, and the leadership needs to do these things. First, they need to get back to their roots. They need to be praying regularly in front of abortion mills. They need to look at the images and view the videos we use on a regular basis to remind themselves of the mission, and to keep the urgency alive. They especially need to talk to the women who either are going in for abortions, or are post abortive. They need to understand and hear for themselves the pain and agony of these women. There is no greater motivator than that. There needs to be more hands on and way more involvement by the leadership, and yes, there needs to be urgency in this matter.
Last question Fr. Frank. We have requested of all the leadership in the various organizations to do three things: Personally donate to Missy Smith’s campaign, personally endorse her, and pass her information along to their distribution lists. This can be done without violating 501c3 and non profit status as demonstrated by Jack Ames. Will YOU personally commit to doing these same things for Missy Smith?
Fr. Frank: Being mindful of the organization, I can send out a memo with Missy’s information on it and encourage people to look at it and act on the information. I can also put Missy Smith on the voter guide and encourage support for her candidacy in that way. I also can endorse her and give her a ‘plug’ in my communications.
Thank you for your time and I’m sure I will be speaking to you in the near future.
So, we have it on record that Fr. Frank is supporting and endorsing Missy Smith for Congress. This is an unprecedented opportunity, and it is good to have the one who coined the term “America will reject abortion when America sees abortion.” We have a week or so left to make a significant impact on the nation’s capital, and we need to make this happen.
To donate to Missy Smith’s campaign, go to www.missysmith2010.com
Thursday, October 14, 2010
MOST OUT THERE DON'T GET IT
George Offerman
Today we are going to look at the groups who don’t get it about the times we live in, or the opportunity we have to effect real change in the upcoming races for the House and Senate. Sure, these organizations talk a good game, but at the end of the day, they will obey their puppet masters and will take a mediocre position as to not offend the enemy, and then they will claim victory that should be credited to the tea party. Then the standard operating procedure for them will kick into high gear: they will fund raise, and obtain millions through fraud; taking credit for other’s work and then claim “We are winning this war, keep funding us”.
Fr. Frank Pavone of Priests for Life has stated clearly “America will not reject abortion until America sees abortion”. Well, Fr. Frank and all the others who have held to this position are now getting their wish with Missy Smith. Now, Let’s see if they put their money where their mouth is, and follow through. So far Fr. Frank has endorsed Missy Smith, but my wife tells me that she posted a link on Fr. West’s face book wall, and it has been deleted. Fr. West is associated with Priests for Life. Also, April Klazema, Communications and blogger relations supervisor has contacted me in regards to interviewing Fr. Frank. I am currently attempting to set this up. The Susan B. Anthony list also contacted me and has inquired into my interest in linking blogs and information. So, I will be holding off any commentary on either of these groups until I hear (or don’t hear) back.
We will start with the National Right to Life. This group most recently supported pro death Senator Scott Brown in Massachusetts, and have had questionable endorsements for years, if not decades. The National Right to Life is the most prominent pro-life group out there, and they have embraced and practiced incrementalism from the onset. This group, more than any other in the nation, has lead the pro life movement into the abyss where it continues to languish as a gutted and inconsequential movement, that only now looks like it has life because of the tea party. Again, taking credit for work done by others.
From the National Right to Life, we can look at many if not most of the State Right to Life organizations, which for the most part, tow the line with the National office. They sell their wares as if they are truly pro life, and end up endorsing the ‘lesser of the evil’ candidates and peddle this as pro life. Little accountability of those elected, and the elected congressmen and Senators have little to no fear of these groups. These groups, almost to a ‘tee’ do not use controversial and charged language, and downplay graphic images. They play softball with the enemy and try to sell this as the major league.
Then we have the press, which starts from the USCCB on down to the diocesan level, to the ‘ghetto’ press, the Internet presence, blogs and internet sites that want to claim to be the number one source of pro-life news. (I do have to give Kudos to Steve Ertelt and life news for covering Missy’s campaign, but we need to see more, a lot more) these are some of the same groups that gripe about ‘media blackout’ but are guilty of doing this to Mrs. Smith’s campaign. Please, don’t gripe in the future when the MSM does this to you in the future. This is called sowing and reaping.
This is an opportunity for the pro life movement to do something that will get the attention of the elite in this country, but those in charge of the organizations must understand that it will move them beyond their comfort zones, and ‘piss off’ the enemy. The way God wants it to be.
Today we are going to look at the groups who don’t get it about the times we live in, or the opportunity we have to effect real change in the upcoming races for the House and Senate. Sure, these organizations talk a good game, but at the end of the day, they will obey their puppet masters and will take a mediocre position as to not offend the enemy, and then they will claim victory that should be credited to the tea party. Then the standard operating procedure for them will kick into high gear: they will fund raise, and obtain millions through fraud; taking credit for other’s work and then claim “We are winning this war, keep funding us”.
Fr. Frank Pavone of Priests for Life has stated clearly “America will not reject abortion until America sees abortion”. Well, Fr. Frank and all the others who have held to this position are now getting their wish with Missy Smith. Now, Let’s see if they put their money where their mouth is, and follow through. So far Fr. Frank has endorsed Missy Smith, but my wife tells me that she posted a link on Fr. West’s face book wall, and it has been deleted. Fr. West is associated with Priests for Life. Also, April Klazema, Communications and blogger relations supervisor has contacted me in regards to interviewing Fr. Frank. I am currently attempting to set this up. The Susan B. Anthony list also contacted me and has inquired into my interest in linking blogs and information. So, I will be holding off any commentary on either of these groups until I hear (or don’t hear) back.
We will start with the National Right to Life. This group most recently supported pro death Senator Scott Brown in Massachusetts, and have had questionable endorsements for years, if not decades. The National Right to Life is the most prominent pro-life group out there, and they have embraced and practiced incrementalism from the onset. This group, more than any other in the nation, has lead the pro life movement into the abyss where it continues to languish as a gutted and inconsequential movement, that only now looks like it has life because of the tea party. Again, taking credit for work done by others.
From the National Right to Life, we can look at many if not most of the State Right to Life organizations, which for the most part, tow the line with the National office. They sell their wares as if they are truly pro life, and end up endorsing the ‘lesser of the evil’ candidates and peddle this as pro life. Little accountability of those elected, and the elected congressmen and Senators have little to no fear of these groups. These groups, almost to a ‘tee’ do not use controversial and charged language, and downplay graphic images. They play softball with the enemy and try to sell this as the major league.
Then we have the press, which starts from the USCCB on down to the diocesan level, to the ‘ghetto’ press, the Internet presence, blogs and internet sites that want to claim to be the number one source of pro-life news. (I do have to give Kudos to Steve Ertelt and life news for covering Missy’s campaign, but we need to see more, a lot more) these are some of the same groups that gripe about ‘media blackout’ but are guilty of doing this to Mrs. Smith’s campaign. Please, don’t gripe in the future when the MSM does this to you in the future. This is called sowing and reaping.
This is an opportunity for the pro life movement to do something that will get the attention of the elite in this country, but those in charge of the organizations must understand that it will move them beyond their comfort zones, and ‘piss off’ the enemy. The way God wants it to be.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
OFFENSE
George Offerman
It’s interesting to see how quickly Harry Reid is excused from the blatantly racist remarks he made concerning Obama, and how the democrats are attempting to make this go away. This is a lesson our side should take, and that is protecting our own and being on the offensive. The difference in this though, is Harry Reid said something very immoral, and his party is still covering for him. In the pro life movement, there are not immoral actions or words being used, but truth that is uncomfortable, and the first reaction is to attack and put distance between the individuals or groups making the statements or activities.
In these days when good is called evil, and evil is passed as good, the enemy is very bold in their moves. There is no shame in their rhetoric or actions, and the enemy continues to ‘impose their will’ onto Christianity, and all that is good. This is an all out war from every direction, and these people are very passionate about their cause, despite the fact it is evil, and the unseen powers and principalities are working through them. They do not compromise, make deals or even want to listen to reason.
The enemy is on the offensive, and effectively sets the agenda by proactively passing laws, dictating the terms and language of the debates, and essentially ‘shuts up’ opposition by using such lame reasoning as “don’t impose your will or religion onto us”. They have the Church and most of Christianity on the run, and have no shame about it. They have commandeered the educational systems, the political system as well as many of the mainstream Churches and pulpits and have done this through liberalizing all of the above in the name of progress. The church allowed this to happen, and now finds itself in a very precarious predicament.
In using a sports analogy, games are not won by the defense. The offense must be on the field and know how to score points. The defense is there to stop the other side from progressing. In the battle for ending legalized child killing, which side is winning? What tactics are being used? What language is being utilized? Is the truth being told? Who has the truth on their side?
Most, if not all of the problems come down to beliefs. The enemy believes their position, and follows it very passionately. They are presenting their positions with a great deal of passion and are always willing to engage anyone who disagrees with them. They have a zest and a fighting spirit that is missing in most Christians, and nearly all of the Churches, and most people are intimidated when they meet someone willing to argue and fight these positions. Even though misguided, they dominate the debate by sheer perseverance and the need to win. And win they do.
The Church, on the other hand, seems to be embarrassed by the Gospel, and hides through flowery language and soft-pedaling the message. There is very little engagement outside of the pulpit or Church building, and as a result, the Church is unable to teach the laity how to defend the faith, or even the real nature of the faith. This wimpism then is justified by many and any attempts by some of the brave clergy and laity to break out of this is met with scorn, mockery and condemnation that should be directed at the enemy.
The Church lately has been on the defensive, and only when backed into the corner, like the hell care bill currently being debated, will they react. Where is the offense? Where is the proactive debate and leadership needed to guide this country into the will and blessings of God? Where is the defense of their own teachings, such as Cannon 915, and taking the lead in the formation of proper consciousness in light of the faith?
Yes, the likes of Ben Nelson should be held accountable for his ‘about face’, but if the Church was on the offensive and proactive, there wouldn’t be 59 other senators debating child killing, because it would be ILLEGAL. The Church could truly say that no one in their RIGHT MIND would even consider killing children in the womb, the Terry Schiavo’s and other life issues. But it has been so long since the Church stood up for what is right that most don’t pay attention to what is said when they do stand up, and there is dissention, even among the ranks of the Bishops on what to do about violations of their own rules.
If the Church has no moral authority within society, it is of its own making. The Church ha spent so much time trying to be accepted by the mainstream society, that it left behind its moral standards and authority. The ever shifting moral sands of this society ought to be no match for the solid foundations of the Church of Jesus Christ, yet it is this society that is handing the Church its ‘butt’ in matters of morals and authority. This can only happen if the Church gives up its ability to be the beacon it was meant to be. We have that answer, don’t we?
On another note, Life News covered the story about disruptions by pro lifers during Sen. Casey’s speech at the capitol. Thank you, Steve. Link here:
http://www.lifenews.com/state4714.html
It’s interesting to see how quickly Harry Reid is excused from the blatantly racist remarks he made concerning Obama, and how the democrats are attempting to make this go away. This is a lesson our side should take, and that is protecting our own and being on the offensive. The difference in this though, is Harry Reid said something very immoral, and his party is still covering for him. In the pro life movement, there are not immoral actions or words being used, but truth that is uncomfortable, and the first reaction is to attack and put distance between the individuals or groups making the statements or activities.
In these days when good is called evil, and evil is passed as good, the enemy is very bold in their moves. There is no shame in their rhetoric or actions, and the enemy continues to ‘impose their will’ onto Christianity, and all that is good. This is an all out war from every direction, and these people are very passionate about their cause, despite the fact it is evil, and the unseen powers and principalities are working through them. They do not compromise, make deals or even want to listen to reason.
The enemy is on the offensive, and effectively sets the agenda by proactively passing laws, dictating the terms and language of the debates, and essentially ‘shuts up’ opposition by using such lame reasoning as “don’t impose your will or religion onto us”. They have the Church and most of Christianity on the run, and have no shame about it. They have commandeered the educational systems, the political system as well as many of the mainstream Churches and pulpits and have done this through liberalizing all of the above in the name of progress. The church allowed this to happen, and now finds itself in a very precarious predicament.
In using a sports analogy, games are not won by the defense. The offense must be on the field and know how to score points. The defense is there to stop the other side from progressing. In the battle for ending legalized child killing, which side is winning? What tactics are being used? What language is being utilized? Is the truth being told? Who has the truth on their side?
Most, if not all of the problems come down to beliefs. The enemy believes their position, and follows it very passionately. They are presenting their positions with a great deal of passion and are always willing to engage anyone who disagrees with them. They have a zest and a fighting spirit that is missing in most Christians, and nearly all of the Churches, and most people are intimidated when they meet someone willing to argue and fight these positions. Even though misguided, they dominate the debate by sheer perseverance and the need to win. And win they do.
The Church, on the other hand, seems to be embarrassed by the Gospel, and hides through flowery language and soft-pedaling the message. There is very little engagement outside of the pulpit or Church building, and as a result, the Church is unable to teach the laity how to defend the faith, or even the real nature of the faith. This wimpism then is justified by many and any attempts by some of the brave clergy and laity to break out of this is met with scorn, mockery and condemnation that should be directed at the enemy.
The Church lately has been on the defensive, and only when backed into the corner, like the hell care bill currently being debated, will they react. Where is the offense? Where is the proactive debate and leadership needed to guide this country into the will and blessings of God? Where is the defense of their own teachings, such as Cannon 915, and taking the lead in the formation of proper consciousness in light of the faith?
Yes, the likes of Ben Nelson should be held accountable for his ‘about face’, but if the Church was on the offensive and proactive, there wouldn’t be 59 other senators debating child killing, because it would be ILLEGAL. The Church could truly say that no one in their RIGHT MIND would even consider killing children in the womb, the Terry Schiavo’s and other life issues. But it has been so long since the Church stood up for what is right that most don’t pay attention to what is said when they do stand up, and there is dissention, even among the ranks of the Bishops on what to do about violations of their own rules.
If the Church has no moral authority within society, it is of its own making. The Church ha spent so much time trying to be accepted by the mainstream society, that it left behind its moral standards and authority. The ever shifting moral sands of this society ought to be no match for the solid foundations of the Church of Jesus Christ, yet it is this society that is handing the Church its ‘butt’ in matters of morals and authority. This can only happen if the Church gives up its ability to be the beacon it was meant to be. We have that answer, don’t we?
On another note, Life News covered the story about disruptions by pro lifers during Sen. Casey’s speech at the capitol. Thank you, Steve. Link here:
http://www.lifenews.com/state4714.html
Friday, December 11, 2009
STEVE, YOU DON'T GET IT
STEVE, YOU DON’T GET IT
George Offerman
I am not gong to debate this issue ad nauseum, but will make my case in this post, and want to deal with facts, not fiction and address issues. First of all, there is a major difference between criticism and attack. Being a Christian does not exempt one from criticism, corrections or any other matter, and to have gross omissions pointed out by a fellow Christian, ought to be cause for good dialogue, and ultimately a stronger position. Evidently, this was not taken as such. I am also aware of what sin is, and being a Christian does not exempt one from sin. Steve, I did not, nor will I allow you to convey the idea I called your Christianity into question: I called your omission and silence into question, and yes, it is sinful behavior.
I have been in this movement for 27 years. I don’t need someone telling me what division is. As I stated in many of my posts, and more specifically yesterday, the pro life movement in general is on reaction mode, and takes its lead from the enemy, in that the enemy demands ‘tolerance’ and does not want the images, language and use of tactics that generate news. I am going to say something to people who want to claim to be pro life, and then blatantly disregard national and international stories. Is this not the charge levied at the mainstream ‘godless’ media?
I did not call into question the stories life news has written about, I am calling out life news on the consistent omissions of some of the most news making items of the year. Yes, they involve Randall Terry, and, like it or not, the mainstream pro life movement has ignored this, and it includes your site Steve. I did an archives search on your site concerning Notre Dame, and you covered the student protests, bishops appeals, issues with Notre Dame alumnus and so on, but ONE ARTICLE about the arrests or other matters that involved Randall Terry, and Alan Keyes?
The arrests dominated the international media for 4 days, and hardly a peep from your site about this. I can tell by the number of articles, that you were very aware of Notre Dame, but it is so telling that you chose to ignore the ‘elephant’ in the room, and you engaged in the EXACT same behavior you yourself despise about the mainstream media concerning events like the annual right to life march. Steve, it is behavior like this that divides the pro life movement. Your site, like the mainstream pro life movement either ignored this or slighted the efforts of the brave 88, whose only pro life ‘crime’ was being associated with Randall Terry. That is why I make the statement you ‘iced’ this, and it seems you are trying to be a maker of news instead of commentating. Prove me wrong by showing the ARCHIVED articles of you r extensive coverage, and I will retract my statements.
I also want to know your background in the pro life movement that will demonstrate your ability to lead. I also want to know directly from you what the next moves are, and what you r plan is to overturn Roe. I have questioned your ability based upon the observation that you have selectively chosen what to report and what not to report. The mainstream media, like it or not, are experts at knowing what is news making and what is not. They found it very worthy to run non stop the arrests at Notre Dame, and have run in depth stories about the Sotomayor protests, the health care skits, the interruptions of Obama speeches, Interrupting Dean at the Reston town hall meetings, and the now “Deaf at the Cathedral tour”. You have consistently ‘iced’ these events, and if you were the number one source for pro life news, no one would be aware of any of these events. I would have to say, Thank God for the ‘godless’ press, as they have covered it extensively.
This brings me to my last point, and I will start this with your own words:
When it comes to coverage, you contend that LifeNews.com has omitted coverage of "the most pivotal news in over a decade" or that "too busy covering the stories that were more peripheral."
In actuality, LifeNews.com has focused our coverage in recent months on the health care debate in Congress that is clearly regarded by every pro-life group as the most "pivotal" news story in a decade. That Congress is making it so Americans could pay for the greatest expansion of abortion since Roe is easily the biggest story for the pro-life movement since the 1970s.
In your own words, Steve, you prove that you do not know who to win this fight. Let’s go over the facts. Obama announced his candidacy over 3 years ago. It was very common knowledge that he was one of the most pro death Senators ever, and OPENLY discussed not only up holding Roe, but expanding access to abortions. Obama also ran on the platform of overhauling health care, and how the system needs to be revamped. He was elected by a majority of Catholic and Christian voters. So, you, along with ‘every other pro life group’ regard the ‘greatest expansion’ of abortion coverage by Obama as the most pivotal news item since the 70’s? Steve, seriously, are you kidding me? It took three years for the ‘mainstream’ pro lifers to put together these thoughts 1) If we elect the most pro death candidate who wants to expand and cover abortions with 2) his mandate to take over health care, that 3) we will have to pay for this? Talk about being late to the party. Had the Churches and pro life organizations done the job, Obama would have never been elected, and thus, health care would not have been the most ‘pivotal’ story since the 70’s. Sins of Omission, Sins of Commission, Sins of silence
If what you are saying is true, (and it is incredibly sad), then ‘every pro life group’ out there has just proven beyond any doubt that they do not know how to fight and win this war. I have news for you, there were several groups that ‘got it” and went about trying to change the election, by doing activities and other tactics, not approved by you and ‘every other pro life group” and it got traction in the mainstream media. Theses efforts were totally ignored by the mainstream ‘pro life groups’, beginning with national right to life. In fact, the only comments coming from them was a condemnation of what we did (sins of commission).
In the war to end legalized child killing, the real stories are (BTW, they were covered by some of the pro life groups) 1) election of a pro abort by a majority of Christians, 2) the deafening silence of the mainstream Catholic and Christian Churches 3) Sotomayor hearings, and subsequent elevation to the Supreme Court 4) Honoring the most pro death president with an honorary law degree at the most prestigious Catholic University in the country.
Steve the tactics espoused by the mainstream pro life groups, and I include you in that, due to your deliberate and consistent ‘icing’ of the stories, does not tolerate any activities outside of your comfort zone. Sorry, but war is bloody, sacrificing, lonely and too often long. The other side is well armed and have the laws on their side. They also have been dictating the terms of the battle, and for too many years, (and I have lived through them) the mainstream pro life movement has played along with them. I joined up with Randall Terry, because like him, I see a need to go on the offensive for the babies, as they are shedding real blood, and God is not watching impartially, and we have a limited amount of time to get this done before judgments befall us.
So, Steve, I stand by my words. If you want to see them as an attack, so be it. I know what I was thinking and I know what my intentions were when I wrote the last post, so if they are misjudged by you and others, I can’t help it. But I will not stand back and have ‘people of good intention’ trash what I or others have done, that have brought legalized child killing to the front and center of the national debate because they are uncomfortable or afraid of how we did it. As God as my judge, I have way more fear of His disapproval than yours or any one else’s who are not willing to step up to the plate and ‘do whatever it takes’ to end this holocaust.
And finally Steve, no I do not believe, nor have I ever alleged that all ‘pro lifers’ have to get arrested and participate in civil disobedience, but I have made very strong statements against the pro lifers who condemn us for the tactics used, and have thus either ignored the stories, or have been condescending, like you have been with me concerning criticism. You can go ahead and label this anger or whatever you want, but like your claims are with me, you don’t know me either, and like what you claim, one can be known by their fruits. I’m saying to you: report all the news. The mainstream media cleaned up on you concerning the above mentioned stories, and that is proven by a search of your archives.
George Offerman
I am not gong to debate this issue ad nauseum, but will make my case in this post, and want to deal with facts, not fiction and address issues. First of all, there is a major difference between criticism and attack. Being a Christian does not exempt one from criticism, corrections or any other matter, and to have gross omissions pointed out by a fellow Christian, ought to be cause for good dialogue, and ultimately a stronger position. Evidently, this was not taken as such. I am also aware of what sin is, and being a Christian does not exempt one from sin. Steve, I did not, nor will I allow you to convey the idea I called your Christianity into question: I called your omission and silence into question, and yes, it is sinful behavior.
I have been in this movement for 27 years. I don’t need someone telling me what division is. As I stated in many of my posts, and more specifically yesterday, the pro life movement in general is on reaction mode, and takes its lead from the enemy, in that the enemy demands ‘tolerance’ and does not want the images, language and use of tactics that generate news. I am going to say something to people who want to claim to be pro life, and then blatantly disregard national and international stories. Is this not the charge levied at the mainstream ‘godless’ media?
I did not call into question the stories life news has written about, I am calling out life news on the consistent omissions of some of the most news making items of the year. Yes, they involve Randall Terry, and, like it or not, the mainstream pro life movement has ignored this, and it includes your site Steve. I did an archives search on your site concerning Notre Dame, and you covered the student protests, bishops appeals, issues with Notre Dame alumnus and so on, but ONE ARTICLE about the arrests or other matters that involved Randall Terry, and Alan Keyes?
The arrests dominated the international media for 4 days, and hardly a peep from your site about this. I can tell by the number of articles, that you were very aware of Notre Dame, but it is so telling that you chose to ignore the ‘elephant’ in the room, and you engaged in the EXACT same behavior you yourself despise about the mainstream media concerning events like the annual right to life march. Steve, it is behavior like this that divides the pro life movement. Your site, like the mainstream pro life movement either ignored this or slighted the efforts of the brave 88, whose only pro life ‘crime’ was being associated with Randall Terry. That is why I make the statement you ‘iced’ this, and it seems you are trying to be a maker of news instead of commentating. Prove me wrong by showing the ARCHIVED articles of you r extensive coverage, and I will retract my statements.
I also want to know your background in the pro life movement that will demonstrate your ability to lead. I also want to know directly from you what the next moves are, and what you r plan is to overturn Roe. I have questioned your ability based upon the observation that you have selectively chosen what to report and what not to report. The mainstream media, like it or not, are experts at knowing what is news making and what is not. They found it very worthy to run non stop the arrests at Notre Dame, and have run in depth stories about the Sotomayor protests, the health care skits, the interruptions of Obama speeches, Interrupting Dean at the Reston town hall meetings, and the now “Deaf at the Cathedral tour”. You have consistently ‘iced’ these events, and if you were the number one source for pro life news, no one would be aware of any of these events. I would have to say, Thank God for the ‘godless’ press, as they have covered it extensively.
This brings me to my last point, and I will start this with your own words:
When it comes to coverage, you contend that LifeNews.com has omitted coverage of "the most pivotal news in over a decade" or that "too busy covering the stories that were more peripheral."
In actuality, LifeNews.com has focused our coverage in recent months on the health care debate in Congress that is clearly regarded by every pro-life group as the most "pivotal" news story in a decade. That Congress is making it so Americans could pay for the greatest expansion of abortion since Roe is easily the biggest story for the pro-life movement since the 1970s.
In your own words, Steve, you prove that you do not know who to win this fight. Let’s go over the facts. Obama announced his candidacy over 3 years ago. It was very common knowledge that he was one of the most pro death Senators ever, and OPENLY discussed not only up holding Roe, but expanding access to abortions. Obama also ran on the platform of overhauling health care, and how the system needs to be revamped. He was elected by a majority of Catholic and Christian voters. So, you, along with ‘every other pro life group’ regard the ‘greatest expansion’ of abortion coverage by Obama as the most pivotal news item since the 70’s? Steve, seriously, are you kidding me? It took three years for the ‘mainstream’ pro lifers to put together these thoughts 1) If we elect the most pro death candidate who wants to expand and cover abortions with 2) his mandate to take over health care, that 3) we will have to pay for this? Talk about being late to the party. Had the Churches and pro life organizations done the job, Obama would have never been elected, and thus, health care would not have been the most ‘pivotal’ story since the 70’s. Sins of Omission, Sins of Commission, Sins of silence
If what you are saying is true, (and it is incredibly sad), then ‘every pro life group’ out there has just proven beyond any doubt that they do not know how to fight and win this war. I have news for you, there were several groups that ‘got it” and went about trying to change the election, by doing activities and other tactics, not approved by you and ‘every other pro life group” and it got traction in the mainstream media. Theses efforts were totally ignored by the mainstream ‘pro life groups’, beginning with national right to life. In fact, the only comments coming from them was a condemnation of what we did (sins of commission).
In the war to end legalized child killing, the real stories are (BTW, they were covered by some of the pro life groups) 1) election of a pro abort by a majority of Christians, 2) the deafening silence of the mainstream Catholic and Christian Churches 3) Sotomayor hearings, and subsequent elevation to the Supreme Court 4) Honoring the most pro death president with an honorary law degree at the most prestigious Catholic University in the country.
Steve the tactics espoused by the mainstream pro life groups, and I include you in that, due to your deliberate and consistent ‘icing’ of the stories, does not tolerate any activities outside of your comfort zone. Sorry, but war is bloody, sacrificing, lonely and too often long. The other side is well armed and have the laws on their side. They also have been dictating the terms of the battle, and for too many years, (and I have lived through them) the mainstream pro life movement has played along with them. I joined up with Randall Terry, because like him, I see a need to go on the offensive for the babies, as they are shedding real blood, and God is not watching impartially, and we have a limited amount of time to get this done before judgments befall us.
So, Steve, I stand by my words. If you want to see them as an attack, so be it. I know what I was thinking and I know what my intentions were when I wrote the last post, so if they are misjudged by you and others, I can’t help it. But I will not stand back and have ‘people of good intention’ trash what I or others have done, that have brought legalized child killing to the front and center of the national debate because they are uncomfortable or afraid of how we did it. As God as my judge, I have way more fear of His disapproval than yours or any one else’s who are not willing to step up to the plate and ‘do whatever it takes’ to end this holocaust.
And finally Steve, no I do not believe, nor have I ever alleged that all ‘pro lifers’ have to get arrested and participate in civil disobedience, but I have made very strong statements against the pro lifers who condemn us for the tactics used, and have thus either ignored the stories, or have been condescending, like you have been with me concerning criticism. You can go ahead and label this anger or whatever you want, but like your claims are with me, you don’t know me either, and like what you claim, one can be known by their fruits. I’m saying to you: report all the news. The mainstream media cleaned up on you concerning the above mentioned stories, and that is proven by a search of your archives.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
THE PRO LIFE MOVEMENT MUST COVER THE PRO LIFE MOVEMENT
George Offerman
I am thankful that Steve Ertelt has committed his time and talents to the pro life cause by writing about many of the issues pertaining to the pro life movement. There is an ever growing need for more people to stand up and have their voices heard, to change the status of legal child killing in this country to making it illegal. However, the pro life movement has many strategies in which to get that done, and it is imperative that our side not be outdone by the enemy.
This is where Steve Ertelt falls short. I am not sure how involved Mr. Ertelt has been involved in the front line work of the pro life movement, but it becomes more apparent by his blatant omissions of the most pivotal news in over a decade, that Mr. Ertelt either does not understand the nature of the battle, or is blatantly disregarding this news, due to the nature of being ‘uncomfortable’ with what is being done. Either way, as Christians, we call this sins of omission, sins of commission, sins of silence.
For whatever reason, Mr. Ertelt continues to ignore the elephant in the room, and has not covered in any was, shape or form, the 8 state tour that made national news, and reached virtually millions of people. The secular press, often cited as the eyes and ears of the enemy not only covered the 8 state tour, but actually gave some favorable press. Life news was too busy covering the stories that were more peripheral, and were covered more in depth by the mainstream media.
Steve Ertelt made no efforts to cover the press conferences, protests efforts and huge success these 5 brave souls obtained during this road trip. If life news was the only source for pro lifers, these events never would have been covered or known about. Yet the likes of CNN, FOX and other outlets covered the press conferences, ran very accurate quotes from theses 5, and shown the graphic signs in print and on camera. This group has LEAD the debate on legalized child killing for the past several months at many different events, and Mr. Ertelt is not showing the least amount of interest in covering this, nor showing the wisdom or understanding that it is the tactics used by this brave band of people that are driving the debate.
Mr. Ertelt does not seem to understand that as a commentator, he does not make the news, but reports it. Mr. Ertelt is attempting to drive the debate according to his very limited understanding of the history of social change, coupled with his reluctance to engage the enemy with the force needed to win, and wants the respect of news outlets and other players more than winning this war. Mr. Ertelt does not know how to win this war, and it is becoming more painfully obvious by his blatant disregard for real news items.
I have a personal challenge for Mr. Ertelt. Google Randall Terry, Joseph Landry, Diana Roccograndi, Missy Smith, Andrew Beachem. You will find more hits on them in the past several months than you have readers for your site. Next, get yourself out to an abortion clinic and work the front line, organize a protest or press release at any of the cathedrals in which a Bishop has a wayward politician violating Church law. Personally show up at a Representatives or Senator’s office and demand they behave according to their alleged ‘faith walk’. Be willing to, and get arrested for this cause. I know of what I speak, because I have either done or been involved in all of the above, and I also know it works. Evidently you do not.
I also am making a request that you don’t complain about the lack of ‘fair press’ at the next right to life march. As much as this is a ‘feel good’ event for many pro lifers, it is not news worthy as far as the mainstream media is concerned, because it is the same thing every year, and it has been proven to be a non sequitor for those in power. Having one percent of the attendees get arrested would make international headlines for months, but the traditional pro life movement, represented by people who think like you would condemn this and want to distance yourself from such ‘extremists’. Continue playing by the rules of the enemy, and continue propagating the culture of legalized child killing and let’s see what happens.
I am encouraging people to write to Steve Ertelt and tell him he needs to cover all pro life news, and not try to be the ‘news maker’ when he is a commentator.
Contact Steve at new@lifenews.com
I am thankful that Steve Ertelt has committed his time and talents to the pro life cause by writing about many of the issues pertaining to the pro life movement. There is an ever growing need for more people to stand up and have their voices heard, to change the status of legal child killing in this country to making it illegal. However, the pro life movement has many strategies in which to get that done, and it is imperative that our side not be outdone by the enemy.
This is where Steve Ertelt falls short. I am not sure how involved Mr. Ertelt has been involved in the front line work of the pro life movement, but it becomes more apparent by his blatant omissions of the most pivotal news in over a decade, that Mr. Ertelt either does not understand the nature of the battle, or is blatantly disregarding this news, due to the nature of being ‘uncomfortable’ with what is being done. Either way, as Christians, we call this sins of omission, sins of commission, sins of silence.
For whatever reason, Mr. Ertelt continues to ignore the elephant in the room, and has not covered in any was, shape or form, the 8 state tour that made national news, and reached virtually millions of people. The secular press, often cited as the eyes and ears of the enemy not only covered the 8 state tour, but actually gave some favorable press. Life news was too busy covering the stories that were more peripheral, and were covered more in depth by the mainstream media.
Steve Ertelt made no efforts to cover the press conferences, protests efforts and huge success these 5 brave souls obtained during this road trip. If life news was the only source for pro lifers, these events never would have been covered or known about. Yet the likes of CNN, FOX and other outlets covered the press conferences, ran very accurate quotes from theses 5, and shown the graphic signs in print and on camera. This group has LEAD the debate on legalized child killing for the past several months at many different events, and Mr. Ertelt is not showing the least amount of interest in covering this, nor showing the wisdom or understanding that it is the tactics used by this brave band of people that are driving the debate.
Mr. Ertelt does not seem to understand that as a commentator, he does not make the news, but reports it. Mr. Ertelt is attempting to drive the debate according to his very limited understanding of the history of social change, coupled with his reluctance to engage the enemy with the force needed to win, and wants the respect of news outlets and other players more than winning this war. Mr. Ertelt does not know how to win this war, and it is becoming more painfully obvious by his blatant disregard for real news items.
I have a personal challenge for Mr. Ertelt. Google Randall Terry, Joseph Landry, Diana Roccograndi, Missy Smith, Andrew Beachem. You will find more hits on them in the past several months than you have readers for your site. Next, get yourself out to an abortion clinic and work the front line, organize a protest or press release at any of the cathedrals in which a Bishop has a wayward politician violating Church law. Personally show up at a Representatives or Senator’s office and demand they behave according to their alleged ‘faith walk’. Be willing to, and get arrested for this cause. I know of what I speak, because I have either done or been involved in all of the above, and I also know it works. Evidently you do not.
I also am making a request that you don’t complain about the lack of ‘fair press’ at the next right to life march. As much as this is a ‘feel good’ event for many pro lifers, it is not news worthy as far as the mainstream media is concerned, because it is the same thing every year, and it has been proven to be a non sequitor for those in power. Having one percent of the attendees get arrested would make international headlines for months, but the traditional pro life movement, represented by people who think like you would condemn this and want to distance yourself from such ‘extremists’. Continue playing by the rules of the enemy, and continue propagating the culture of legalized child killing and let’s see what happens.
I am encouraging people to write to Steve Ertelt and tell him he needs to cover all pro life news, and not try to be the ‘news maker’ when he is a commentator.
Contact Steve at new@lifenews.com
Friday, November 6, 2009
STEVE, YOU DID IT AGAIN
George Offerman
Life news again, ‘iced’ out the protests at the Capitol yesterday. I listened to talk radio yesterday, and the front and center of the discussion were the arrests at the Capitol, and Life news virtually ignored it. Steve, what is your deal? Do you not get the war we are in, and what we need to do to win? We have the largest opportunity in years to make significant headway, and you drop the ball. If you really want to ‘educate’ the pro life troops, and help energize the base, then report the substantial battles.
Steve, you will not be taken seriously in your mission when virtually all of the liberal media, and most of the conservative talk radio media covered this extensively. Do you really believe the ‘softballs’ you are throwing will make any difference in changing the laws? How are you energizing or educating the base by neglecting the most talked about events in the pro life movement in the past decade? I really cannot figure out the deliberate snubbing on your part, and find it disconcerting that you want to promote your site in the way that you do. I don’t think you really know what it takes to win a battle like overturning legalized child killing, and promoting a site that is going to pitch softballs is not something in the cards for the warriors on the ground.
Steve, we don’t have the luxury of time to play ‘tiddlywinks’ with this evil, and playing by the rules of the enemy is colluding with the enemy. You really are doing the pro life movement a disservice by the lack of reporting of the front line events, and will ultimately dissuade other warriors from joining. If your goal is to cultivate support amongst the ‘kitchen’ Christians, you are doing a bang up job. Yes, unity is important, but unity in error simply to get along with the ones who are promoting the killing of unborn children is a subtle evil, but an evil nonetheless.
Steve, as a fellow Christian, I am making a pledge to you that I will continue to point out these blatant omissions until you correct them. The other side takes no prisoners, and it’s high time you learn to do the same. When Godless news outlets can ‘outperform’ a supposed ‘friendly to the cause’ news site like your own, it’s time to reevaluate your mission and determine what you need to do to correct this situation. I will continue to pray for you, but I WILL NOT promote your site.
VOTE ON THE HEALTH CARE BILL THIS WEEKEND
Sometime this weekend, Nancy Pelosi will attempt to corral enough votes to pass a bill that will change our Republic forever. It will allow for the greatest takeover of a private sector by a government ever seen in this country. It is interesting that speaker Pelosi somehow thinks she and her cronies will somehow do a better job of running healthcare than those in the field. If we look at how she runs the congress, and how she dealt with Fr. Weslin yesterday, we could expect the mob to do a better job.
I hope for everyone’s sake, that the majority will stay relatively healthy and not need to get involved in the soon to be rationed care. The only good news (if there is any) is it will stop some of the abuses going on in health care, because the misery will be spread equally to all now, and very few will be able to access good healthcare soon. So there will be more incentive to take care of oneself, and be way more proactive in one’s decisions concerning unhealthy lifestyles.
Life news again, ‘iced’ out the protests at the Capitol yesterday. I listened to talk radio yesterday, and the front and center of the discussion were the arrests at the Capitol, and Life news virtually ignored it. Steve, what is your deal? Do you not get the war we are in, and what we need to do to win? We have the largest opportunity in years to make significant headway, and you drop the ball. If you really want to ‘educate’ the pro life troops, and help energize the base, then report the substantial battles.
Steve, you will not be taken seriously in your mission when virtually all of the liberal media, and most of the conservative talk radio media covered this extensively. Do you really believe the ‘softballs’ you are throwing will make any difference in changing the laws? How are you energizing or educating the base by neglecting the most talked about events in the pro life movement in the past decade? I really cannot figure out the deliberate snubbing on your part, and find it disconcerting that you want to promote your site in the way that you do. I don’t think you really know what it takes to win a battle like overturning legalized child killing, and promoting a site that is going to pitch softballs is not something in the cards for the warriors on the ground.
Steve, we don’t have the luxury of time to play ‘tiddlywinks’ with this evil, and playing by the rules of the enemy is colluding with the enemy. You really are doing the pro life movement a disservice by the lack of reporting of the front line events, and will ultimately dissuade other warriors from joining. If your goal is to cultivate support amongst the ‘kitchen’ Christians, you are doing a bang up job. Yes, unity is important, but unity in error simply to get along with the ones who are promoting the killing of unborn children is a subtle evil, but an evil nonetheless.
Steve, as a fellow Christian, I am making a pledge to you that I will continue to point out these blatant omissions until you correct them. The other side takes no prisoners, and it’s high time you learn to do the same. When Godless news outlets can ‘outperform’ a supposed ‘friendly to the cause’ news site like your own, it’s time to reevaluate your mission and determine what you need to do to correct this situation. I will continue to pray for you, but I WILL NOT promote your site.
VOTE ON THE HEALTH CARE BILL THIS WEEKEND
Sometime this weekend, Nancy Pelosi will attempt to corral enough votes to pass a bill that will change our Republic forever. It will allow for the greatest takeover of a private sector by a government ever seen in this country. It is interesting that speaker Pelosi somehow thinks she and her cronies will somehow do a better job of running healthcare than those in the field. If we look at how she runs the congress, and how she dealt with Fr. Weslin yesterday, we could expect the mob to do a better job.
I hope for everyone’s sake, that the majority will stay relatively healthy and not need to get involved in the soon to be rationed care. The only good news (if there is any) is it will stop some of the abuses going on in health care, because the misery will be spread equally to all now, and very few will be able to access good healthcare soon. So there will be more incentive to take care of oneself, and be way more proactive in one’s decisions concerning unhealthy lifestyles.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)