What Has Been Will Be Again

This may be an excellent likeness of someone you know...

Hysteria. Delirium. Panic. 

These words describe the mental and emotional state of nearly every lawmaker in the United States, from those in the US Congress to those at state and local levels. The only individuals not affected by these problems can generally be seen in two groups: Those who don't care about anything that doesn't directly affect their lives, and those who are not possessed by an irrational hatred of a particular president. 

The reader should take two things into account at this point. The first is that this problem has been seen before. It is not unique to our current President, nor is it unique to one political party. It has affected folks from every walk of life, from every ethnic background, from every educational level and from every career path. The second thing is that "irrational hatred" is here defined as an emotional state which compels words and deeds that would otherwise violate one's own ethical, moral and professional codes of conduct. Such a state might be an issue for readers of this article, but affected readers likely wouldn't have made it this far, so... 

Memoria Venellam *

Was he waving at the person on the phone?

During the Obama administration, many in Congress took issue with then-president Obama. Sometimes it was over serious things, such as his cavalier use of the executive order and national emergency declarations. Other times, it was over excessively petty things, like his use of prompt screens. Of those who were obsessed with petty problems, most were Republican; most lacked the ability to recognize anything good done by the President; and nearly all refused to work with him out of personal spite, as opposed to genuine principle. 

At the time, many of the Democrats in Congress couldn't figure out what the problem was. Many lamented the stubborn refusal to work with Obama on anything. Not only were Republicans refusing to work with the President, they were also refusing to pitch their own solutions. On top of that, they were proposing legislation that directly countered Obama's agenda, and were running time and money wasting investigations and hearings. 

Conservative talk show hosts were having a field day with every little thing they could dig up. Born in Kenya. Not an American citizen. Communist. Socialist. Corrupt. Friends with a terrorist. Pastor's a radical. Father's a Muslim. His middle name is Hussein. There's no college record. It went on and on. 

Ultra-conservative talk show hosts were having an even bigger conniption fit. There were connections being made every which way but up. He was a Manchurian candidate. He was being used by Iran. He was being used by Syria. He was being used by Libya. He was also reportedly covering up FEMA camps; Big Pharma human testing; gun running; drug smuggling; and the human trafficking of his enemies. They said that he was breaking the Constitution so that it would no longer work; that he was going to do away with elections; and that he was the Antichrist. 

Veritas Utrum

Many were cartoonish in their hysteria.

While some of what the pundits and talking heads and alarmist writers were putting out there was accurate, there really wasn't a lot of genuine and factual accounting. He may have been born in Kenya, but he was also legally granted a Hawaiian document of birth. His birth father may have been Muslim, but by most accounts he barely knew the man. His pastor may have said some crazy things from the pulpit, but so have a number of other big name preachers. None of this means that he is not responsible for some of the worst abuses of power our nation has ever seen; it just means that there was a whole lot of petty crud that didn't need a fraction of the attention it received. 

There were also the straight-out lies by which even this writer was taken. For instance, one of the earliest pseudo-facts was that Obama was a full-blown Muslim. The deception didn't last long, fortunately; yet the fact that it had managed to capture the attention and energy of intelligent and rational writers such as myself remains a source of consternation. Another lie: Obama was attempting to repeal the Constitution. A few of his executive orders were strung together, along with a few statements from his campaign, which gave the appearance of an all out assault on the supreme law of the land. This one didn't last as long; in fact, it was proven to be a fabrication while researching the story for the sake of an article on this very blog. 

So what has brought on this seeming nostalgia? 

Nothing New Under The Sun

Well, as the saying goes: "New boss same as the old boss." Or if preferred: "The more things change, the more they stay the same." There was also this saying from a young man who grew up in several African countries: "A cheetah may change his spots to stripes, but his heart remains set upon your life." 

In the eyes of this author, Obama was and continues to be a scumbag. That personal opinion does not change the fact that he did a few things which were beneficial. It simply means that in the process of weighing what was good and bad about his administration according to subjective judgment, the resulting conclusion puts Obama and most of those people he surrounded himself with firmly in the "scumbag" column. This may be painfully obvious to those who are long-time readers; however what ought to be just as obvious is the fact that not everyone feels this way. Those who are capable of rational thought and logic; and who have the enviable position of accounting for the historical impact of US Presidents; have suggested that apart from his actual election, Obama's notability and historical significance is negligible. 

In the same way, President Trump currently sits in the "Meh" category. He's not yet to be cheered, nor mocked. He's done a lot of good for the country, but this has been nullified by his negative speech. He's already written his name in the history books due to five different events which were halfheartedly reported by the mainstream media. At the same time, those events have not all been seen positively, so once more he's "Meh." 

Yet as in the days of Obama, so too is it now in the days of Trump. People are losing their minds. There are those who are so consumed by irrational fear and/or hatred that they are incapable of rational thought. There are those who are so stubborn that they have turned their backs on lifelong goals solely because Trump thinks those goals are worthwhile. There are insane accusations being made. There are lies being told. There are charges being filed, hearings being held and investigations being conducted - All of which are wasting time and money. CNN is to Trump what FOX was to Obama, in a manner of speaking. 

Basically, we've stepped through the looking glass, Alice- And to fracture more idioms- The grass may be greener on the other side, but it is always full of thorns when we cross the fence. Though the only constant is change, this applies solely to that which is superficial. The heart of humanity, without any form of external influence, remains hopelessly devoid of redeeming qualities; and this explains why the basket still rolls steadily towards Hell... Exempli gratia, Concessus abortus et educationem ordinatur optimum.

* It should be noted that the author is aware of his atrocious grasp of Latin and is using it regardless for the sake of adding a lighthearted touch to an otherwise heavy handed article.

Envy The Dead

There are some things in this world that are more terrifying than others. For instance, a firecracker exploding at one's feet pales in comparison to an atom bomb doing the same. A windstorm with fifty mile an hour winds is troubling, but a hurricane is far worse. One tornado is bad, but being surrounded by multiple tornadoes is panic inducing to the extreme.

The point is, there are often more important things to concern ourselves with than whatever has got our ire up. This is certainly not always reality, but it is quite often the case. I remember hearing a story about a man who chose to weather a hurricane at home rather than evacuate. At one point in the midst of the storm, there was a break in the clouds and the sun shone through. He was on the phone with his son at the time, and complained that the bright sunlight off of the floodwaters was hurting his eyes. He complained about the sun's light, but was surrounded by devastation. As unbelievable as this story sounds, there have been a lot of accounts where people were more concerned with petty inconvenience than with potential destruction.

I was thinking about this because of late, it seems as though we're seeing a storm of "worse." Yet for some reason, everyone is apparently ignoring it to focus on the "bad." What's even more strange is that the "bad" is often a side-effect of the "worse," yet one is still focused on to the exclusion of the other. Tears For Fears had it right: It is a mad world.

The Plight of the Living

Take for example the illegal immigration issue. It's certainly a hot topic these days, and for good reason. No reasonable and rational citizen will argue that the United States was not founded and created by immigrants. Most will also agree that the conditions from which many of these immigrants are fleeing are deplorable. I think one might also be hard pressed to find a reasonable and rational person disagreeing with the sad state of these people when they arrive at the border. However, focusing solely on the people, the conditions they fled and their state upon arrival ignores a fundamental fact: The United States has a process by which all of these people can enter into the country without fear of Immigration Enforcement.

AOC and other deluded members of Congress seem to believe that the definition of the phrase "fundamental fact" is "kook thought." In reality; something which they seem to be wholly out of touch with; it is a foundational truth. Immigration has been provided for by law in this nation since 1791. While opinion on immigration has fluctuated significantly between 1800 and today, there has always been a path to citizenship for any who wish it. To react to news of immigrant caravans as though there is no structure in place is to live in a world of fantasy. Moreover, it does seem as though many legislators have some form of dementia when they begin speaking about this subject.

The Plight of the Unborn

Another example of ignoring the greater threat for the sake of the minor annoyance is the subject of abortion. Since Roe v Wade, there have been over sixty-one million abortions in the United States. There have been over one and a half billion world wide since 1980, and over eight million performed by Planned Parenthood since 1970. At the time of this writing, there have been over one hundred and seventy-seven thousand abortions this year. A little over seventeen hundred were stated to be due to rape or incest. There are no solid figures for how many abortions are done for the sake of the mother's life, but most hover around the one percent mark since 1973.

In the United States, it was initially taught to society that a fetus was nothing more than a blob of tissue. The rhetoric was changed over time to suggest that a fetus was then a parasitic organism, and now they teach that a fetus is... Well, a fetus. An undeveloped baby. Yet in New York, legislators passed a bill later signed into law by Governor Cuomo that allows abortions to be performed by anyone, anywhere, at any time, for any reason. Many states are now trying to do the same. The inconvenience is that actions (namely sex) have consequences. The greater threat is that the United States, first by ruling of the Supreme Court and now by legislation, has made murder legal.

"Murder" is defined as the termination of life, and "life" is loosely defined as the ability to function independent of aid. A baby is considered to be a live person in the United States when they can live apart from their mother. Over ninety percent can do this at twenty-six weeks, and seventy percent can do this at twenty-four weeks. Thirty-five percent of babies born at twenty-three weeks can now survive, and this percentage is growing every day with the advancement of medical science. Thus, the termination of a viable fetus is by definition murder. It is not considered to be such by law though, because inconvenience triumphs over reality.

The Plight of Society

We live in a mad world. We decry the genocide of third-world dictators, yet approve of the deaths of sixty-one million innocents, even though both are carried out in the name of convenience. We shed tears over the plight of people wanting to move freely into our nation without being inconvenienced by background checks and other safeguards, but we grow angry when acts of terrorism by foreign nationals inflict death and destruction upon us. We want to prevent our feelings from getting hurt, but have no problem in oppressing entire people groups to accomplish this task.

In short, our society in general wants to have life both ways. We want to have our cake and eat it as well. We want to live life free from consequence; we want to be free from the laws of nature by enacting laws of men. There is only one group of the world's population that has found the way to be free of consequence, and that group is growing by the minute. They are the dead, and no more apt a phrase can be applied to the world today than the words penned by the author of Ecclesiastes:

Assassination Justification

or, Now We Know How To Get Around Executive Order 12333

Photo by Ashwini Chaudhary on Unsplash

This past Wednesday, I had a revealing debate in a popular restaurant of all places. Two nights before, all but three Democrats in Senate voted to keep debating whether a child born alive after an abortion attempt was worth the same protection that any other child is granted. Because this vote was not necessarily in the news heavily, but being discussed by many anyway, I was naturally asked for my opinion. I say naturally, because this is a place I go to regularly, and many of the staff and frequent patrons know me. 

When I was asked my opinion, I simply stated that it was a damn shame that some children are considered to be worth less than others; at least, in the minds of forty-three Democrats and one so-called Independent. I stated that Senators Casey, Jones and Manchin deserved a standing ovation for separating from their party (Democrat) and agreeing that all children should be protected. I also said that I believed that day was perhaps the darkest day this nation has seen since the state of New York passed the "Reproductive Health Care Act" (RHA). That law, contrary to statements by supporters, uses such broad language that a child could potentially be killed without consequence even at the point of birth. Lastly, I added that this seemed like the first step in a larger attempt to decriminalize murder, possibly leading to mandated euthanasia or worse.

The woman I was talking to; and who had asked my opinion on the matter; agreed with me. She said that when New York passed the RHA, she read an article that had a statement she couldn't believe. The writer of that article had said that we could only believe that medical professionals would risk their licensing and careers to perform frivolous abortions if we showed similar distrust of doctors performing other procedures. The conclusion was that anyone who didn't trust a medical professional to do an abortion was simply unreasonable and out of their minds. The woman I was talking to then said that as recently a week before, she had seen another news report of a misbehaving doctor. 

As I agreed, a gentleman who is there on occasion decided to interject. This is an account of that discussion.

+++

"The danger of that particular bill was that it could have been used to impede a woman's right to choose," he began. "You, as a man, do not have the right to impose your will upon a woman or her body."

"I'm standing next to a woman who agrees with me," I observed dryly. 

"That's beside the point," he responded. "You do not have a voice in this matter, so your opinion is not only unwanted, it is also worthless since it relies heavily on the slippery slope fallacy."

"That's interesting," I said, feeling myself getting a little heated, "Considering that you're also a man, yet your opinion is apparently gold."

"I'm just speaking the truth," he said with a shrug. "You're the one with such a high and lofty opinion of yourself." He glanced at his phone briefly and added, "Which, I suppose, is typical for someone supporting President Frump."

Something in my mind snapped at this point. "Okay, so let's go ahead and go on record here. The lady here wanted my opinion, and quite frankly, you've made it very clear that yours is more valuable than mine. You say that the bill could be used to impede a woman's right to choose, right? Do you realize that the language of the bill explicitly sheltered any woman who gave birth after an abortion attempt? Under that law, she could not be charged with anything? How does that impede her right to choice?"

"Oh, it wasn't the law itself," he said with a chuckle. "It was the fact that it penalized doctors and medical personnel who failed to take measures to save any infant that was born alive. Doctors would stop offering abortions and women would once more begin dying from back alley procedures."

"Really? Who's making the slippery slope arguments now? From 1972 to 1979, twenty-four women died from post-abortive hemorrhaging, which is still recognized to this day by the CDC as only the third most frequent cause of death associated with abortion. They rarely talk about the first and second causes, infection and embolism. What they don't mention is that while the overall mortality rate has gone down for women who get abortions since that time, the rates of hemorrhaging and infection have risen." I raised an eyebrow. "Worse still, prior to Roe v. Wade, abortion related deaths were being reported because it was illegal to perform abortions. Now, fewer deaths are being reported, yet it is pretty clear that doesn't mean there are fewer fatalities. In fact, approximately three out of four maternal deaths related to legal abortion aren't even identified. The idea that more women are going to die if abortion is made illegal doesn't stand under the weight of the statistics. Not to mention that we're not even discussing abortion as a whole. We're talking about partial birth and after birth abortion. Murder, in my eyes." 

His posture straightened and he seemed more resolute now. "Abortion, whether it is at one day or nine months, is still the prerogative of the woman. It is not your place to say what is and is not allowed, and neither can the damn Republicans."

I leveled my eyes on him, looking for any sign of flinching as I asked, "So you're saying that a woman should be able, even at the point of birth, to decide she does not want a child?"

He didn't pause for a second. "Absolutely."

I wasn't so surprised by his response at this point, but I could tell the lady was. Her eyes widened and her mouth opened just a little. When she didn't say anything, I took the opportunity to challenge his way of thinking.

"Should a man who assaults a pregnant woman be charged with assault and murder if the child dies?"

He didn't bat an eye. "Certainly, if the state law allows for it. That's a different matter entirely."

"Fair enough," I said, appreciating his viewpoint. "But you're saying that if that same woman decides she doesn't want a child after all, even as she's giving birth, the child should die? And, of course, because it's a completely different circumstance, it is not murder. Am I understanding you correctly?"

He nodded. "Yes, and yes."

"Huh." I thought for a moment, then asked, "So by that logic, your mother could choose to terminate your life, and because it's a different circumstance, it's not murder." 

He laughed. "Of course that would be murder. Although my mother is saint, and very religious, so she wouldn't even consider it."

The woman I had initially been talking to interjected, "How fortunate for you."

If he picked up on her sarcasm, he gave no sign that he had. "I think so. I rather enjoy my life."

I held up my hand. "I just want to make certain that I have a clear picture of your stance, if I may."

He nodded again. "Certainly."

"Okay," I began, "Let us assume that the woman in this situation is in no danger of losing her life by giving birth, or by carrying a child to term."

"So assumed," he confirmed. 

"So this woman gets to her due date, and maybe a few days past it, and goes in to the hospital to have her child. somewhere along the line she panics and decides she can't raise a child. She should be allowed to kill the child without it being defined as murder?"

"Correct."

"If that woman had initially decided to have a third trimester abortion, but it didn't work, and she delivers early as a result, she should still be allowed to authorize the death of that child, without anyone being guilty of murder?"

"Absolutely. It's her right to choose."

"And if the same woman actually gives birth to the child, but has a change of heart before they cut the cord, that child can be killed, and it is not murder?"

"I would use the term 'terminated' in all cases," he corrected me smoothly, "but essentially yes."

"And just so I don't get caught up on any other minor details," I said by way of preface, "You are aware that in the last two cases, the child is now breathing air on his or her own?"

"On it's own, but yes."

"It's own. Terminated. Got it," I said, repeating the terminology for his benefit. "Okay. So basically according to your view, personhood is defined by an individual's choice. Regardless of when that choice takes place. It could be at eighteen days, or it could be eighteen minutes after birth."

He paused for a moment, looked at the ceiling, and then looked back at me. "You could say that, yes."

"So by your logic, the determining factor between undesirable and desirable," I stopped and rephrased, "Rather, the determining factor between priceless and worthless is the choice of a single individual?"

"Correct."

"Wow." I said. "I can see it all so clearly now. That means, that I could decide you are worthless, kill you, and not be charged with murder. I was only making an arbitrary choice, and preventing something worthless from taking away from our planet's valuable resources by termination. Not murder."

He smirked at me. "That's not how it works."

"Right, because I'm not a woman."

He nodded, the smirk still there. "Because you're not my mother."

"Ah, I see." I said. "So if your mother, then, tired of your viewpoint on this issue, she could choose to deem you worthless and terminate your life without being charged with murder."

"No," he said, now finally appearing flustered. "Again, that's not how this works."

"But that's what you said. A woman, even after the point of birth, can choose to terminate her child. I mean, it's either murder, or it isn't. If innocence is the deciding factor between whether the ending of a life is acceptable or not, then the difference between the death penalty and murder is understandable. But if a mother's choice is the deciding factor between whether the ending of a life is acceptable or not, then the difference between post-birth or partial-birth abortion and drowning her child doesn't make sense. It must be murder, or it must not be. There is no room for it to go both ways."

The smirk was gone. There was a vein visible in his forehead that I had not noticed before. As he walked away, he said, "You're a closed-minded bigot."

+++

As the woman I had begun the conversation with walked to the register to settle the man's tab, she suggested to me that perhaps if I had gender reassignment my opinion would be valid. I laughed at that, because the thought had not occurred to me. When she returned, she informed me that the man had overheard her comment, and stated that it still wouldn't make a difference, because I would still be biologically a man.

+++

So there you have it. This account is as accurate as I can recall. There may have been some things left out, but I have added nothing. 

Killing Children

This is the text of the "Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act." The bill, sponsored by Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse, is intended to provide protection for those infants who, in spite of abortive measures, are born alive. It protects the now born alive infant from further action to terminate its life.

This, the protection of human life, should be without question something which our lawmakers agree on. Regardless of political affiliation. Regardless of what they think of our current President. Regardless of all other views held on foreign policy, immigration, the United States Constitution, traffic laws or whether the sky is pink - Our lawmakers should desire above all else to protect human life. They all say that they do on the campaign trail. They choose to demonstrate that they do in various ways, at least during election cycles.

So with all of this said, I am naturally here to give you the rare "good news" story. The story that happens once or twice a year where politicians put aside their partisan differences for the sake of something that truly matters on a grand scale. I am here to tell you that achieved cloture on the bill, which is a fancy way of saying that they agreed there was nothing to debate and the bill must be voted on.

Ah, as the fictional narrator of a popular children's series might say, how I wish I could tell you that this is exactly what happened. How I wish I could write that the sun shone bright on the United States Senate, as it were, and that the Senators joined hands across the aisles to stand as one. I would like nothing more, in fact, to pen a sonnet about the day when a human being's right to live after drawing air for the first time was codified and made law. Perhaps one day I will do just that, but alas, today is not that day.

I cannot write these things, for at 5:42 yesterday evening, as the sun set on the Eastern seaboard of the United States of America, it set also on the hopes and dreams and battles of any newborn survivors of abortion attempts. And as the sun set on these things, so too did it set on these very lives; lives of infants who, against all odds and circumstance and technology and oppression, had fought hard enough to take that first breath... Only to have it stolen. The ember of their lives quenched without mercy or care or concern or goodness or any other human decency.

The human race, at least that which calls the United States home, denied the very promise of the nation that it so hypocritically fights for on the part of any other human. If the human is a rapist, they deserve mercy. If the human is a trafficker, they deserve leniency. If the human is a murderer, they still deserve their life.

But if the human is mere seconds old; if the human has drawn its first or perhaps its second breath; if that human has survived a saline wash, or an acid bath, or a toxic shock, or a drug overdose, or repeated stabbings, or anything else of that sort; survived these things and fought through to come into the land of the living? Well, that human is not worthy of being called a human. Apparently. Born innocent, that human is still guilty of the most heinous of crimes: Inconveniencing a society set on that humans death.

I am not being alarmist. I am not exaggerating facts, nor am I conflating any issues. I fully understand that there are women out there who are faced with horrors that should never be wished upon a human being. I realize that there are consequences for these horrors, and that one of those is pregnancy. I do not suggest that a woman in such a position be not only forced to carry such a pregnancy to term but also care for that child as well. My personal beliefs are not a part of this article, and to the best of my abilities I am trying to remain as civil as possible. I am also attempting to remain as non-judgmental as possible. If it strikes you differently, dear reader, I beg your forgiveness.

To that end, I have called several hospitals around the nation. Seventy-eight, to be exact. I have called them to inquire about specific policy completely unrelated to the abortion issue. Only six returned my calls or deigned to speak to me, and all requested anonymity. From this small sampling, I can say that at least with these hospitals, the policy for an unwanted live birth is to turn that child over for care by the state or by private organizations. In all cases, the mother's name is left off of the public record, and in many cases she is given a pseudonym. The mother need not be concerned with being tracked down in later years to be asked uncomfortable questions.

Yet it seems that many people are under the impression that a woman who chooses not to have an abortion; or a woman who has had a failed abortion; will be forced to care for the child. It seems that the going understanding is that she will be made, whether by coercion or some other means, to raise it and be reminded every hour of every day of a failing or of a horror.

This is the text of the "Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act." One Senator who voted against this bill decried its language as impeding a woman's right to choose. Please read the text. There is no such language.

Another Senator who voted against human life stated that it would send women to prison for exercising their rights to choose. This is the text of the "Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act." There is no such language; in fact, steps were taken within it to assure the exact opposite.

Still another Senator suggested that it would completely reverse the right for women to obtain an abortion. There is no such language. This is the text of the "Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act." Read it for yourself, and tell me if I am wrong.

I have said before that I don't care for the way in which our current President speaks. He is brash. He is rash. He is impulsive and contrary and seemingly set on making enemies wherever he goes. He was also one hundred percent right on this observation, and I leave it with you as an apt summary of my feelings on the injustice which every Democrat hoping for the presidency embarked upon last night.

Life Or The Party

There are things in this world that I do not understand. Most of the time, I am fine with this. When I am not fine with this is when a double standard is very obviously in effect. For example, a group supposedly standing for something in slogan that they refuse to stand for in action.

Take for example this latest act of insanity: A "Right To Life" group that will not support a pro-life candidate because he or she is not a member of either major political party. You read that correctly.

The slogan above should, perhaps, read: "Support Pro-Life Candidates (if they are major party members)!"

The current gubernatorial race in Oregon could best be described as a train-wreck for the Sanctity of Life Movement. The candidate the only Right To Life PAC in the state backed, Greg Wooldridge, lost... And miserably, based upon the numbers. Just over sixty-three thousand for the ORTL candidate, and more than one hundred forty-four thousand for the Primary winner, Knute Buehler. The ORTL lost its gamble by more than twenty percent.

I am not knocking the three-time leader of the Blue Angels Squadron, by any means; however it seems to me that the ORTL backed the wrong candidate. Allow me to elaborate. In every state in these United States, there is generally a mistrust of outsiders wishing to take public office. The hopeful could be a living saint, and still the natural-born residents would view them with a high degree of skepticism. It is not Captain Wooldridge's fault really. Trying to win in one's adoptive state is hard enough; trying to win in an adoptive home state that has historically elected a Democrat governor is far worse. Many hopefuls prior to the three-time Boss have found that to be true, and now so has he.

Now that the ORTL gubernatorial hopeful is out of the running; and the current GOP candidate is not pro-life; it seems natural that the PAC would reallocate funds to support the only other pro-life candidate on the ballot. However, this is not the case. Seemingly it has never been the case, and if the ORTL PAC's Political Director David Kilada is to be believed, it never will be.

Why?

Because in Kilada's own words: "Minor parties haven't demonstrated that they are capable of fielding winning candidates." This is taken from an email sent to a loyal reader of this blog, who passed it along in the hopes that we might be able to shed some light on what seems to be (pardon the expression) an abortion of justice and common sense. Elsewhere in the email, asserts that "The amount of resources we would need to carry a minor party candidate through statewide is astronomical.  We don't believe in throwing away endorsements." Later on, the Political Director rather curtly adds "Policies have implications.  That's why we are careful to follow them.  Our policies such as these are how pro-life voters know they can trust our process."

It may be asserted by the PAC that this article is taking statements out of context. Sadly this is not the case. At the end of this article, dear reader, you will find the full text of each email sent to this member of the Renegade family. Read and judge for yourself.

In any case, the stated purpose for the PAC's existence reads in part "[o]ur focus is on electing champions for protecting life from conception to natural death." This Mission Statement comes into question when there does exist a gubernatorial candidate that would champion this cause wholeheartedly: Oregon native and Constitution Party nominee Aaron Auer. It especially comes into question when the idea of them "work[ing] to identify and support pro-life candidates for office..." doesn't seem to line up with their actions.

The logic expressed by the PAC regarding third-party candidates seems to fall to pieces when

considering any number of relevant facts: The fact that Mr. Auer has done all his own campaigning and funding; the fact that on a far smaller and tighter budget than his competitors, he repeatedly brought in at least one percent of the vote, and all in general  election.

Aaron Auer is a circuit-riding preacher; he founded the ROAR (Restoring Oregon's Amazing Roots) organization, and regularly participates in events aimed at reminding people of the state's awe-inspiring history. He keeps the account of the Nez Perce tribe and their quest for the Book Of Heaven alive. He fights tirelessly to prevent the Circuit Rider monument from being removed from the State House grounds. He is galvanized, courageous and emboldened to champion righteous causes- And the Sanctity of Life issue is certainly a righteous cause.

In spite of all of this, an examination of the PAC's recommended candidates revealed no mention of the Constitution Party hopeful whatsoever. Why? He did the work to get himself on the ballot. He's putting in the effort to travel and meet people. He's drumming up support for himself by pounding pavement. Yet his name does not appear in the PAC's list of supportable candidates. (See image left)


Kilada maintains that "...endorsing minor party candidates would ...throw away elections by endorsing multiple candidates in races with pro-choice candidates." Yet in an earlier email he notes that "[w]e are focused on the dozens of legislative and local elections that are critical to the pro-life movement." Now wait just a moment, Mr. Kilada - Didn't you say that endorsing multiple candidates throws away elections?

The Political Director of the ORTL PAC also asserted that they "do not have favoritism in terms of parties." Yet a quick search of the names above show something interesting: Vineeta Lower - Republican. David Molina - Republican. Alexander Flores - Republican. Dorothy Merritt - Republican. Jack Zika - Republican. Brian Stout - Republican. Christine Drazan - Republican.

While it could be chalked up to the Democrat Party's inability to put forward a pro-life candidate, it certainly seems strange that there is no "favoritism in terms of parties," and yet the only candidates listed are GOP hopefuls. Additionally, about half of them are running against incumbent Democrats in districts that routinely elect Democrats. What was that about "throw[ing] away elections" and "throwing away endorsements?"

It is a wonder to me that, after seeing all of this malarkey and self-destructive adherence to a faulty policy, the ORTL PAC would invite people interested in running for office to contact them. What would they be told? That they must seek election as a Republican or a Democrat to be supported?

Suppose someone has the good will, support and backing of more voters than the GOP or DNC pro-life front-runner. This would virtually assure that well-liked candidate the electoral win. Would they be denied even an honorary mention simply because they were running under a third party?


As a pro-life family man considering a move to Oregon in the near future, I have been watching the electoral process fairly closely. I've paid attention to who has said what. I've researched the voting records, pet projects and desired goals of incumbents and hopefuls alike.

Nothing- And I repeat, nothing- Prepared me for seeing the sort of shocking lack of vision and foresight displayed by the Oregon Right To Life Political Action Committee. When someone with the title of Political Director can state over and over again that "our PAC policy has been and remains that we do not endorse minor party candidates" and "endorsing minor party candidates would ...throw away elections," there is something wrong.

These are not policy fueled processes that I, as a voter, could trust. To blatantly state that "[w]e are the only pro-life organization that works to support these candidates and it's critical that we get the word our[sic] to pro-life voters about these candidates" and then leave off any pro-life candidate is, in my view, a betrayal of trust. Regardless of policy. Regardless of donation. Regardless of party. A statement that "This is not our official candidate, but he is pro-life also" would be far better than an egregious display of willful ignorance.

Worse than a betrayal of trust, however, is the betrayal of that which the ORTL PAC adamantly claims to stand for:

Now, as promised, I will provide the emails I received. Read them, weigh them, and decide whether this PAC deserves support - Or if the candidate they have so casually thrown away as inconsequential might just be the message that they, and the state of Oregon, need to get loud and clear.

Incidentally, there has been no word if the reader has received anything back from Kilada. I will update this article if there are any new developments.

Email #1

Email #2

Email #3

Email #4

Email #5

This Is Not The End

One of the most contentious and vicious presidential election years is now officially behind us.

The President-Elect is Donald J. Trump.

The House of Representatives is under Republican Control.

The U.S. Senate is under Republican Control.

Presidential hopeful Hillary R. Clinton gave a very nice concession speech.

Current President Barack Obama stated that he has accepted the results.

So naturally, it's all over, right?

Sadly, for many people, this is not the end of the season of fear they walked into when Trump became the Republican nominee. These folks are focused upon the rhetoric that came out of Trump's campaign, and the horrible things stated in Clinton's campaign advertisements. They are looking at Trump's running mate, Mike Pence, and his alleged affiliation with various groups such as the Ku Klux Klan. They are replaying in their minds the things stated about Muslims, homosexuals, lesbians, Hispanics, and certain women during the campaign.

For these people, this is the end of the world- Or their world, at least.

Friends, I would like to bring to you today some very good news: This Is Not The End.

President-Elect Donald Trump

Yes, Donald Trump ran a nasty, spiteful and inflammatory campaign. He managed to anger nearly every societal and cultural group in the nation. He exhibited some of the worst behavior ever seen in a presidential candidate in the history of the nation.

I will say that at least he didn't challenge his opponent to a duel as happened a couple times in the late 1700's, but that's not really saying anything, is it?

Nevertheless, let us be encouraged by the fact that our government is structured in such a way as to prevent Trump from being able to enact or implement much of what he said he wanted to do. Moreover, those things he spoke of which would be beneficial for the U.S. economy, tax code, and more- These things will be examined and scrutinized. The checks and balances of this country are in place for just this sort of event, and as such, I look forward with a great deal of hope.

More on why this is a little later.

Hillary Clinton

While Clinton began her concession speech saying that the results were "...painful, and will be for a long time," she also went on to say that the citizens of the United States "...owe him an open mind and the chance to lead." She went on to encourage her supporters to remain involved with the political process, stating "...let’s do all we can to keep advancing the causes and values we all hold dear. Making our economy work for everyone, not just those at the top, protecting our country and protecting our planet. And breaking down all the barriers that hold any American back from achieving their dreams. ...our responsibility as citizens is to keep doing our part to build that better, stronger, fairer America we seek. "

Clinton ran a campaign that was, in many respects, as dirty and nasty as Trump's. If you are a regular reader, you know that I supported neither major candidate; I always vote my conscience, and I always will. With that being said, much of what Clinton had to say Wednesday morning was excellent; it was encouraging; and though she did talk about the pain of losing, she also spoke a great deal about hope.

Once more, I find myself agreeing with Clinton; moreover, I applaud her intestinal fortitude and her refusal to sink to the lows that supporters from both sides have seen and surpassed.

President Barack Obama 

"I had a chance to talk to President-elect Trump last night -- about 3:30 in the morning, I think it was -- to congratulate him on winning the election. And I had a chance to invite him to come to the White House tomorrow to talk about making sure that there is a successful transition between our presidencies.

"Now, it is no secret that the President-elect and I have some pretty significant differences. But remember, eight years ago, President Bush and I had some pretty significant differences. But President Bush’s team could not have been more professional or more gracious in making sure we had a smooth transition so that we could hit the ground running. And one thing you realize quickly in this job is that the presidency, and the vice presidency, is bigger than any of us.

"So I have instructed my team to follow the example that President Bush’s team set eight years ago, and work as hard as we can to make sure that this is a successful transition for the President-elect -- because we are now all rooting for his success in uniting and leading the country. The peaceful transition of power is one of the hallmarks of our democracy. And over the next few months, we are going to show that to the world.

"...I'm confident that this incredible journey that we're on as Americans will go on. And I am looking forward to doing everything that I can to make sure that the next President is successful in that. I have said before, I think of this job as being a relay runner -- you take the baton, you run your best race, and hopefully, by the time you hand it off you're a little further ahead, you've made a little progress. And I can say that we've done that, and I want to make sure that handoff is well-executed, because ultimately we're all on the same team."

Genuinely speaking, this is the proudest I have ever been of our current president. All that I can say is well done, Mr. President. Well said, and well done.

The U.S. Senate

The Senate of the United States had 36 seats open to change this past election cycle, and though largely eclipsed by the presidential election, the race for Senate was just as contentious in some places. In the end, the Republican party maintained control of the Senate, which was a joy for some, and a painful defeat for others.

Republican control of the Senate has had many people concerned over the direction the nation could turn, given the election of Donald Trump. With one party holding control of Senate and the White House, there has been speculation that the United States is about to undergo tremendous change; and potentially not the sort that they'd want to see. Verbalized fears of border walls, banned homosexuality, criminalized abortion, and deported Muslims have been the most common that I have overheard.

However, there is reason for hope, my friends. I'll get into why before too much longer, but believe me when I say that things are not as bleak as they may appear.

The House of Representatives

Not many networks talked about this much, and mainly due to the fact that they were too busy covering the antics of the presidential candidates. Nevertheless, all 435 seats in the House were open to change in this past election. Just as with the Senate race, the competition between Representative hopefuls was quite a spectacle in its own right.

When the dust cleared, the Democrats had won 192 seats in the House. The Republicans took 239 seats, holding onto their majority control. Again, this has caused a great deal of fear in the hearts and minds of many people, for the same reasons as the Republican controlled Senate raises.

What is important to note in the wake of this Republican "sweep" (as some have called it), is that many of these Representatives have a track record. Why is that important, you may ask; it is important for the same reasons as the track record of Senators and Presidential candidates: The track record tells the story that people and various media sources will try to hide.

Where's The Good News?

If you are a Democrat, a Liberal, or like me are simply fed up with both major parties, you may be asking exactly where the good news in all of this resides. Where is it? More importantly: What is it?

To begin with we live in the United States of America, which is perhaps the best place that an election result such as this one could possibly happen. I'm not promoting some hyper-exceptionalism or ultra-nationalistic pride when I write this. What I am saying is that our government is set up in such a way as to almost perfectly handle such events. Look at this diagram with me.

According to some folks I have spoken with, their children's schools are not teaching the structure of the United States government. (I have heard from some teachers that this is not taught until high school, but I'm sure it depends upon districts and school systems.) So whether you never learned this; or if you are like a few friends of mine who actually requested I include this section as a refresher; here is a simplified layout of how our government's branches work.

This is called the system of checks and balances, and this is what keeps everyone playing by the rules, more or less. A President does have the ability to introduce legislation to be made law; but Congress must approve that legislation both in the House and in the Senate. Congress can introduce and pass legislation with the intent of making it law, but the President must first sign it before it actually becomes law. The court system, specifically the Supreme Court, can declare laws unconstitutional; and contrary to popular opinion, they can do so without a case coming before them. A President can utilize Executive Orders, (and these are among the "presidential acts" in the diagram), but the Supreme Court can render them invalid by declaring them unconstitutional.

So let's look at a few of the scenarios that people are most concerned about under a Trump administration:

• Trump Introduces Legislation To Build A Wall - Many lawmakers from both sides of the aisle agree that this country has an immigration issue. Many also agree that part of that issue is illegal immigration, or people crossing into the United States without proper documentation. Much of that illegal immigration does come from Mexico, though there are illegal immigrants in the United States from all over the world. However, most lawmakers do not support the building of a wall along the Mexican-U.S. border. As President, Trump could introduce legislation providing for the building of a wall, but based upon the track records of those in Congress, it would never become law; they would instead debate, argue and haggle for some other method of immigration control, and we would likely see the issue die on the House floor, never making it to Senate. 

• Trump Issues An Executive Order Banning Homosexuality - Due to the nature of his campaign, many people are concerned about the issue of homosexuality and the free practice thereof. (For the sake of this illustration, I am addressing homosexual practices only, and will explain why shortly.) Let us say that as President, Trump issues an Executive Order that bans homosexuality. It would certainly create a public outcry, but it would have no effect- Why? Because the Supreme Court has already ruled in a number of cases involving homosexuality, homosexual practices, and the rights of homosexual men and women. As a result, the moment that the Order is issued, the Supreme Court would immediately declare it unconstitutional and render it void. This also applies to any attempt by Trump to criminalize abortion.

• Trump Demands Congress Deport All Muslims - Let us imagine that out of all the vitriol that came from the Trump campaign, the expressed desire to deport Muslims actually materializes in the form of a President Trump ordering Congress to find a way  to do just that. At this point, Congress will almost unanimously laugh at him. The orders of a President are not the same as those from a King or Emperor: In short, they do not have to be followed in the same manner. Could Congress work something out that Trump would sign into law, such as a national registry, a public identifier or a special tax? They most certainly could, but in that unlikely event the Supreme Court would step in declaring the law unconstitutional.

As we look forward in time to the administration of Donald J. Trump, I urge everyone to remember something important: The President of the United States has very little absolute power. The only absolute power that a President does have is his/her ability to pardon, and to a lesser extent, initiate foreign policy.

President Obama was able to accomplish what he did in his eight years because he had like-minded people in control of Congress; he didn't do it on his own. His Executive Orders crossed lines of propriety in many respects, but the large majority of them stopped just shy of snubbing the Constitution of the United States.

Trump does have a Republican controlled Congress, but he does not have a Congress controlled by like-minded people. Unless he proves himself a much more capable leader than he presented during his run, it unlikely that he will ever get such a Congress, let alone a second term.

If you still feel the need to take refuge in Canada, that is entirely your decision; I understand that there are a couple people I'm acquainted with who are planning that move now. I do not condone such action, as I personally see it as a type of cowardice; however, neither will I condemn it in such broad strokes as to suggest that everyone holds my view. If your last act as a U.S. citizen is to run, then my response is "May your legs not grow weary, may your heart never faint, and may you find what you seek." To further clarify: If I were to run, I would consider myself a coward, for that is my personal standard; if others choose to run, I wish them the best.

But make no mistake: This is not the end.



NOTE: If you are a Christian, the following section is especially important.

How Christians Should Respond

As believers in Christ, we know the Bible tells us that we have not been given a spirit of fear, but of peace, and of love, and of a sound mind (2 Timothy 1:7). We are told that perfect love casts out all fear (1 John 4:18). We know that we are also told not to worry about what is to come (Luke 12:25-31), and that God is ultimately in control (Psalm 27:1; Romans 8:38-39; John 16:33). Finally, by way of reassurance, we are told that God exerts authority over our rulers (Proverbs 21:1).

We are also told that we are to be lights in a dark world (Matthew 5:14-16). Paul encourages us to live at peace with one another (Romans 12:18) and not to be a stumbling block to our brethren (1 Corinthians 8:9) or to anyone else (1 Corinthians 10:32)! We are also told to share in another's joy and in their sorrow (Romans 12:15), not to treat anyone as beneath us (Romans 12:16), and not to repay evil for evil (Romans 12:17).

Bearing all of these things in mind; taking into account that we as followers of Christ are to be His reflections on earth; factoring in that we who believe are often the only Gospel that some people will ever read; I believe it is our solemn and sacred duty to look at this time in history not as a burden, but as a time to shoulder the burdens of others. We ought not look upon these coming four years with fear, but with hope in our God, who alone can change and turn the hearts of men. We should not gloat over the despair and despondency of those who mourn, but seek to comfort, encourage and uplift them.

Doing anything less than this is to misrepresent Christ and place ourselves as a stumbling block before a world seeking Him- Though they know not what they seek.

In conclusion, Christians: We must behave and respond as Christ. He exemplified Isaiah 61:1, and promoted justice as Isaiah 1:17 said- He stood for the oppressed, championed the widow and provided for the orphan (even if symbolically). Christ then told His disciples, and by extension all who believe: "These things and more shall you do." (John 14:12) He did not say that we would do things He did not do and not do things He did; or more clearly stated, "some of these things and less." We are to follow His example- Period.

So let's start today by bringing hope to those in despair.

My Hate Speech

This is my official proclamation on where I stand on other religions, beliefs and issues. Though I do not make fun of anyone, or slander anyone, you'll notice that my opinions are very pronounced. Since I do not believe that any human on this planet will EVER see heaven without first knowing God, through Jesus Christ as their Savior, well... You can call this my hate speech.


Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist, etc.- All merely hold different views on our common beliefs. One Savior, born of a virgin, died as a sin sacrifice for all mankind, and rose again after three days in a tomb. He appeared to many people, eating with them even, and was taken up to Heaven in plain view of over a dozen witnesses. We believe He will return again in power and glory to take His people away prior to the destruction of the Earth. We believe that Jesus the Christ was the Son of God, and that the ONLY way to Heaven is through Christ.


Mormonism, Jehovah's Witness, Catholicism, etc.- All claim a form of Christ, but do not believe according to the Word of God.
Catholicism is really the only one that can swing both ways, as I know many proclaiming Catholics that truly do know Christ. However, I also know Catholics that do not know Christ as their Savior at all. They know Him as the figure on the cross and the traditions and religion make them feel they are doing something, makes them feel that they are earning their way to Heaven- It doesn't happen that way.

Catholics, Mary WAS NOT, IS NOT, and NEVER WILL BE holy, nor is she to be revered, nor is she to be deified. Her obedience should be admired, she was blessed certainly, and absolutely, she is a role model. But she is not the mother of God. She was the mother chosen by God. Saints are not meant to be worshiped, adored or prayed to. Icons are not meant to be revered, or worshiped.
These things are meant to be used, if you must, as aids of worship; Very much like a guitar, a hymnal or an organ. NOT to be revered. Frankly, they are going to hell if they do not trust Jesus Christ, ALONE, as their Lord and Savior.

Jehovah Witnesses are absolutely wrong in their beliefs. Great people, but dead wrong. There are so many issues I have with their beliefs, I really should not even begin right now. The idea that we are part of 44,000 JEWS is completely contradicted by the Bible. However, if we believe the literature of the Watch Tower, there are parts of the Bible that right, part of it that are wrong, and we are supposed to trust someone else to tell us which is which. Sadly, they are going to hell if they do not trust Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.

Mormonism is very much like Islam without the jihad. It was started by a drug addicted alcoholic who was having an ongoing affair on his wife. Only thing that didn't happen was the murderous rampage into the town that threw him out. However, to reduce Jesus to nothing more than a mortal who attained godhood is a slap in the face. To believe that MEN will eventually attain godhood also, provided that the right things are done, is foolish. To tell women that they are just as equal as men, when the actual belief states that women will spend the after life serving man-gods also makes all who recruit for this false religion liars.
The truth is, they are going to hell if they do not trust Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.


Islam is also a false belief. Something that political correctness refuses to do is tell the truth. Thus, I am being totally and completely politically incorrect when I say that they are misguided, misdirected and misinformed. It too was formed by a drug addicted alcoholic who had an affair with the wife of the towns ruler. Only difference here is that several years after being thrown out, this man came back and killed every member of the town except the wife- she he married.
There is no Allah, unless you are going with the literal translation which is "One God." Then, you would have to use it as a term in reference to Jesus Christ. However, they DO NOT consider Christ holy, merely a great prophet. They believe that Allah allowed His death upon the cross for attempting to claim godhood, and they do not believe He rose from the dead.
However, there is only ONE way to Heaven, it is Jesus Christ. You will not have 72 virgins, but you will have eternal life. There will never be a Heavenly reward for blowing oneself up. God hates murder, and wholesale murder is just not going to get around that.
I know a few Muslims, they are wonderful people, occasionally we talk, sometimes debate, religion, but they are going to hell if they do not trust Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.


Satanist, Wiccan, Witch, Pagan, etc. Hell is NOT a party. You will not drink the blood of Christians from their skulls. "Mother Nature" DID NOT create God, nor is it god. There IS NO GODDESS. Satan will not rise up and strike God down, nor will goddess Gaia strike down those who do not believe. You have no power but that which is given you. You are given it for as long as you are of use to Satan, and he WILL destroy you when you are of no further use. The ONLY way to stop this from happening is to renounce your sinful life and accept Christ's sacrifice on the cross. Renounce the dark lord, and make Him Lord of your life.
I have a few friends who fall into this category. Good people, but if you do not do this, you are going to hell.


Atheist, Maltheist, Hedonist, Agnostic, etc. There is a God and there is a Devil. There is a Heaven, and there is a Hell. You are not the end of all things, and you DO NOT control your own future. Granted, your decisions are your own, but they have already been seen by God, and have been planned on accordingly so His perfect will comes to pass. God IS NOT evil. He will allow hardship and tragedy but He IS NOT the source of the pain. He is a God of ORDER, not a God of CHAOS. Carnal pleasure IS NOT a means of worship, nor are any of your fleshly desires.
I know several folks who fit in this category and while I enjoy these people, they are going to hell if they do not trust Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.


Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual. You WERE NOT born this way. There are genes in each person that dictate whether a man will be more effeminate, and whether a woman will be more masculine, however- NO ONE IS BORN HOMOSEXUAL. This lifestyle is wrong, you are living in sin, and while God will take you where you are at, He WILL NEVER tell you it is all right to continue living this lifestyle. Anyone who HAS told you this has done you a disservice.
----->----->A Side-note to homosexual clergy: YOU ARE WRONG!!!! You are living in sin, you are leading your flocks into sin and you are damning yourselves and others. Listen carefully, you snakes and vipers- should you continue, and die in this transgression, THERE WILL BE NO MERCY FOR YOU on the day of judgment.
I have several gay friends and a couple of lesbian friends, as well as a few bi friends and family, and I love them all dearly. I have seen a couple turn from their wickedness, but sadly, the others are going to hell if they do not trust Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.


Democrat, Republican, Independent, etc. No, not one person will ever go to hell because of their party affiliation. However, you politicians. Your actions are watched and weighed and recorded. There will be a final day of reckoning for ALL mankind, and no diplomatic immunity, no political privilege, no special interest will bail you out. Even if you ARE a believer, you WILL have to answer for your decisions, because they SHAPED A COUNTRY.
YES, it matters if a politician has an affair. Yes, it matters if they are flamboyantly homosexual. (Barney Frank- Hell is paging.) Yes, it matters if he has had sex while on the job! (Bill Clinton? Seating for one in the lake of fire.)
---->---->Side-note to the President off the United States: Quite playing with fire, Mr. President. Israel is to be an ally at any cost. Look at the time line, sir, and tell me it isn't frightening that with each major departure from good standing with them, there is a corresponding natural disaster. You claim to be a Christian, and yet your actions of late have shown there to be little fruit. You claim a form of Christianity, Mr. President, and with all due respect, you will be one of the goats lest you change your ways. America will not go down because of you, sir, but America will watch your fall. It has already begun... Are you too blind to see it?
My examples, I'm sure, are nice people, with hopes and dreams for the future, and I'm sure we could find common ground. However, they are going to hell if they do not trust Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.


Pro-choice, Pro-abortion... Any who willingly and knowingly support abortion with the knowledge of what it truly is- YOU ARE MURDERERS. You kill innocent children; The most defenseless and frail humans on earth, and you destroy them for profit. Exorbitant profit. You claim that an abortion on a five month pregnant woman removes "tissue," yet if that same woman were killed by a drunk driver, he'd face two counts of negligent homicide. He did not intend to kill anyone, but you PLAN these out, scheduling them, deciding upon the best form of murder. You doctors are cold, merciless, serial killers. FACE THE TRUTH. CONFESS YOUR SIN. If you do not, you are going to hell.

Pro-life Those of you who block entrances, grab onto women, kill doctors and bomb clinics, listen to me: YOU ARE JUST AS EVIL AS THOSE YOU HARM! Being dragged away from a door does not make you a hero, but a fool. Being arrested for obstructing a women from her legal rights does NOT make you a martyr, but a moron. You who would kill doctors, you are not children of God, but of Satan. You who would bomb clinics, you are monsters- More so than those you bomb! God does NOT look with favor upon any of you! You do not glorify Him with your words or your actions, and as such you are shaming Him. REPENT!


Beastials, pedo- and necrophiliacs Not going into great detail here. Your actions are an abomination before the Lord, and those currently living this way- You are damned. Repent of your sin, seek accountability for your crimes... IT IS NOT TOO LATE to begin anew. Heed this warning, for you are going to hell if you do not trust Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior.


Non-Christians, anti-Christians Take a lesson from Rome. The more Christians you kill, brutalize, terrorize, harass or persecute, the more converts will be added to our number. You cannot stop God, nor can you be successful against His people. You may cut one down, but there will be ten in their place. Heed the warning.

Christians Let's Get Off Our Butts! The world is not saving itself, and people are going to hell by the millions. Stop bellyaching. Stop procrastinating. Stop complaining. Get out there and DO! The worst they can do is take our life- But we gave our life to God, so we've got NOTHING TO LOSE. If we continue to make excuses, we've got something to lose, and God's got something He isn't pleased with. We must examine ourselves carefully should we feel hesitant to witness- Nothing should stop us from sharing His Gift.



I'm sure there will be more to follow this later, but for right now, I think I've pissed off enough people. I know many, many people who fit into all these categories, and while I'm very accepting of them as people, they ARE going to hell, if Christ is not their Lord and Savior. Tiptoeing around the Truth will only get them more lost and you and I into trouble with the Almighty.


I do welcome your thoughts.

Philao~
RETS