THE BROCKHOEFT REPORT
Vol. I, Issue IV ...... Federal Prison, Ashland ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
"The journal for narrow-minded, intolerant, absolutist anti-abortionists - just like you
and me. And if anybody else doesn't like it, that's tough." Joe Bartlett.
My friends who have known me a while mistakenly think I have a better sense of
humor than is the actual case. A couple days ago I got a letter from Bryan Myers, a
producer of ABC's "Nightline", asking me to take part in a debate on the use of force
against abortion. He said my friend Mike Bray had referred him to me. I called Mike's
home to hear his side. While talking to Jayne, his wife, I said: "They probably want to
interview me because they know I'll tell the truth, and it'll sound funny." Jayne laughed
and laughed, so I didn't tell her I was meaning to be serious and not kidding around.
I like to make my friends laugh and don't mind at all that they sometimes laugh the most
heartily at me when I'm being serious. Truth, by virtue of being true, is always merely
reasonable, never radical, but it can sound radical when proclaimed in a predominantly
left-wing, liberal culture.
AN APOLOGY AND OFFER OF CONSOLATION TO
WOMEN WHO HAVE HAD ABORTIONS
The Brockhoeft Report is full of red-meat rhetoric because its text is calculated to
provoke an emotional response. It breaks hearts and has been known to bring tears
to grown men, convicted felons. With every paragraph I write I sit here and wonder
how people will react, how they will feel upon reading these reports. So sometimes
I'm very sad when I imagine how my words will effect the women among my readers
who have made this unfortunate mistake. It would tear me up if I knew I had made a
woman cry; but I must tell the truth, the whole truth; because our Church and our nation
are embroiled in an emergency situation. Nevertheless, it is never my intention to call to
repentance women who are already repentant, such as those among my readers who have
written and shared their stories of how they confessed their sin to the Lord and came to
know His saving grace. Hopefully all of my female readers with abortions in their pasts
now know Jesus as their Savior.
But I've heard sadder stories still. I've heard of cases of aborted women who felt such
a burden of guilt that they were afraid to approach God. They believed their sin
was too great for God to forgive. This is a lie right out of hell. That's what the devil
wants you to believe. A woman who has had an abortion has done a terrible thing,
but we've all done terrible things, myself included.
There is none righteous, no, not one. (Rom 3:10)
The Lord wills to forgive these things and save us from our sins. He waits to hear
If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins,
and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. (1 John 1:9)
But when you go to Him in prayer to confess and seek forgiveness don't make excuses.
Then I acknowledged my sin to You and did not cover up my iniquity.
I said: "I will confess my transgressions to the Lord" -- and you forgave the
guilt of my sin. (Ps. 32:5, NIV)
Jesus is the Lamb of God, the Christ whose blood was shed as an atonement (covering) for our sins.
If you confess with your mouth: "Jesus is Lord,", and believe in your heart that God raised
Him from the dead, you will be saved. (Rom 10:9 NIV) For whosoever shall
call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. (Rom 10:13 KJV) Jesus says to you:
Come unto me all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall
find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light. (Mat 11:28-30) and
Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.
Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they
shall be filled. (Mat 5:3-6)
Even before the coming of Christ the prophet Isaiah was inspired to say:
"Come now, let us reason together," says the LORD.
"Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow;
though they are red as crimson, they shall be like wool." (Is 1:18 NIV)
Finally, some of the very last words on the last page of the Bible say,
The Spirit and the bride say, "Come!" And let him who hears say,
"Come!" Whoever is thirsty, let him come; and whoever wishes,
let him take the free gift of the water of life."
So go ahead and confess your mistakes to the Lord, because the truth is: He is a good
God, loving, tender-hearted and merciful, and He will forget about your sins.
"For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more."
(Jer 31:34 and Heb 10:17)
Perhaps you've never prayed and don't know how to initially approach God; but it's
not hard, especially not since He has sent His Son as a sacrifice for our sins. So
here I'll give a little example prayer. Take a look at it and if it expresses the feeling of
your own heart you can go ahead and pray the same words and not worry that
someone else selected them for you.
"Do ye look on things after the outward appearance?" (2 Cor 10:7) "...that ye man...
answer them which glory in appearance, and not in heart." (2 Cor 5:12)
Dear Lord, I confess to you that my sins are many and great. But I choose right here
and now to put my faith in the power of Jesus' blood to atone for my sins. I thankfully
receive the gift of forgiveness and salvation You have freely offered me. I'll do my best
to please You from now on, but even if I stumble I will never stop believing in Your
willingness to show me mercy. I ask your forgiveness in Jesus' name. Amen.
THE ARMY OF GOD MUST BE SEMPER FIDELIS
In July, 1990, I finished the thirty month federal sentence for transporting unregistered
explosives to Florida and was reindicted for the firebombings in Cincinnati. The
following month I was interviewed by an attorney whose career is devoted to
defending Christians persecuted for their faith. The purpose of the interview was to
help him decide whether to become involved in my case. At one point, the deciding
point, he asked: "Do you have any information about other individuals that could help
your case?" Astonished, I replied: "What? Do you mean: do I have information I could
give the government in exchange for leniency?"
I, also, answered with a certain motion of my head and added: "But it doesn't
matter; I would offer my blood to be shed, and die, before I would betray my friends."
At this he visibly flinched, jerking his head as though a hornet had buzzed him; smiled;
and cried: "Okay, John, I'll defend you!"
We've been friends ever since.
It is with a heavy heart I report the loss of two very dear friends since the last issue,
one to a prison cell, the other to heaven. So actually the one locked up isn't
entirely lost to us. I thank God Shelley Shannon is still alive. I'll have much more
to say of her later. But for now let me write of Barb Desborough (1931-1993) to
whom this issue of TBR is dedicated. We'll see you someday, sister.
I first met Barb on December 28, 1985. Yes, it was the same day I described in
the first issue of this journal, that bitterly cold day when Melody Green led a massive
demonstration on the sidewalk in front of Planned Parenthood in Cincinnati. You
may recall there were seven little caskets of seven little slaughtered babies lying
naked and open to the bitter wind on the sidewalk across the street. Barb was
distraught and crying over the babies, but no one comforted her. On the one hand
she was a member of the opposite sex and a stranger. but on the other hand she was
older enough to be my mother and something about her down-to-earthness made me
comfortable, so I patted her on the shoulder and said:
"Don't worry, we're going to stop this wickedness. It won't go on much longer."
I'd already decided to destroy P.P.'s building before the weekend was over. Although
Barb had only met me that very moment, she seemed to understand. She said:
"Yes, but what will I do when all you young people are in prison, and I'm out
here all alone?"
She was acknowledged as the best at handling the media and was a great organizer.
She served on the board of health in Cincinnati for many years.
Where can an artist take a mass of old pantyhose, build upon it a doll with paper
mache, and then the doll become a dead, real baby of flesh and bone, and then
finally revert back to a doll?
Only in the twilight zone.
These things happened in the summer of '86 in Cincinnati. A highly gifted artist
named Tom built such a doll for Nancy O'Brien-Simpson. It was made as a replica
of a second trimester saline abortion. Nancy took it to a demonstration outside
Planned Parenthood. The police took it away and arrested her. They took the doll
to the Hamilton County morgue for the coroner to perform an autopsy. The coroner
ruled that it was a five and a half month gestation, male baby. Cause of death: abortion.
There were undercurrents that some kind of charge might be brought against Nancy.
The coroner was told:
"No, wait! It is just a doll! If you turn it over you can see a piece of pantyhose
sticking out of the back."
This new revelation was reported in the city's newspapers. But then the day
after that story another appeared. The coroner insisted his first ruling was correct! Even
when confronted with the facts he insisted that it was a real, dead baby! We said among
ourselves: "Oh, no! They've switched the doll for a real baby! They're going
to do something to Nancy! What will they charge her with, murder?"
When Barb caught wind of what was going on she took charge and solved the dilemma
immediately. She stormed into City Hall and backed the head of the Health
Department, Stanley Broadnax, into a corner. "Oh no you don't Stanley, oh no you don't,"
she fumed. "I saw that doll, myself, and I'll take the stand. I saw the pantyhose sticking
out the back! That baby wasn't real, and I won't let you get away with this!"
I'm glad Barb Desborough was on our side, because she could be a powerful antagonist.
When she took a matter into her hands you either went along with her or got
out of the way. The next day another story appeared in the papers. The coroner
admitted the doll wasn't real.
Barb Desborough left a void in Cincinnati. How I wish she had known how much we
appreciated her. I wish she could read these things I've written about her. But
it's too late. So I've concluded the only solution is to speak kindly to my friends who remain.
* * *
One warm, spring day when my oldest son Shawn was about five years old I took him
to a little park in our home town. He took along a whole fleet of toy cars. As he
was playing with them in the sand another boy about his age happened along and wanted
to join in. Shawn didn't want to let the other kid play with his toys. I took him
aside and asked why? He said he was afraid the other lad might lose or break one.
So I told him: "Well, son, a friend is the most valuable possession you can have in this life,
so if you lose a toy and gain a friend you got a good deal." He went back and
the two happily played the afternoon away. From then on Shawn was as outgoing a youngster
as you could ever hope to find. He never had trouble making friends. He always listened
respectfully to his old man's advice and never argued. We had a good father/son relationship.
I took him every-where; to all the parks, the zoo, museums, the circus, cinemas. Many a game
we saw the Cincinnati Reds play at Riverfront Stadium, I taught him how to swing a baseball bat and a tennis racket, and how to fire a rifle. I taught him how to tie all kinds of knots (I still
remembered from my days as a Boy Scout, and then he, too, was a Scout). But I'll tell you one thing - - I never taught him how to play with dolls -- I don't know how my own self -- and I'm not one of these left-wing parents who believes in raising boys and girls the same.
(I'm an old fuddy-duddy.) We flew kites and model rockets into the wild, blue yonder.
Spending time with Shawn was one of the smartest things I ever did as a dumb, young adult.
It's something you can't put off or it becomes too late. I shall not pass this way again.
* * *
I received two very special visits in August. Shelly Shannon, the original editor of TBR came
3,000 miles and visited me on August 1st. Eighteen days later the infamous villain, late-term
abortionist George Tiller, was shot in both arms by someone, reportedly a woman who said
her name was Ann. Shelley was arrested several hours later in another state and charged with
the shooting. All I know is what I've read in the paper. But let me tell you something, and thenlet me explain my statement. Please do not throw this paper aside until you've read my explanation.
Whether Shelley actually fired those shots or whether she did not, I will defend her honor.
Before I launch into this lengthy explanation, though, let me repeat: Shelley is my friend, and Iwill not disavow my friend one way or another. Hillary and/or Janet may eventually order my
head chopped off, but they can do that before I will say one unkind word against my friend
Again, before I start explaining the exertion of armed force, let me describe the other visit,
which came on the last Saturday in August. That afternoon I was sitting in my cell when the
guard up front yelled: "Brockhoeft!" So I went out to see what was up. He said I had a visitor
waiting. Well, I wasn't expecting a visit; but I got dressed, grabbed my inmate ID card, and
reported to the visiting room.
As I went in I glanced around but saw no familiar face. So I walked to the guard's desk
and turned in my ID card. From there I slowly turned around 360E, studying every face.
None looked familiar.
Thinking there may have been a mistake I told the guard: "I don't see anyone here
"You DON'T?!" he roared in disgust (whether genuine or mock I could not tell).
"No," I replied.
Rather than merely pointing, he sort of jabbed his finger toward a young man sitting
in the far corner. The young fellow was looking at me and smiling, so I started
toward him. He arose and started toward me. He didn't look like any of the fifteen
people on my approved visitors' list, so the only thing I could figure was he must be
a young reporter wanting to interview me. But something about the way he was looking
at me and approaching caused me to form another idea by the time we had
drawn near and stood face-to-face. Still in uncertainty, I whispered: "Shawn?" and we
fell into each other's arms and embraced. "Don't you recognize me, dad?" he
asked, and then he added: "I recognized you as soon as you walked in."
"Well, son," I explained, "the last time we saw each other you were only twelve, and now
you're almost eighteen. A person's appearance changes dramatically between those ages.
I was thirty-seven, and now I'm forty-two. A person doesn't look much different between
those ages." I shouldn't have been the least surprised by his sudden appearance, because,
indeed, I'd been expecting him to show up anytime. Several months earlier I had told my
mom and some friends: "Well, Shawn is seventeen now, so he's getting to that age where
he's starting to think independently and figure he can do whatever he wants, whether his
mother likes it or not. He'll be coming to see me soon. I spent too much time with him
for him to forget his old man. If he doesn't come while he's seventeen, he'll come when
he's eighteen for sure." So we had an exhilarating visit and a blood tie was strongly renewed.
In the middle of the visit he told me he'd been wanting to see me for a long time, but his
mother wouldn't let him. So, shortly before he came, he told her: "I'll be eighteen in a few
months, and then I'll go see Dad anyway, so why don't you let me go now?" After extracting
from him a promise that he'd only stay one hour, she consented. I do not have ESP. I can't
read minds. If I could I wouldn't want to, because I strenuously shun anything that has any
hint of the occult. I'm a Christian. But there are some things you can just figure out on your
own if you have any under- standing of human nature and can remember what it was like to
be young. Also,...my boy and I...we're both Brockhoefts, and we're both Kentuckians,
and our blood runs thick, and our roots run deep, and we don't forget those to whom we
belong. We don't eat road-kill; but we eat grits like crazy, and we like 'em with salt and
Let's talk about public image.
On March 10 Michael Griffin shot abortionist David Gunn, and shot him again, and
again, putting him to death. It is by no means my intention to encourage anyone to do
what Griffin did or what I did. Here we will study only whether the act was just or
unjust. I'm trying only to help you adopt or maintain a right attitude toward the
babies and to discern justice. You can't have the right attitude toward abortion
without first having exactly the right attitude toward the babies. It could be possible
for you to win the Abortion war without doing what Mike Griffin did or what I did,
but you'll never win without sharing Mike's attitude -- one of absolutism -- toward the
By the way, for the purpose of this study we will use only Mike's case, and not
Shelley's. In Mike's case it appears obvious, by all accounts, that he is, in fact, the one
who shot Gunn. Concerning Shelley, though, sufficient doubt remains, so to use her
case it would be necessary to clutter the text with all kinds of awkward qualifiers
and hypotheses, such as: "But even if she did do it, (etc.)". In Mike's case there is no
harm in speaking plainly. Let's talk about public image. The main problem is not
the public's image of our movement. No, the main problem is the public's image
of the babies. That's why the general public has not yet risen up. That's why they still
allow the criminals to kill babies. "Oh, sure, the babies are human beings, but they're
less worthy than the rest of us." Michael Griffin refuted that. When abortionist
Gunn arrived at his death chamber to slay twelve babies (but what if he had
planned to kill only one?) Mike met him with a revolver and shot him dead before
he could get to the first baby. In so doing Mike defined the babies' status as
human beings and their equal worthiness with the rest of us in such explicit and
exquisite terms as no one who had ever gone before. Mike enhanced the babies'
image in the public's eye like no one ever had before.
The earth shook from the stampede of prolifers
Then the earth shook from the stampede of prolifers rushing forward to insult
and de-grade...who?...Mike? No! The babies, the babies! They degraded the babies!
They clearly implied that the babies, as a group, were less worthy than any other
group of people. No one among the general population assumed that by their
statements these prolife leaders also believe it would be unjust to slay a serial
killer who was about to kill a bunch of black people for being black, or Jews because
they are Jewish, whites for their whiteness, Catholics for their Catholicism, senior
citizens for their age, or any other category. We all intuitively understood that the
prolifers condemned Mike only because the people whose lives he defended by
lethal force were preborn. Whenever a prolifer opens his mouth to express
discrimination, however slight, against the babies, he tarnishes the babies' image
and, also, therefore, the movement's image. Whenever the public hears a prolife
leader say: "The babies are as worthy as the rest of us," out of one side of his
mouth, and: "the babies are less worthy than us," out of the other side of his mouth,
he destroys the movement's credibility. this dull moderation is the reason we've
never been able to achieve widespread public support. It's not because of the
occasional, brilliant display of zealotry, but because of the boring, mediocre
moderation in our attitudes toward the preborn. To eventually win this war,
outright, to be completely triumphant over the opposition, will require the right
attitude more than anything else.
* * * * * * *
It's a nice sounding word. And it is good if you're using it to describe the avoidance
of excess self-indulgence. When we sit down to supper we should eat moderately.
But we who are Christians must remember moderation's other meanings
-- the ugly ones. Sometimes moderation is another word for compromise. And
what is lukewarmness but a form of moderation? Suppose there is a married
man who is an adulterer, but he commits adultery only once in a two year period.
That would be very moderate, wouldn't it? Obviously, that kind of moderation
would be a compromise with evil. Compromise is rarely, if ever, correct in the
spiritual realm. It is not for God's people to compromise with evil at all.
There are insurmountable problems with a prolife position
that is only moderately opposed to abortion, and not absolutely.
How does this apply to the abortion issue? There are insurmountable problems
with a prolife position that is only moderately opposed to abortion, and not absolutely.
This is true however slight the degree of moderation may be. The problem with a
moderate prolife position is that abortionists do not moderately kill babies. They kill
them absolutely, because there is no middle ground, no compromise, between life
and death. In the killing process the child does not suffer moderately. the problem
with a position that is only moderately opposed to abortion is that the babies are not
moderately human beings. They are human beings absolutely, and so any principle
which applies to innocent human beings, in general, applies equally to them, including
that point at which they are worthy to have their very lives defended by the use of
force. The problem with a position only moderately opposed to abortion is that, to
whatever extent it is only moderately opposed to abortion, it is, also, therefore,
conversely pro-abortion. It should seem, then, that the only valid and viable position
would be one of absolute, uncompromising opposition. If Christians are even slightly
willing to compromise with killers then the result of the compromise will be death,
not life; injustice, not justice.
* * * * * *
ARE YOU A PRO-LIFER OR AN ANTIABORTIONIST?
Terry Adelson is a sidewalk counselor who often works the pavement outside
Tiller the Killer's mill. He was there the day the gunwoman shot the abortionist in both
arms. (A gunwoman is a female gunman, but neither that nor gunperson sounded right.)
Adelson said that "Ann" claimed not to be pro-life. Perhaps he misunderstood.
Perhaps she said she was not a pro-lifer. There is a growing number of us who disdain
to be called prolifers. We much prefer to be called antiabortionists. We are
absolutists. We make a point of calling ourselves anti-abortionists because we want to
carefully make a distinction between ourselves, as absolutists, and pro-lifers
whose attitude of opposition to abortion is even slightly compromised. Oh, dear friends,
I know how terrible and divisive it sounds! But please don't give up on TBR
yet! Please listen to further explanation!
But I can't go too deeply into explaining why this is not a call for disunity. There are
other points I must cover in this issue, and I'm trying to keep it as short as possible
for my new publisher. Yes, unity of heart among His people is important to the Lord.
But how important? Can those who are right say to one another: "For the sake
of unity, let's be wrong with the others. The Lord loves unity so much, shouldn't we
repent from what we know is true and right and believe wrongly with the others?"
Would the Lord want unity at that cost? We'll study this particular matter closer in
another issue, but for now let me just give you a scripture to prove there is a time
when the Lord demands a certain kind of separation, even among those who proclaim
His name. It'll be the second verse I'm getting ready to quote. It has to do with
war, so unless you understand that abortion is a war crime, thus unjust war, thus genuine
warfare, my use of scripture here, will seem less relevant.
The chapter starts thus:
"When you go out to battle against your enemies, and see horses and chariots
and people more numerous than you, do not be afraid of them; for the
LORD your God is with you..." Dt. 20:1 (NKJV)
Then, dropping down to the eighth verse we see the commandment for a (at least temporary)
disunity so that the remaining men who gather on the field of honor will be of one heart:
"Then the officers shall speak further to the people, and say, 'What man is there who
is fearful and faint- hearted? Let him go and return to his house, lest the heart of his
brethren faint like his heart.'..." Dt 20:8 (NKJV)
Mike Griffin is one of us. Mike Bray is one of us. Andrew Burnett, Shelley Shannon,
Paul de Parrie, Matt Trewhella -- they all belong to us. When the moderate pro-lifers go to
such lengths to distance themselves from us, isn't it they, and not I, who have called for disunity?
All I'm saying is: if that's what they want, let them have it. Oh, by the way, how could I not
have thought immediately of Paul Hill and Gary McCullough? Here are a couple of stout-hearted men. They belong to us, too. Actually, I've mentioned only a few names; there are multitudes who are on our side, absolutely. To be a prolifer is completely and utterly meaningless. It is meaningless to be a pro-lifer... because EVERYBODY IN THE WHOLE WORLD IS A PROLIFER!! Everybody is a prolifer because... all are prolife, only with varying degrees of moderation (compromise). Do you know how many members of the U.S. Supreme Court are prolifers? Nine! All nine of them! They allow babies to be killed because most of them are only moderately pro-life, not absolutely! An abortionist is a pro-lifer who believes that he, himself, has the inalienable right to life. Why, he even believes his own mother has the right to life!
In fact, he believes his brother, sister, and all his friends (both of them) have the right to live
out their lives. This same abortionist even believes that 97% of the earth's entire human
population has the right to life! He truly believes it, too. Ask him and he'll agree sincerely.
If you look at it from this angle, from a merely statistical perspective, the abortionist looks
like a pretty good pro-lifer, doesn't he? And yet the degree of moderation in his position is
disgusting and horrifying and wicked. But then if you think about it...is there any
degree of moderate discrimination, however slight, against the babies that is not disgusting...
if the discrimination allows abortionists to mutilate and torture them to death? Let it
be understood here and now: TBR is absolutely disgusted with these pro-lifers who degraded
the pre-born babies in Pensacola, Florida, by condemning our friend Mike Griffin.
As a pro-lifer, an abortionist is a moderate to an abominable degree. But as an evil-doer
he is not a moderate; he is a real, hard- core zealot. On January 22, 1973, the
Supreme Court approved baby killing. For the first few days after that, the only
thing required for babies to be killed was the zealotry of abortionists. Now, twenty
years later, it requires both zeal on the part of abortionists and lukewarmness on the part
of pro-lifers. Take away either one of these factors and no baby can be killed,
openly, by an abortionist advertising his bloody trade in the yellow pages.
* * * * * *
Boy, oh, boy! What happened? I don't understand! How come there are certain pro-lifers
who never mention this name anymore? I'll tell you why. Anyone who read the prolife
movement's literature for any length of time (before March 10, 1993) is familiar with
Bonhoeffer's saga. The Rev. Dietrich Bonhoeffer was an ordained Lutheran minister
(like our own Mike Bray) during World War II. For many years we've used Bonhoeffer
as an example of absolute, Christian commitment to the cause of innocent human life.
He lived and died in Nazi Germany. The Nationalist Socialist regime executed him for
fighting against their murderous policies. This all happened less than half a century ago,
so throughout America's currently ongoing holocaust we've liked using Bonhoeffer and
holding him up as a hero because of his historical recentness. It was only one generation
ago, and there are people still alive who knew our hero. But another reason we use
Bonhoeffer is because we like to point out the perfect parallel between the Nazi's slaughter
of innocent people, not so long ago, and America's exact same wickedness today. We like
"See? See how monstrous what the Nazis did was? See? Look at these black and
white photos of piles of dead bodies of the Nazi's victims. It was so terrible, so terrible,
because these poor people were human beings, the same as you and me!"
And then we say:
"See? See these little babies who are being killed today? Look! You can
recognize them as human beings, the same as you and me! Only look at their bodies
and you can recognize they are people! And since these babies are equally human
as the Nazi's victims, therefore, the wickedness practiced on these little babies is exactly
identical to what the Nazis in Europe did during W.W.II! See? It is as horrible
and intolerable now as it was then!"
Yeah, uh huh, that's what these prolife leaders always used to say. That's the parallel they
loved to draw. Well, TBR still does.
When Bonhoeffer saw the horror, he couldn't stand it. He applied the verse which commands:
"love your neighbor as yourself," to the circumstances and to the victims. He decided that if he
truly loved the victims as himself he should feel the same degree of despair as if the tragedy was about to fall on him instead of one of them. He began to see the horror "from below -- from the viewpoint of those who suffer oppression." (So did Mike Griffin.) Dietrich Bonhoeffer decided to fight, literally fight, for the lives of innocent people. (So did Griffin.)
Bonhoeffer became involved in an intrigue in which the goal was to kill Adolph Hitler. When this was discovered the Gestapo arrested and eventually executed him. He was hung by the neck only a few months before we defeated Germany and the war ended. And so the movement has held him up as a pro-life hero for all these years, yes, until 1993. I wonder: will those prolifers who spoke against Griffin ever dare to mention Bonhoeffer's name again?
The Brockhoeft Report asserts the following:
1. A. Adolph Hitler's victims were human beings, exactly as we are.
B. Abortionist David Gunn's victims were exactly as human as were Hitler's.
2. A. Dietrich Bonhoeffer's approach was to use lethal force against the killer.
B. Griffin's approach was exactly the same and for exactly the same reason.
3. Therefore, Mike Griffin is exactly the Dietrich Bonhoeffer figure for our generation.
4. In order for any prolifer not to be able to recognize the three previous assertions requires either:
A. severe mental illness, or
B. gross stupidity, or
C. shameful cowardice, or
D. some combination of these things.
THE BROCKHOEFT REPORT HEREBY OFFERS $1,000 REWARD* to the first person
who can find any pro-life activist who has previously and publicly spoken
against Griffin's act and who will now make the following public statement:
"I believe that: (1) Bonhoeffer's strategy was just, but (2) Griffin's strategy was unjust." ##
THE BROCKHOEFT REPORT OFFERS A $50,000 REWARD* to the first person who can
find a pro-lifer (such as described above) who will now make the following public statement:
"I believe that: (1) Bonhoeffer's strategy was just, but (2) Griffin's strategy was unjust, and
(3) the reason for this glaring contradiction is neither because I am stupid nor mentally ill.
It is because I am too cowardly, even, to tell the truth." ##
TBR OFFERS A ONE MILLION DOLLAR REWARD* to the first person who can find a
pro-lifer (such as described above) who will now make the following public statement:
"I believe that: (1) Bonhoeffer's strategy was just, but (2) Griffin's strategy was unjust, and
(3) I am neither a coward nor mentally ill." ##
But I can make it easier for these pro-lifers. Let's just forget about Bonhoeffer for a moment.
I challenge them to publicly state simply this: "Griffin's act was unjust." I don't offer a reward
for it, but it doesn't matter. They wouldn't say it anyway. When abortionist Gunn was put to
death last March it caused an uproar all around, and raised questions. But they were all the
wrong questions, confusing questions, questions to obscure the heart of the matter. Was it right
or wrong? Was it strategically wise or unwise? How does this affect our image? No one asked:
was it just, or unjust? This is the preeminent matter. The correct answer: just. I repeat the challenge:
you pro-lifers, are you willing to say it was unjust? Before you answer -- remember -- the Lord
will be listening from His heavenly throne. I'll be amazed if you dare to blaspheme the Bible in this
way. Before you answer, you pro-life leaders, consider this: if you continue to embarrass the
stouthearted among your followers, they may abandon you and rally to the leadership of brave
men like Burnett, de Parrie, Bray, Hill, et al.
You pro-life leaders, this is what the LORD says:
"You have set free a man I had determined should die." 1 Kings 20:42 (NIV).
Go ahead and look it up. Read the whole chapter, and try to prove I've taken the verse out of context.
You may conclude that in its original context with the entire chapter, it is more severe, even, than in
my present application.
* * * * * *
150,000,000 Americans going around proclaiming the name
of Jesus Christ and being LUKEWARM AT THE SAME TIME.
The only possible way that future historians will fail to see 1993-1994 as a turning point in
the Abortion War is if we do not have any more history, due to having been swept away by
the cup of God's wrath. And if this Divine judgment falls on our nation it will be not only
because of a few hundred wicked people shedding the innocent blood of babies. It will be
because of 150,000,000 Americans going around proclaiming the name of Jesus Christ and
being LUKEWARM AT THE SAME TIME. Wake up, gentlemen, it doesn't make any sense
for you not to be brave. You don't have anything to lose! What sense does it make to be afraid?
What is there to be afraid of? Dying? If you continue in fear you'll be taken out of this world
anyway! You have nothing to lose! Whether you are taken out of this world by the rapture,
or by wrath, or by having your head chopped off by the "New World Order" foretold in the last
book of the Bible...one way or another you'll be OUT of here!
If you will take a brave stand...who knows? ...perhaps divine wrath will be turned aside from
our nation, and you will live. But in this perilous age, if you continue to walk in fear, gentlemen,
you'll be taken out of this world one way or another. Be brave, and you may live; fear, and you
will surely die. Gentlemen, I leave you with a final word from scripture. I'm not using it to pass
judgment against you in my own heart. No, I offer it for you take into your own heart, to meditate
on, and apply in your own life as you see fit. Revelation 21:8 says, in part,
"But the cowardly...shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and
brimstone, which is the second death." (NKJV)
Till the next issue, I'm
Demand that those prolife leaders who publicly betrayed the truth
(you know who I'm talking about) publicly repent and turn from their compromise.
If they refuse, reject them as your leaders and go to those brave men whose names
I have mentioned in this issue. Otherwise neither the public nor our rulers will ever
respect you. It would be a good idea to allay yourself with the brave anyway.
##* [Editor's Note:
Of course, Brockhoeft's employment for the past few years not having
been lucrative, the reward, should anyone step forth to claim it, will not be paid with
real money. Granted, there has been some debate whether very much money left in
the world today is real, but there will be no debate whether the money available to
pay these rewards is real. However, that said, I have gone to some trouble, in vain, to
find articulate refutations of antiabortion violence, and would consider it good
stewardship of my time to offer $15 of semi-real federal reserve notes to any author
willing to resolve the contradictions Brockhoeft describes.]
Click for Letter 5 of the Brockhoeft Report.
Back to Brockhoeft Select Page.
Back to Home Page.
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.