Back
to Home Page.
Vol. 1 Issue XV ........ Federal Prison, Ashland ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Chapter 15:
"Immediately after taking office, Clinton put several new proabortion
policies into effect. At that point no one had ever
shot an abortionist in twenty
years of child-killing. A few weeks later Michael
Griffin stepped up with a revolver
and blew abortionist David Gunn away. A few
months later our beloved Shelley
opened up with a rapid-fire volley of shots on Tiller
the Killer, skillfully
wounding him in both arms. Less than a year later
the Reverend Paul Hill
sent abortionist John Barnyard Britton and his volunteer
armed body guard, James Barret, to their deserved
eternities....
"As a result of the shootings, forty more (former) abortionists have
voluntarily stopped killing baby people. (Source:
National Abortion Federation.)
Lay all this at the feet of Bill Clinton and his arrogance."
"False Stupidity Syndrome", Chapter 15 of TBR
"There are two things which go on endlessly: the universe
and human stupidity."
-- Albert Einstein
* * *
Bob asked, "John, do you believe there's intelligent life on other planets?"
I replied, "Intelligent life on other planets?! I wish
we could find intelligent life
on the planet earth!"
Bob (laughing), "Oh, John, you shouldn't be so cynical about your fellow man."
Me: "Why not? Look at the kind of people e have to
deal with! Besides, I don't
really think they're genuinely stupid. Actually, I
think they're smart!
If I knew someone who was genuinely mentally handicapped,
who couldn't help it,
I'd treat them with nothing but gentleness and kindness,
never
making fun of them. Special people like that--I'd
defend them."
* * *
FALSE STUPIDITY SYNDROME
The best way of defining this extremely dangerous affliction
is to offer the most
blatant real-life example seen in American politics
in recent memory,
a specific example which ever reader of this column
saw with his or her own eyes
and heard with his or her own ears. It began in 1980
and recurred
in '88 and '92. It involved George Bush. No, it wasn't
Bush who exhibited FSS.
No, no. Bush showed a little intelligence (of a sort),
which goes to
show that there is not necessarily any correlation
between intelligence and wisdom.
It started such a relatively few years ago, in that
presidential election year.
You should be able to remember how it went. Before
the Republican
Convention in which Ronald Reagan won the nomination,
George Bush
was trying to challenge him for that nomination. Reagan
sought the
nomination on a (ha-ha) "prolife" platform. Bush was
seeking it on an extreme
no-compromise proabortion platform, promising to help
kill as many
American baby people as he could get his hands on.
With the American people, as a whole, being very much
against abortion,
Reagan was infinitely more popular. Those shadowy
vipers (of the
Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission)
who, from behind
the scenes, completely control the political machinery
of both the
Democratic and the Republican parties, sensed what
a groundswell of popular
support Reagan enjoyed. They saw they had to throw
most of the
delegates to him in order to preclude any untimely
political instability
and unrest.
As the Republican Convention began, they took Bush
aside and told him
(paraphrased): "Look, you can see how much more popular
support
Reagan has. We have to give him the nomination in
order to maintain the
illusion, among the public, especially the antiabortion
public, that they live in
a politically pluralistic society in which they have
a viable choice. If you step
down as a challenger for the presidential nomination
and join Reagan as
his (vice-presidential) running mate, then, with your
added support, the
Republicans will be sure to win the White house. During
his second term,
Reagan will be a lame duck, so we'll make YOU President
after retiring him.
To keep the antiabortion people from getting restless
during Reagan's
administration, we'll have him appoint Supreme Court
justices in such a way
as to lower the proabortion majority to five against
four. That way, just
as many fetuses will be sacrificed as ever, and, once
killed, the worthless
little parasites will be just as dead as those who
were killed when the
majority was seven to two. But those stupid uneducated
prolifers will celebrate,
because they'll think they're making progress! While
you are
Reagan's Vice President for eight years [TBR note:
until Bush ran again in
'92, no Republican President had failed to be re-elected
since Herbert
Hoover in 1932] you will politically posture yourself
as a prolifer. At the end
of those eight years, the prolife people will forget
you are proabortion,
and they'll elect you as handily as they did Reagan.
Then we will continue to
manipulate, by Supreme Court appointments, to maintain
the five to
four proabortion majority."
Was the prolife movement as stupid as Reagan's and
Bush's (and Clinton's)
bosses predicted? No, it was even stupider, or at
least pretended to be.
How long did it take prolifers to forget that George
Bush was proabortion?
Eight years? No, it took them one day. From that very
first day you
never heard prolifers say one word about Bush being
proabortion.
One day George Bush was challenging Reagan for the
Republican nomination,
while publicly proclaiming his own uncompromising
pro babykilling
position. The very next day, he announced he was stepping
down to be Reagan's
running mate and that he supported Reagan's prolife
position.
Ha-ha. What a difference twenty-four hours can make.
At that point, the prolifers pretended they had never
even heard of the
concept of "political expediency". Why, NO career
politician would
insincerely posture just to get SUPPORT, would he?
"Duh...isn't that a
remarkable coincidence? Yesterday George Bush was
proabortion, but
today he says he's running with Reagan and has become
a prolifer! Isn't
this wonderful? All in the same day! What a great
day in the U.S.A.! I'm a
poet and don't even know it."
During the four years (1976-1980) of the sincerely
PROABORTION Jimmy
Carter's presidency, a yearly average of 1.6 million
American baby
people were slaughtered. During the following eight
years of the insincerely
PROLIFE Ronald Reagan's presidency, a yearly average
of 1.6 million
American babies were slaughtered. During the (ha-ha)
"prolife" George Bush's
administration, a yearly average of 1.6 million preborn
American
baby people were slaughtered. Get it?
In '88, with Reagan being a lame duck, prolifers praised
Bush, saying he would
be a WHAT?! A STRONG prolife President! Bush's Democratic
opponent was the baby bloodthirsty Michael Dukakis
("I'm a card carrying
member of the A.C.L.U."). "Oh, no! Duh, we have to
support Bush as
the prolife candidate, don't we? For goodness sake!
We can't have a baby-killer
like Dukakis in the White House, can we? We've already
got a
proabortion Supreme Court and a proabortion Congress!
Duh, but with George
Bush we would, at least, have a prolife President,
so there will still
be hope, heh-heh."
Dear friends -- you who have common sense -- come on,
please, be honest
with me. We don't have to be able to read these silly
people's minds to
realize: these prolifers, who said they considered
Bush to be antiabortion,
weren't telling the truth. I'm not accusing them of
outright dishonesty, of
lying to each other and to us. They were kidding themSELVES!
Could any
degree of genuine stupidity have enabled these people
to really believe
such an absurd thing as that George Bush was antiabortion?
Could anyone
with an I.Q. above 75 honestly have believed, in the
bottom of his heart,
that Bush was antiabortion? Yet, they said it as though
they truly believed
it! This is a prime example of FSS.
[A note from John: Ah, friends, I'm feeling a little
bad right now. This note
was not part of my rough draft for this issue. I worked
my brain for days
on the rough draft, and now that I'm recopying it
for the sake of neatness
for my publisher, I'm feeling somewhat ashamed at
the level of my
sarcasm. I mean it -- I AM ashamed. I've started thinking:
what if some of
these people WEREN'T falsely stupid? What if some
of them were
genuinely.... Maybe I should be defending the poor
fellows, bless their hearts.
And even if some of them WERE displaying FSS, so what?
What
was left for them to do? They didn't have anyone like
ME to vote for,
unfortunately. And we all make mistakes. I've probably
made some mistakes
in this particular column, but I know that many things
I said later in this
column are right, and some of it might be worthwhile
reading. And it's too
late to rewrite the thing, so if I have committed
folly thus far, let my
mistake be published along with the right parts. But
I apologize if I have cruelly
and unnecessarily hurt anyone's feelings. And if you're
one of those stupid
prolifers who sincerely believed Bush was on our side,
hay, don't feel so
bad about it -- I've made mistakes as stupid as that,
and even STUPIDER,
I promise! You can't be very stupid, or you wouldn't
have been able to
read this deeply into TBR. And if you've read all
the previous issues of this
column, you're pretty smart by now, am I right or
wrong? Without
further ado, let me recopy the rest of this manuscript
just the way I originally
wrote it. But if my tone is too harsh from time to
time, remember, it
was written before this repentance.]
During Bush's four-year administration, more than six
million of our
nation's preborn baby people were slaughtered by our
nation's enemies while
Bush, as the Commander-in-Chief of all U.S. Armed
Forces, did virtually
NOTHING to defend the babies' lives. Then, near the
end, while he was
running for re-election against William Clinton, the
prolife movement said
Bush had been a WHAT?! A "WONDERFUL prolife President."
(!)
Those were the exact words of one of the movement's
most prominent leaders.
Prominent although cowardly, lukewarm, and compromising.
[Note: I don't feel bad about that part, nor for anything
I've said about
Bush or Clinton.]
In the autumn of '92, but before the November election,
I was on the phone
with a prolife friend, an attorney. I told him: "I
hope Bill Clinton wins
the election." He just took it right in stride and
kept right on talking. So I
repeated, "Wait a minute. Didn't you hear what I just
said? I said I hope
BILL CLINTON gets elected! Why are you not shocked
by my wish?"
He replied: "Oh, I know how some people think. You
think things have to
get worse before they can get better."
He didn't understand at all! See what I mean, friends?
The slaughter of the
innocent in America had already been going on for
twenty years (and
only four under a Democratic President), for a total
death toll of 30 million
American lives, a body count equal to the entire living
populations of the
nations of New Zealand and Canada combined. Why would
I think things
had to get worse before they could get better? Since
Clinton first entered
the White House until now, he has only participated
in the killing of a
number of preborn baby people equal to the entire
population -- every man,
woman, and child -- of Ireland. But we can numerically
project that, at this
rate, between now and the time he leaves office, he
will have additionally
amassed a number of little corpses, victims of his
war crimes against the
preborn people of the United States, equal to the
population of the nation
of Costa Rica. That projected figure is based on the
assumption Clinton
will not be re-elected. No Democratic President has
been re-elected since
Franklin Roosevelt in 1944.
When my friend said he thought my wish to see Clinton
in the White
House was due to some theory that things need to get
worse before they can
get better, he showed he didn't understand my rationale
at all. Things were
ALREADY 30 MILLION TIMES as bad as they needed to
be, for
Heaven's sake! I wanted Bill Clinton to be elected
so people would face
reality and admit to how bad the situation already
is!
What the prolife movement did NOT need was a hypocrite
and false
friend like George Bush looking them in the eye and
sanctimoniously intoning:
"I stand with you for the cause of life, and together
we shall win!"
(and the prolife movement said: "Hooray! [clap, clap,
clap] Isn't he
WONDERFUL! (clap, clap, clap). See it's still too
early to get overly
excited over abortion -- we have a prolife President
whom we can re-elect
(clap, clap, clap). Although Congress and the Supreme
Court are both
proabortion, at east we have a prolife President to
lead, and we can still
have hope for a solution within the system! Let's
wait and see what he
does for us in the NEXT four years. Amen, brother!
Hooray! (clap, clap,
clap)"
No, rather than an insincere enemy like Bush, what
the movement really
needed was a sincere enemy who would be somewhat honest
about his
own sleazy scumbaggyess and who would look them right
in the eye and say:
"I'm going to slaughter as many of your beloved fetuses
as possible.
Get used to it. AND I'm going to use your hard-earned
tax dollars to pay for it,
whether you like it or not."
Another four years of George Bush would have meant
another opportunity
for the movement to exhibit FSS, pretending they thought
he was our
friend. With William Clinton, they have in the White
House an enemy of our
people whom they can hate and feel good about it.
Later in Bush's administration the Supreme Court heard
an appeal of an
abortion case. Before they issued their ruling, I
was discussing the case with
my friend, Tim. He said, "Since Reagan and Bush have
filled so many vacancies,
maybe the Court will take this opportunity to overturn
Roe v.
Wade."
I told Tim that Reagan and Bush had had the abortion
votes counted every
time they appointed a new member and that the ruling
would be
proabortion, five to four. They would let it be "close"
to give prolifers the
illusion they were making "progress". After the ruling
Tim admitted: "You
were right: it was five to four against us." Tim is
neither falsely stupid nor
genuinely stupid. He's a friend of mine. But having
read all the previous
issues of TBR, he's substantially smarter than a year
ago. Most of our people
have gotten smarter in this time frame, but I haven't.
I'm no smarter
than I was ten years ago. But that time I already
understood everything.
Therefore, how in the world could I not be narrow
minded?
Did you ever take into consideration that all five
of those proabortion
"justices" had been appointed by Republican presidents?
Every Republican
president since Dwight D. Eisenhower has added members
to the proabortion
majority. And of those five, THREE were appointed
by Reagan and
Bush! And those three all replaced retiring "justices"
who were proabortion.
If Reagan and Bush had appointed only antiabortion
justices, like the
prolife American people had elected them to do, the
ruling would have
been a seven to two overturning of Roe v. Wade, and
we wouldn't be seeing
any babies being openly slaughtered by scum who advertise
it in the Yellow
Pages with their phone number and "business" address
listed therein.
This column has said before, but it bears repeating:
truth, by virtue of being
true, is always mere reasonable, never radical. I'm
about to tell you a
truth so "crazy"-sounding, so "quixotic", you may
be tempted to wince and
say: "Oh, why is John saying such things? Doesn't
he understand
practical politics and why some things work and others
don't?" You better
believe I do. I'm about to demonstrate just how extremely
rational and
psychologically normal I really am. In the process,
you will discover how
you, too, can think extremely normal thoughts. And
in an upcoming Bible
study I will show that I do know exactly what works
in the politics of exigencies
and what doesn't work at such a time.
Before we continue, please be patient and let me ask
you a question. I admit
right up front that I'm setting you up so that you'll
have to agree with
me. Do you really believe that preborn babies are
human beings, no different
than, say, you or me or people who live in Arizona
or Texas? I do.
Beginning in 1984 I mentally disciplined myself to
always think like that and
never to think with even the slightest inconsistency
toward preborn baby
people.
Thanks for your patience. Now I'll reveal the "weird"
consistency I showed in a
phone call with a friend. But bear in mind that you
can't have exactly
the right attitude about abortion without first having
exactly the right attitude
toward the babies themselves. I was on the phone with
Joe in '92
before the election. We were talking about Clinton
and Bush. Joe said, "I like
ol' George. He's done everything we wanted him to."
That astounded
me, because Joe is relatively hard-core. What did
George ever do of substance?
Do you mean like how he refused to give up babies'
body parts
for medical experiments after he had already let those
babies be killed? Do
you mean how he did not give federal funds to pay
the killers, even
though Planned Parenthood would kill a low income
mother's child for free
if she couldn't afford it? And perhaps you mean one
or two other silly
little meaningless things in addition? Whoopee! Yeah,
George Bush was a
WONDERFUL prolife president, wasn't he?
The 1.6 million babies per year figure boils down to
about 4,600 per day.
I knew Joe knew that. So I gave him a metaphor: "What
if there was a
revolution in Mexico and the new government and the
people were
hostile to the U.S.? Then suppose some bands of Mexicans
came across the
border and killed 4,600 Texans and Arizonans before
going back south of
the border? Would it be expecting too much to want
ol' George to send
some U.S. Armed Forces personnel in pursuit of the
war criminals? But
then, what if the same bands of Mexicans returned
the next day and killed
another 4,600 Americans along our southern border,
and again the day after
that? And what if Bush then went to Congress and asked
them to issue
a declaration of war against Mexico, but Congress
refused? Would it be
too much to expect Bush to forget about Congress and
act unilaterally as
Commander-in-Chief of our Armed Forces, mobilizing
U.S. military personnel
in the Southwest? Under those circumstances, if he
declined to do
his duty thus, wouldn't we consider him the most wretched
and cowardly
failure of a President in the history of our nation
before Roe v. Wade? In
fact, wouldn't such damnable irresponsibility even
cause us to compare Bush
to some kind of scum?
Joe replied, "I see what you mean. But what about the separation of powers?"
(A reference to the fact that the Founding Fathers
designed our form of
government with three separate branches: Executive
(President), Legislative
(Congress), and Judicial (Supreme Court and lower
courts) and divided
authority amongst them. Hence, if one or more branch(es)
became abusive,
exceeding its bounds and oppressing the people, the
other one or two branch(es)
could rise up and balance out the abuse of the rogue
branch(es).
In such a situation, the President is, by far, in
the best position to
correct injustices. Because if the injustice originated
with the Executive and/or
judicial branch(es) and some honorable Congressman
saw intolerable evil therein
and wanted to correct it, they would have to form
a majority
coalition of hundreds of other Congressmen to agree
to take remedial
action. Similarly, if the Supreme Court were the remaining
honorable branch,
it would still need a majority of at least five of
the nine members to agree to
the honorable course of action. Whereas the President,
being only one
man, is (theoretically) free to make bold decisions
all by himself and to go
completely one way or the other. And being the Commander-in-Chief
of
the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines, who could
stop him?)
So I said, "Wait a minute, Joe. You're not the one
who is in a position to ask
'what about the Separation of Powers?' I am. They're
killing baby
people! If the Founding Fathers meant anything by
dividing up the powers --
if they meant for one of the branches to be able to
rise up and take
control at any given time -- it was surely for such
a time as this! With our
land already defiled by the shedding of innocent blood
and becoming more
defiled every minute by fresh new blood, the President
of the United States
has it within his power to get up out of bed any morning,
any day, and
say to himself: 'You know, I think I'll stop abortion
today -- right now.
Abortions are war crimes against my people, so I think
I should declare
martial law and mobilize my military forces against
these domestic enemies
who are killing my people.'"
George Bush could have taken such decisive action on
his very first day in
office and saved over eight million American lives,
becoming the greatest
hero in American history. Of course, I never for a
minute expected him to
do such a thing, or any little meaningful thing to
defend our preborn
people. But the only reason I expected nothing from
him was because
I knew all along that he was proabortion and favored
the slaughter of our
children.
Yet, if some honorable and brave man were to ascend
to the White House
while we have a Supreme Court and Congress as wicked
as now, you
must admit that the Presidential action suggested
in the preceding paragraph
would be the most reasonable, if not the only reasonable,
course to
take. Unless you are willing to think inconsistently
toward preborn baby
people, you have no choice but to admit that my thinking
is extremely
rational, extremely psychologically normal. Unless
you are willing to apply
a double standard against preborn baby people, saying
either that they
aren't really human beings or that they are less human
or less worthy than
born people, then you have no choice but to think
exactly as I do in order
to avoid the appearance of severe mental illness or
False Stupidity Syndrome.
If my demand that you think exactly like I do sounds
arrogant, please write
to me and offer me some alternative way of thinking
about the babies,
which is not inconsistent with how you think about
born people. I don't
think there is any alternative rational line of thought,
but I'd be willing to listen
and analyze your rationale as honestly as I can from
my very narrow-minded position.
The American people hate William Clinton more than
any president in
American history. Christian antiabortionists hate
him and feel good about it.
Because the public hates him and everything he stands
for so much, he is causing
more people than ever to think antiabortion wise!
He is inspiring
good men everywhere to take a bold stand against his
Communistic
NWO gun control policies and all kinds of righteous
causes! Clinton is inspiring
Americans everywhere to dream of a return to our nation's
Godly roots! We may
not have been able to withstand another four years
of George Bush's destructive,
deceitful treachery, while he held out a false glimmer
of "hope" to the falsely
"stupid" Christian population (please remember that
by calling them falsely
stupid I'm actually saying I think they're genuinely
smart). Yet, because people
will use any excuse to put on a show of FSS rather
than face a painful truth, and
since, because Clinton's undisguised treachery and
wickedness makes us want to
puke, therefore he is actually helping our people.
Pat Robertson would have been the absolute worst president
we could have had
right now, because of the very confidence he would
have inspired
in our people, while there would have been no change
at all under him.
Bill Clinton is the "best" president we could possibly
have at a time like this.
He may be the most "effective" president we have had
since Teddy Roosevelt.
I can't imagine who could have been a more "effective"
president,
unless it would be Hillary.
Clinton is so unpopular he can't make any public appearances
without being
jeered. Having him in the White House has resulted
in political
instability such as this country has never seen. This
is actually a
good thing: look at what the twenty years of political
stability before
Clinton's tenure gave us: 30 million dead and the
threat of God's divine
wrath. This instability has manifested itself in two
obvious ways.
The most obvious is the startling wresting of power
by the Republicans
in the mid-term Congressional election. Called a "landslide"
by the
establishment controlled papers, our friend, Paul
deParrie, aptly referred
to it as "a mudslide". The reason for such widespread
victory by the
Republicans: the public's way of renouncing Clinton
and his party.
This revolution inspires hope, but not because there
is any honor in the GOP. For
one thing, it shows that the people are fed up. Also,
when the people see that the
GOP won't do right either, it could result in more
instability with
the public realizing it's time to completely reject
the machine politics of
both parties. I guarantee the Republicans won't do
anything right. I'd like to
see them prove me wrong, but don't hold your breath.
I'm glad I first
mentioned my desire to have Clinton in the White House
(to help people
overcome their false stupidity) in the August issue
of P&A. I promise
I wasn't thinking of the mid-term elections when I
wrote that. But the results of
those elections proved me right.
The other sign of Clinton inspired political instability
is seen in how much the
Armed Forces hate him. He disgusts them all, except
for the small
minority of queers among them. The normal men bitterly
resent how he has
sodomized their ranks. You can't blame them at all,
because it dishonors
military service to have sissies among their ranks,
to say nothing of the danger
resulting from a decreased operational readiness,
the threat of
AIDS tainted blood (both from battle field wounds
and transfusions), etc.
Our military men can't forget how he dodged the draft
during the Vietnam
War, using deception to avoid serving.
Shortly after taking office, Clinton ordered U.S. military
doctors in Europe
to perform abortions on military women and the female
dependents of
servicemen who wanted them, a thing those medical
officers had never done.
There were more than thirty of them, and every one
of them defied
him, refusing to follow orders, refusing to kill babies.
You have to remember: these young doctors are active
duty commissioned
officers. The Armed Forces own these men. Who ever
heard of such a
thing: young military officers defying their Commander-in-Chief,
the President
of the United States?
While Clinton and his entourage stayed aboard the Aircraft
Carrier USS
George Washington, during the fiftieth anniversary
celebration of D-Day,
"The Old Man" of the ship practically had to order
his men to "voluntarily"
attend a speech by Clinton on the flight deck. Before
going ashore,
Clinton and/or some of his buddies stole $561 worth
of fancy towels and bath
robes from the officers' staterooms bearing the ship's
insignia. The
Commanding Officer, bless his heart, sent the White
House a bill demanding
reimbursement for the missing items. Do you have any
idea what the
operating cost of an aircraft carrier is, with its
crew of 5,000 men and officers?
In other words, the cost of the towels and robes was
as nothing. It
was apparently just a dig at the "Commander-in-Chief".
At one point in the U.S.'s "intervention" in Somalia
our guys were facing a
threat by hostile forces and asked Clinton for some
heavy weaponry,
including tanks. Clinton refused to send the weapons
they needed, citing a
fear that the rebellious Somali war-lords would view
the influx of
equipment as a challenge and a signal of intent to
escalate the U.S.'s role.
The thing that effeminate anti military men like Bill
Clinton, Randall Terry,
Flip Benham, et al, can't understand is that it is
the lack of operational
readiness which invites attack. As a result, seventeen
of our men in uniform,
having been denied adequate equipment, were attacked
and killed. In a feeble
attempt to make up for the cowardly blunder, the government
posthumously awarded the soldiers the Medal of Honor.
The dead soldiers'
next of kin were invited to the White House to receive
our nation's most
distinguished military honor on behalf of their fallen
loved ones. As Clinton
ceremonially handed the medal to one father and offered
his hand, the
father refused to shake it. I appreciate that.
Add to this the closing of so many military bases,
the reduction in personnel,
the scrapping of our B-52 strategic bombers, and you
can see why our
conservative men in uniform despise their "commander".
There's a point in all this: in any country, no matter
what it says on paper,
or what the media says, and without regard to figureheads,
puppets, etc., the actual defacto government is whoever
the military
is obedient to. With all the political instability
and unrest stirring
in this country, if Clinton were to try to declare
a state of emergency
(martial law), as many have surmised, and try to mobilize
our
own military men against dissident U.S. citizens,
the military might
just tell him: "Hey, no way, pal. We might have martial
law, but not
under YOU! We're not going to go around shooting our
fellow Americans."
I don't know about y'all but I could live with that.
I'd rather not get shot
if it can be avoided. It can ruin your whole day.
Immediately after taking office, Clinton put several
new proabortion policies
into effect. At that point no one had ever shot an
abortionist in twenty
years of child-killing. A few weeks later Michael
Griffin stepped up with
a revolver and blew abortionist David Gunn away. A
few months later our
beloved Shelley opened up with a rapid-fire volley
of shots on Tiller the
Killer, skillfully wounding him in both arms. Less
than a year later the
Reverend Paul Hill sent abortionist John Barnyard
Britton and his volunteer
armed body guard, James Barret, to their deserved
eternities.
All three of these dead men now believe with all their
hearts that abortion
is a damnable, damnable wickedness. All three of these
men now weep
and groan and wring their hands in despair, crying
out in pain and anguish
and remorse over all the poor little baby people whom
they tortured to
death. There'll be a cold day in Hell before they
ever get a parole hearing.
Please believe me: I do not gloat over this at all.
I'm not happy about it,
but neither do I pity these fallen fiends, these vanquished
monsters.
As a result of the shootings, forty more (former) abortionists
have voluntarily
stopped killing baby people. (Source: National Abortion
Federation.)
Lay all this at the feet of Bill Clinton and his arrogance.
Before Clinton moved into the White House there were
no state militias.
Now we have them in twenty states and counting. Two
gunmen, not
members of militias, have fired on the White House
in the past two months.
A few weeks earlier a pilot of a small aircraft did
a kamikaze attack on
it. DO NOT ASSASSINATE BILL CLINTON! WE NEED HIM!!
By the way, I just assumed the second gunman was not
a militia man.
I have no more idea as to his identity than the Secret
Service.
Mind you: I do not support Clinton for re-election.
But I did make
known to my closest advisors that I wanted him to
win in '92, and I
want him to be allowed to serve out this term. If
we lost him our people
would lose a lot of their enthusiasm. If you wanted
Bush to be re-elected
and don't like me, now that you know I wanted Clinton
to win, that's fine.
I'm not running for a popularity contest. If someone
is going to like me
I want them to like me for the right reasons. And
I don't mind if someone
hates me, as long as they hate me for the right reasons.
But if you still can't
understand that, all things considered, Bill Clinton
is the least dangerous
enemy of our people, including our preborn people,
that we've had in the White House
in decades -- even after I've explained it so carefully
to you -- then you need
not waste any more time reading TBR.
* * *
The Reverend Paul Hill is the most valorous, honorable,
gallant, and finest
example of manhood American Christianity has produced
since Sgt. Alvin
York's display of gallantry in 1918, if not in our
nation's entire history. I
don't watch T.V. so didn't know he had been interviewed
by Connie Chung
until my friend, Jim, told me. Jim said that Mrs.
Chung asked Paul to address
the idea expressed by some people that he might be
mentally incompetent, and
Paul sloughed off the question. Later, it was explained
to me, Mrs. Chung asked
a variation of the same question and Paul said something
like, "one more question
like that and this interview is over." Jim said this
reaction had led to some
speculation that Paul might be thinking about using
"insanity" as a defense in an
appeal of his conviction. In Florida all death sentence
cases are automatically
appealed whether the convicted person requests an
appeal or not. I was asked my
opinion as to the likelihood of Paul pursuing such
a course.
I told Jim of my certainty that Paul will not claim
insanity in any appeal. When
Paul took offense at Mrs. Chung's inquiries of his
mental state, it was
a matter of honor. He was justifiably indignant for
his own sake, for the babies'
sake, and the Lord's sake. Paul thinks about preborn
baby people
exactly as if they're the same as born people, because
they are. Otherwise, he
couldn't have done what he did. So, if anyone suggests
that he might
be insane because of what he did, Paul knows it is
only because the helpless
people he defended are preborn that the question is
even asked. If
Paul had killed the same men in the same manner but
in defense of a
bunch of ten-year-olds (or any other age group) then
his action would have
seemed psychologically normal to everyone. Therefore,
the suggestion that
the extremely sound minded Paul Hill might be "insane"
degrades the
baby persons' equal worthiness.
I wouldn't blame Paul, or any other of our people,
for using any legal
maneuver and playing by the hostile court system's
own rules. I wouldn't count
it as dishonorable. But I surmise that Paul is looking
at it this way: he is in a
degree of such apparently insurmountable worldly trouble
that no kind of
legal maneuvering can get him out of it. It's true
that our Lord could miraculously
deliver Paul, but that's exactly what it would take
-- a miracle
outside our court system.
So my speculation is that Paul, figuring such a move
would do him little or no
good, figures he might as well remain perfectly steadfast
and faithful,
refusing to cooperate with the system in any way,
looking them in the
eye and saying: "I'm not guilty of not doing it. And
the reason I'm not
guilty of not doing it is because of permanent sanity!"
Such a plea would be perfectly rational and coherent
to me, because
I'm normal, like my friend Paul Hill. If you are normal,
and not
pretending to be stupid, you can perfectly understand
such a plea, too.
* * *
Yours-in-Christ,
Johnny
Genesis 9:6
Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by
man shall his blood be shed:
for in the image of God made he
man.
Numbers
35:33 So ye shall not pollute the land wherein ye are:
for blood it defileth the land:
and the land cannot be cleansed of the
blood that is shed therein, but
by the blood of him that shed it.
E-mail:
Glory2Jesus@ArmyofGod.com
Telephone 1-757-204-4454
Or write to: Rev. Donald Spitz
Pro-Life Virginia
P.O. Box 2876
Chesapeake VA 23327
