"I'm going to rob the bank, then shoot the teller..."

---

(The original of this brochure by Randall A. Terry can be found, in pdf form, at http://www.ahumbleplea.com/Docs/StopObama.pdf. Since the Google text format of this appears scrambled, I offer the following full text of the pdf brochure, adding only the 2 images for visual reference.)

---

A debate has emerged among Catholics and Evangelicals as to whether or not a Christian may in good conscience vote for Obama for President.

Certain Evangelicals who declare themselves "born again," believe the Bible is the Word of God and are traditionally pro-life, have publicly embraced Obama's campaign for the Presidency. Certain Roman Catholics who say they are pro-life are likewise working for Obama, and claiming to do so in clear conscience.

Most Christians (from any Trinitarian Communion) will agree that our vote is a political expression of our faith and ethics; a part of how we integrate the Ten Commandments, the Sermon on the Mount, and the teachings of Christianity into public life. Hence, it is valid to question voting for Senator Obama in this election cycle; the principle of moral vs. immoral voting is germane in every election. For example; we can agree that no devout Christian could in clear conscience vote for an avowed racist who wanted to reinstitute slavery, even if we agreed with him on other issues that were important to us.

The core question in this debate is this: can a Christian vote with a clear conscience for a candidate who supports legalized abortion?

I will answer this question with three simple illustrations. You be the judge if the morals and logic stand true.

Case #1:

I am in my car at a red light, and a man comes up to my window and says: "Hi. Could you please give me a ride to the bank? I have some banking to do and my car just broke down."

I say, "Sure. Hop in..." and take him to the bank. As I am leaving, to my horror I see him pull a mask over his face, draw a gun from his pocket, and enter the bank.

Gunshots and screams fill the air, and the man I drove to the bank comes running out - after he murdered the banker, and stole all the money he could carry. He flees successfully.

The question is: did I sin by giving this murderer and robber a ride to the bank?

The answer is: no. I did not sin, because I did not know his intent.

Case #2:

I am at a traffic light, and a man comes up to my window and says, "Excuse me; I'm going to rob the bank, then shoot the teller so that he won't be able to testify against me at trial if I get caught. Would you please give me a ride to the bank?"

I say, "Sure, hop in..." and give him a ride to the bank, and he fulfills his promise.

Given those facts, have I participated in the sin of theft and murder?

The answer is: yes. In the eyes of God, and in the eyes of any court of law, I would be guilty of participating in the sin (and crime) of murder and robbery, because I knew his intent.

Some say, "But Obama is not actually killing children. He is only supporting laws permitting abortion; he is not the abortionist killing the child." Good point. Let me give the third illustration.

Case #3:

I am at a traffic light, and a man comes up to my window and says, "I have a friend who intends to rob the bank and shoot the bank teller. I want to keep him out of trouble, so I promised to watch out for him while he commits the crime. If a policeman comes, I will distract him so that my friend won't get caught. Will you please take me to the bank?"

I say, "Sure. Hop in..." and take him to the bank. (On the way over, we discuss how neither of us could ever rob a bank or murder a bank teller.) We arrive and see the thief/murderer drive up, exit his car, cover his face, draw his weapon, and enter the bank.We hear screams and gunshots.Within seconds, a policeman emerges on foot from around the corner with his gun drawn, looking anxiously for assailants or victims.

The man I gave a ride to plays his role perfectly. He jumps out of my car, yelling and pointing; "I just saw a man running down that alley with a gun in his hand and a bag he brought out of the bank!" The policeman takes the bait, and runs down the alleyway, vainly chasing a villain who is not there.

The murderer emerges from the bank, glances over at his friend (my passenger), nods appreciatively, gets into his car, and escapes.

Given these facts, have I participated in the sin of robbery and murder?

The answer is: yes. Because I knew the intent of the accomplice and I helped him and his friend accomplish the crime, I became an accomplice; I participated in the sin (and crime) of robbery and murder.

Which brings us to voting for Obama...

First of all, abortion is murder, a violation of God's commandment, "You Shall not Murder."

At the very least, Obama is an aggressive accomplice of child-killers. He has declared his intention to keep child-killing (abortion) legal; to help child-killers murder the innocent with impunity. He has pledged to sign the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) if elected, and to appoint judges to the Supreme Court that will uphold Roe vs. Wade.

Obama boasts a 100% pro-abortion voting record; he is in FAVOR of partial birth abortion, and he opposed a bill in Illinois that would require medical care for a late term baby that survives an abortion.

Let the full weight of that sink in: if a late term baby girl is aborted, and survives the attempt on her life, Senator Obama OPPOSES that doctors be required to give that resilient new-born fighter the medical care that would save her life.

Such devotion to the Angel of Death defies all decency.

The fact that Obama doesn't suck the bodies and blood of innocent human beings out of their mother's wombs, or carve out their mutilated corpses with his own hands is irrelevant. By working to continue this holocaust, he is an accomplice to the murder of innocent pre-born children - like the accomplice to theft and murder in the illustrations above.

And if we vote for Obama knowing his intent to help murder millions of children, we too are accomplices in the sin of child-killing.

The accusations of this logic being "extreme," or "single issue driven" or "insensitive to the common good" are chaff in the wind. Let the proponents of voting for Obama for "the common good" make their shameful argument before a mountain of dead children. Or better yet: let them use their perversion of "the common good" to justify voting for a proponent of slavery. Such reasoning would appear as cruel and idiotic concerning slavery as it is for child-killing.

Don't be deceived. You know that abortion is murder. If you vote for Obama, you will betray innocent blood. And future generations who escaped Obama and his accomplices to murder will curse your memory for your part in slaying their sisters, brothers, cousins, classmates, neighbors, friends, spouses, bishops, pastors, teachers, doctors, priests, babysitters, policemen, firemen, engineers, and more. Do you really want their blood on your hands?

He who declares that it is immoral for a Christian to vote for Obama is not mistaken; rather, he is mistaken who declares it is not.

Randall A. Terry
Founder, Operation Rescue
Feast of St. Peter and St. Paul 2008

"When a parliamentary or social majority decrees that It is legal, at least under certain conditions, to kill unborn human life, is it not really making a 'tyrannical' decision with regard to the weakest and most defenseless of human beings?... In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or vote for it... The moral gravity of procured abortion is apparent in all its truth if we recognize we are dealing with murder."

- John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae

Law-abiding criminals

"...you will be dragged before governors and kings..."  - Mt. 10:18a RSV

The two posts below entitled "Pro-life strike: It's the law" and "Pro-life strike: It is the law" made the point that a pro-life strike or tax resistance movement is not unlawful. Indeed, we must obey God's Law, and if that means running afoul of human government, so be it.

Pro-life warrior Mick Hunt has, without intending to, become the target of an unjust kangaroo court for his pro-life activities. Mick's "offence" was in manning large, provocative visual displays of abortion through the Genocide Awareness Project (GAP). The First Amendment legality of such public displays has been well established, but, in one instance, a human judge has opined that Hunt et. al. are guilty of illegal trespassing. Read more here. I have not yet heard whether an appeal is planned. (Later Note: An appeal is planned, as clarified by Mick in the first reader comment for this post.)

Mick's blog details many such GAP displays, and the impact they are having upon consciences. (Most are without legal incident.) Mick has also written about conscience and unjust laws in an article entitled "Resistance v. Collaboration.

David Little, by contrast, has deliberately challenged the Canadian laws regarding abortion and taxes. You can read more about his pro-life work in the "David Little" post below, or at his website. The legal story is found at this web page. He is currently preparing for a decisive appeal scheduled for Oct. 24, 2008. Please pray for a favorable outcome.

What's my point? Well, first of all, pray for these two pro-life men and their respective battles against an ungodly system. Secondly, acknowledge that such as these are to be respected for their courage and principled stand. And then, recognizing the state of our culture and our legal system, consider that their examples are to be emulated.

Voting matters - 2

When I wrote the "Grassroots nudges" post a few weeks ago, its main theme was supposed to be on moving our culture's center of gravity by small personal nudges. The parenthetical reference to election year personalities spurred a rather lively political debate that continued on to the next two posts. The two main viewpoints offered were
 1) Vote for the Constitution Party, as it is the most truly pro-life and Christian platform.
 2) Such a vote is useless, since the Constitution Party will never win.

Unfortunately, the proponents of the first view stayed on the comments page of the "Grassroots nudges" post, while the latter group moved on to the next post, so they weren't hearing each other. I think both sides had something important to say, and there seemed to be more salient points to add for both viewpoints, but when I tried to get them on the same page (literally), the debate petered out. (sigh)

So, here is a post specifically dedicated to this year's election, coming down to the wire. The "Baldwin 2008" icon & link at upper left gives you a good idea of my opinion. Moreover, the Jan. 23 post entitled "Voting matters" still reflects my general approach to voting. But I remain open to other viewpoints. Present a logical refutation either against the principles outlined in the original "Voting matters" post, or, using those principles, tell me of a better way to vote. But hurry, time is short!

Pro-life boycott

I just received a mass-mailed email urging a boycott of the new U.S. one dollar coin, because this coin omits the long-standing motto "In God We Trust".

I am a big fan of boycotts. My current (somewhat radical) stance started out several years ago with a boycott of corporate sponsors of Planned Parenthood, as proposed by the people at Life Decisions International (LDI). These folks, as their work and ministry, investigate and report in a fair and balanced manner those corporations which donate to or support Planned Parenthood (PP). Subscribers to this LDI boycott list can then respond accordingly. For example, since Johnson & Johnson is on the LDI list, you would buy Curad bandages and Oral-B dental floss rather than the Johnson & Johnson products, writing to the CEO of Johnson & Johnson to politely indicate this. Ditto for Microsoft, eBay, Time Warner, Walt Disney, and a slew of other corporate PP sponsors. (Some non-profits also support PP. See, for example, the "Pink deception" post below). As a result, many corporations have dropped their support for PP, and that becomes a significant blow to the abortion juggernaut in both financial and public image terms.

As noted elsewhere, this evolved for me into a way to purify other pro-life efforts and prayers. The corporate boycott became a way to avoid even indirect material participation in the crime of abortion. In simple language: Why pray for life, and then pay for death? By the same logic, why voluntarily surrender tax dollars that will fund PP, abortions, or embryonic stem cell research? Thus, the idea of a pro-life strike or pro-life tax resistance. Search this blog for "Pro-life strike", and read about David Little's tax resistance efforts in the previous post.

Here's my point: It is indeed laudable to want to retain the "In God We Trust" motto on U.S. currency. But even more importantly, let's take that motto to heart, and take to heart not only "Render to Caesar..." but also the companion command "Render to God...". That is, let us begin to pay attention to how our dollars are spent, and make a serious effort to defund the ways in which our money kills innocent human lives and blasphemes the motto that we revere.

If you are not yet ready to engage in full-fledged strike or tax resistance efforts, at least you might prayerfully consider entering into a boycott that is already engaged, has yielded some concrete results, and may yield more, with your cooperation. Call the LDI people at (540) 631-0380. Get their PP boycott list, and start making a real difference.

O, by the way, it is reported that the new coin does indeed contain the revered motto, but this time on the coin's edge.

David Little

Two posts ago, ("Pro-life strike: nudge"), I lamented that the idea of a pro-life strike or pro-life tax resistance movement seemed to be "a microscopic nudge at present, practiced by very few". Then I offered a prayer that, if the idea were pleasing to God, "may the nudge continue, and by Your grace and Spirit, grow". I also mentioned in that post a certain David Little in Canada as the only other active pro-life tax resister that I knew of.

Shortly thereafter, to my joy and surprise, that same David Little saw my humble blog post and contacted me. This led to some long conversations and reading in which I have learned much about the man. I am happy to now report that, not only is Mr. Little a fellow pro-life tax resister, he may be the very epitome of that term. Even more importantly, his prayerful efforts may represent the makings of what I had prayed for: the dawning of a real movement (maybe even an eventual "tsunami"!). All in God's will and pleasure.

Mr. Little's approach has been more aggressive than mine, refusing to pay taxes, and letting the Canadian government officials know exactly why. As a result, he is currently facing trial, but is starting to attract some individuals to stand with him in the fight. Among other public statements is this one:

I have made it clear publicly for more than 20 years that I would rather suffer imprisonment than voluntarily surrender money to any person or institution who would use even the smallest portion of my money to perpetrate murder on any human being.

In 2004, David founded the St. Thomas More Society of Canada (STMS) "to raise resources of both persons and funds to take pro-active measures against the government of Canada, legally and politically; to end tax funded abortion in the short term, and to reverse the legality of all abortion in the long term."

Do I hear an "Amen!"? Or a "Yes!"?

Can we dare to pray and work for this in the U.S. as well as in Canada?

The above are just a couple highlights. Chances are I'll be writing more about David Little and STMS. Meanwhile, you can learn more at the STMS website. See especially David's remarkable story and his legal case.