Vol. I, Issue 2 (c) John Brockhoeft (5th Anniversary), Federal Prison, Ashland

They're always going around saying nice things about me!

Dear Friends,

Have you ever stopped to consider how strange are left-wing, liberal types? They hate
my guts, on the one hand, but they're always going around saying nice things
about me, never bad things. It's a weird situation. I'm a Christian, so I have to be loving;
but killing babies is an injustice of such magnitude and desperation that I feel
compelled to revile it and even the people who do it. Yet the liberals, who know nothing of
genuine love, who hate my guts, say only nice things about me! Some things
they say are small compliments. It's embarrassing for me to admit it because I don't
want to seem lacking in humility, but the nice little things they say about me are all
absolutely true: I'm a very narrow-minded, intolerant, reactionary, Bible-thumping
fundamentalist. Nothing wrong with that is there? But some of the compliments
liberals pay me are so wonderful that I'd never dare to say such things about myself
because I'd sound like the world's worst egomaniac: they call me a zealot and a
fanatic! My reaction to them: "Hey, thanks a lot, pal, I think you're a fanatic, too!"
Here I should note that when they say these things they say them in a tone as though
they are meant to be insults! They hate me, but they say nice things about me, but they
say these things as though insulting! It's all very confusing.

To make things more confusing some folks who are on my side, prolifers, act like
they don't like being called these things. They're scared to death the media might call
them "narrow-minded" or "intolerant" or "zealots." Why? Because they've all been
assimilated, at least a little bit, into the new, dominant, liberal culture, and nowadays
these terms are thought to carry negative connotations. The idea of negativism being
attached to these terms is so prevalent that I must warn you that the statement I'm
about to make concerning Almighty God is made in all reverence without fear of
blaspheming. Think about it:

The Lord, Himself, is narrow-minded

(such and such things are absolutely wrong, and other such and such things are
absolutely right). Also, is God not intolerant? Hasn't He forbidden homosexuality,
murder, adultery, etc.? Hasn't he vowed to send all those who do these things,
unrepentantly, to hell?

Why, then, should our people want to avoid being said to be a little like the Lord?
When the other side says, "Oh, Brockhoeft, you're so narrow- minded!" -- I resemble
that remark. If I'm wrong tell me if I'm right.

The "church" in America is nearly dead.

If you ever try to discuss issues with someone from the other side you'll be struck by
a startling truth: They are just as narrow-minded as we are! The only difference
is that we're narrow-minded and right, and they're narrow-minded and wrong.

And intolerance? What arrogance they have to call us intolerant! They are intolerant of
every good and decent thing. They're intolerant of the right to own and bear arms,
the right of free speech (for our people), freedom of peaceful assembly (for our
people); they're intolerant of pre-born children, prayer, and Bible quotations. Would
you like to tell public school children that sodomy is a sin and socially
unacceptable? You must be out of your mind! The leftists won't tolerate that.
Would you like to teach these same kids that they should practice chastity before
marriage? Intolerable! You can't even hint such a thing. The "church" in America
is nearly dead. Unless we become more assertive and aggressive, unless we can
revive some zeal in her, soon, she will die, and our country with her.

Why in the world do left-wing liberals think we should hang our heads when they
call us "zealots?" What else is there for a genuine Christian to be besides a zealot?
What's the opposite of zealotry? Lukewarmness, isn't it? The Bible says lukewarmness
is the thing to be ashamed of, not zealotry.

Revelation 3:16--
"...because you are lukewarm--neither hot nor cold--I am about to spit you out of
my mouth." (NIV)

But in the midst of all this liberal weirdness, do you know what the one name they
call us is that really boggles my mind? "Do-gooders!" "Do-gooders," they sniff,
sarcastically, as though we should feel insulted! Don't these ignorant left-wingers
know the definition of such a simple word as "good?" What are these people talking
about? Do they mean that they'd like us better if we did fewer good things and more
bad things? What is this, the Twilight Zone or something? Would someone please
wake me up when we get back to the real world? The upshot of all this is that, hey,
when they call you something like "narrow-minded" or "intolerant" don't worry
about it. Hold your head up, look 'em right in the eye, and say, "Thank you! The
same to you!" When they call you a "do-gooder," though, you can't return the

* * * *


Narrow-mindedness: the feeling of certainty that one has discovered truth and
unwillingness to turn aside from one's creed. Narrow-mindedness = faithfulness.
It must be a sad thing not to be narrow-minded, not to be committed, not to have
a firm foundation.
The sensitive reader will have noticed that the first section of this issue was written,
mostly, with tongue in cheek. So if anyone laughed at how I made fun of the
left-wingers in part one, I want it understood that I'm here putting al kidding aside
and hope to be taken seriously.

Many years ago, but well within my lifetime, the leftists had thoroughly infiltrated
and taken control of the public education system. Consequently, their teaching of
American history, today, is false. I'm 42, and anyone in my age group or older knows
the truth:

The U.S. was founded by Christians on Christian principles.

The 56 signers of the Declaration were nearly all Christians and devout members
of mainstream denominations. I'm fond of referring to Thomas Jefferson. I really
admire him. Today's liberals, in an attempt to undermine our nation's roots in
Christianity, will tell you, "Oh, but Jefferson was a deist!" See how stupid these
people are? Are liberals the only people who don't know what the word "deist"
means? It means, literally, "a believer in God." I'm just a dumb ol' Protestant
who never studied Latin, but I know that much! They call Jefferson a deist as
though they think it means he was an atheist. Atheist was totally unheard of among
our founding fathers; there was not one atheist among them. With, perhaps, only
two exceptions, they were all devout Christians. The remaining two or three were
deists. They still, at least, believed in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. So the
term "deist," then, was used to distinguish those very few who, though they believed
in God, The Father, remained uncertain of the divinity of His Son, Jesus Christ.
It should be noted, too, that Jefferson experienced a conversion later in life and died
a devoted Christian.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident"

In 1776 an ad hoc committee gave to Jefferson the responsibility of writing up the
formal Declaration of Independence which gave birth to our nation. He could have
chosen to word the document in any number of ways. For example, he could have
written, "We hold these opinions to be fairly reasonable..." That would have been
the (ha ha) broad-minded thing to say, wouldn't it? But Jefferson? Oh, no. Unh unh.

He had to go and write, "We hold these truths to be self-evident..." (emphasis
added). What? Truths? You mean "truths" as in facts? That's pretty narrow-minded,
isn't it? What? Self-evident truths? Why, that's the height of arrogant
narrow-mindedness, isn't it? Of course it is. That's why I like the Declaration so well.

Thomas Jefferson is one of my heroes. I want to be as narrow-minded as was he.
So it is in the spirit of 1776, the spirit of common sense and justice, and also in the
desperate spirit of 1993 that I submit the two following self-evident truths to our
readers. To avoid the appearance of haughty egotism I want quickly to point out that
these two ideas did not originate with me. Earlier Americans proclaimed them
long before I was born. And yet these two self-evident truths seem so largely forgotten,
so completely overlooked, even by most members of the prolife community,
that I feel almost as though I'm heralding them for the first time. Anyone who recognizes
the self-evidency of these truths will notice, immediately, that there is simply
no way the prolife movement ever will triumph until its members believe these things,
assume the attitudes attendant on these beliefs, and act accordingly.

Abortion is absolutely illegal. The Roe v. Wade decision did not alter the
legal status of abortion in any way. It didn't make abortion "sort of" legal.
Child slaughter has remained completely illegal all along.

2. The abortions committed in the U.S. today are not murders, they are worse
than murders.
They are war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The feature that distinguishes today's abortions from ordinary murder is "government"
sponsorship. The most benevolent societies always have had, nevertheless, a few
isolated individuals who would kill, but we trust government to protect us, all of us.
But whenever any form of government sets aside certain innocent civilians
and participates in their willful slaughter, then the crime has gone beyond ordinary
murder. This is more horrifying than murder. Sometimes we hear prolifers
call abortion "war on the preborn," but they seem to be saying it as a metaphor. But
it is not just a metaphor; it is the actual truth!

Since Roe v. Wade every act of abortion has been an act of unjust war,
a shameful war crime, an act of de facto war!

In 1947 the U.S. government believed so firmly in the two above mentioned principles
that it hung several men by their necks until they were dead. The criminals had
killed people of all ages, but the judges specifically cited abortion, the killing of the
preborn, among their crimes. If you want documentation of this, examine the
Nuremberg proceedings and look up Allied Control Order #10. How quickly we forget.
Abortion is illegal in every way. It is forbidden by the law of God; it is
forbidden by the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; it is forbidden by the
Declaration of Independence and by the natural law. The natural law is more forceful
than laws written in books even when the two are in agreement. Our own common sense
upholds the validity of the natural law which says you can't go around killing members
of your own species. Even animals in their natural habitat, governed by instincts,
understand that. The natural law says one human being cannot kill another innocent
human being. That's an irreversible natural law; that's the truth, and truth is eternal.
We can greatly rejoice in the wisdom of that founding father, Thomas Jefferson. The
Declaration of Independence clearly upheld and proclaimed the validity of natural
law. It was the legal document upon which the United States of America was founded
and which defined what the new nation was all about.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal;
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that
among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...that whenever
any form of government becomes destructive of these ends it is the right of
the people to alter or abolish it..."

Please focus with me on two of these points: the inalienability of the right to life and the
illegitimacy of any government which denies it.

When reading the Declaration, the meaning of the word "inalienable" is obvious by the
context in which it is used, but I wanted to look up the exact dictionary definition.
The root word, of course, is "lien" -- just like when a banker lends you money to buy a
car and puts a lien on your car. A lien is a legal claim to ownership of something that
is, presently, in someone else's possession. If something is inalienable then it is impossible,
legally, to transfer ownership from the original owner to anyone else. The banker can put
a lien on your car, but he can't legally put a lien on your life. Nobody can. And no
government can pass a law or issue a decree making it legally possible for anyone to take
your life away.

If such a "law" were enacted, the "law" itself would be illegal; and since there could
be no such thing as an illegal law, the thing wouldn't be a law at all. It wouldn't just
be a bad law -- it wouldn't be a law at all. As St. Thomas Aquinas wrote long ago, when
man-made laws deviate from the laws of nature, they are

"no longer law but a perversion of law," and "are acts of violence rather than laws...
because an unjust law is no law at all."

At the very first moment a legislative body would pretend to enact such a thing, or at the
very moment a judicial body would issue such a decree (such as Roe v. Wade), two things
would happen:

1. The "law" itself would become null and void; and,

2. The "government" that pretended to pass it would become illegal.

This is what Jefferson meant when he wrote: "...that whenever any form of government
becomes destructive of these ends it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it...
" So whenever a government pretends to have the authority to pass a law which allows
the shedding of innocent blood, and blood is actually shed, then that "government"
has, itself, become illegal. In such a terrible scenario, here again, there could be no
such thing as an illegal government. It wouldn't be just a bad government; it wouldn't
be any kind of genuine government, but an entirely criminal organization. Such is the
cartel in Washington, DC, today; but such is not the wonderful form which the founding
fathers passed down to us Americans as our heritage. Those ungodly, unbelieving left-wingers
in Washington have forfeited not only the moral but also the legal authority to rule us.
They have only power, as in fire power, but they have neither legal, nor moral, authority.

Nowhere does the U.S. Constitution say anything about women having a right to
abortion, but it does say their babies have a right to live.

The 14th amendment says,

"...nor shall any state deprive any person of life...without due process of law."
In a case such as putting someone to death -- "without due process of law" means,
simply, that if someone is charged with a capital crime for which he could be sentenced to
death and executed, he must first get a fair trial through "due process." At the time the
Constitution was written it was naturally felt that it need not be said that you cannot
arbitrarily kill any innocent human being, such as a baby. Of course you can't do that!

Another principle of the Constitution is found in the intent to establish a balance
of power within government by giving to the Congress the exclusive right to legislate,
to pass new laws. No doubt you're aware that the "government" pretends abortion is
legal as a result of the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision of January 23,
1973. But the Supreme Court has no legislative powers; only Congress can do that,
and Congress has never passed such a law. Again, as we've already shown, even
the Congress has no authority to pass such a law as that.

Here I want to apologize to the readers for seeming to insult their intelligence. I realize
I'm rambling on and on about this one point -- the illegality of abortion -- but I
consider it of such urgency that I want to frame it in the most indisputable terms,
leaving no stone unturned. I consider this matter to be absolutely essential to
maintaining a proportionately proper attitude of opposition to child-killing. You'd
be surprised at how many prolifers, even activists, actually believe abortion is legal. I
groan in despair every time I hear a prolifer use the expression "legal abortion" because
I know there is no hope for such a mild attitude ever to be triumphant over the
criminals. Perhaps you know a prolifer who thinks abortion is presently legal. You can
use the points I've outlined in this issue to prove your position and toughen the
prolifer up. Though I am belaboring the point, please, let me keep your attention.
The only other matter I want to pursue in the attempt to prove that abortion is already
illegal is with a brief explanation of natural law and a couple illustrations to prove
this law is valid. Natural laws cannot be reversed. In science there are physical laws
of nature, e.g., the law of gravity: what goes up must come down. But there are
spiritual natural laws, too, and in this discussion we're concerned only with the
spiritual realm. The natural laws says you can't just go around killing innocent
victims. That's automatically illegal. Natural laws include those few things which
are so basically right or so fundamentally and obviously wrong that they govern human
behavior as certainly as gravity governs the behavior and direction of a falling object.
Natural laws are self-enacting, unrepealable, eternal, and binding on all human
society. They are valid and operable even in the absence of parallel, written, man-made
laws and even in the presence of human laws to the contrary. Imagine, for
example, the following illustration.

Imagine that your own flesh and blood brother, or your best friend, or
anyone you dearly love became an aerospace engineer and got involved
with another rocket scientist in a private-enterprise, lunar project. Bear in
mind, now, this is a private project not sponsored by N.A.S.A. or any government
agency, so when they blast off and leave the earth they don't have to be accountable
to anyone but each other and God. Now suppose they go to the moon. They're the
only two people on the moon. Nobody lives there. There's no government there nor
any written laws. No nation on earth exercises jurisdiction over the moon nor even
claims jurisdiction. Despite all these factors, wouldn't it be illegal for the other astronaut
to murder the one you love? Of course it would! That's natural law. At all times, and
everywhere, it's illegal to murder.

Mankind doesn't inhabit the moon, but the Lord is there and everywhere. The Lord is
the Author of natural law, so it is illegal to commit murder anytime, anywhere.

Nether the U.S. Supreme Court, nor Congress, nor any human government can validly
reverse the natural law. They have no more power to repeal spiritual natural law
than to reverse the physical laws of nature. Let me offer just one more illustration,
a ridiculous one. The ridiculousness of the following scenario is intentional, to
make a point.

Imagine that all 537 members of Congress voted for, and passed, a law saying
that if anyone jumped off the Golden Gate Bridge they would not fall. Not just
that they were not allowed to fall but that they actually would not fall! Then
suppose, even, that all nine Supreme Court members approved the law.

Can anyone imagine that the "government" has it within their power to pass
such a law and for the law to be operable? Of course not. Everybody knows if
someone goes to the rail the day after this "law" goes into "effect" and jumps,
that the jumper will fall.

By the same virtue, how, then, can anyone believe any legislative or judicial body has it
within their power to make it legal to kill babies? Ridiculous! Everybody knows these
little ones are human beings, people, the same as the rest of us. They are not just potential
human beings. They're not moderately human beings. They are absolutely human beings,
the same as the rest of us. Therefore, anything that applies to innocent human
beings, in general, also applies equally to them. You can't just go around killing innocent
people; it's automatically illegal; you can't legally kill babies. Abortion is illegal,
absolutely illegal, already illegal, always has been and always will be. Everywhere.
Any political power which fails to acknowledge this ceases to be any kind of
legitimate government. It is nothing more than a criminal entity which has forfeited its
moral and legal right to exercise authority over anyone. Once this becomes
generally accepted by the (presently) moderate prolife movement then, perhaps, it
will be able to shed some of the moderation it its attitude and take the first step
toward becoming an absolutist, uncompromising anti-abortion movement.

What preborn American babies do not need is a nice, polite, moderate prolife movement.

What the babies need is a tough, unbending anti-abortion movement. I'm sorry to say it
because I love everyone in the movement, but there are elements of moderation
(read: compromise) among us. You can't have a right attitude about abortion without
having the right attitude toward the babies.

                                                     NOT EVERY PEACE IS A GENUINE PEACE

If abortion is not legal then what is it? Is it murder? No, it's worse. Murder is the killing
of an innocent person which is forbidden by the state, but whenever a sovereign government
sanctions the slaughter of innocent civilians and participates in the crimes, it is a war crime
and a crime against humanity. Historically, the United States has upheld this principle by its
participation in the famous Nuremberg Trials. Shortly after World War II an international
tribunal, including U.S. Attorney Jackson, brought to trial former "officials" of the defeated
Nazi Germany in Nuremberg. On the witness stand one Nazi criminal testified:

"But our judges assured us that this was legal, that it was quite legal,"

referring to the slaughter of Jews, gypsies, union members, unborn children, and
others. But the international panel of judges said it was not legal. They put the
criminals on trial, convicted them, and hung them, insisting that the hangings were
not a violation of ex post facto principle because the slaughter of innocent civilians
had already been illegal at the time the crimes were committed. The judges said when
the Nazis singled out certain groups of civilians and killed them it was already illegal
because Germany, though a sovereign nation when the war began, did not, could not,
have the authority to legalize murder. No government has such authority. It should be
emphasized that during the Nuremberg proceedings Attorney General Jackson referred
to abortion, specifically, as "a war crime and a crime against humanity." Abortions
committed as a "choice" for East European and Jewish women were prosecuted under
Allied Control Order #10 as "war crimes"."

Every abortion is an act of aggressive, unjust warfare that defiles our land and incurs
the wrath of God against us. When Christian Americans accept this they'll be able to
shed more of their moderation, perhaps all, and will be poised to assume the position
where we can actually win the war. Then, and only then, will we be able to show the
zeal and passion necessary to uproot and tear down this abomination in our midst.

* * * * * *

Click for NEXT PAGE for Chapter 3

Back to Brockhoeft Select Page.  

Back to Army of God Home Page.  

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.


Telephone 1-757-685-1566

Pro-Life Virginia