Double click to edit
THE BROCKHOEFT REPORT
Vol. 1 Issue VII ..... Federal Prison, Ashland ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
The Griffin Defense
(Note: The Brockhoeft Report (TBR) Will Not be dwelling on
the Griffin case ad infinitum. This issue includes the last
lengthy discussion of the matter, although future issues may
briefly allude to it.)
First let's find some common ground, something we can all
agree with, even George Tiller and every atheistic existentialist.
The common ground TBR proposes is this: that any human
act can be categorized in one of three ways: just, unjust, or
morally neutral. Can anyone have any problem with that?
What alternative choice is there? Even existentialists should
be able to go along with this proposal, because it gives them
the choice of simply classifying every act as morally neutral.
It is highly doubtful there are any existentialists among our
readers. So we can dismiss their amoral position out of hand,
which they won't mind anyway, since they don't care about
moral debates. The rest of us have strong feelings one way
or another. So that leaves us only two alternatives: just or
Let's take a brief look at the word "homicide". Hom+man,
icide+killing. Without regard to the legal jargon and implications,
the literal meaning of "homicide" is "the killing of a human being."
a Preborn baby and an abortionist are both human beings.
Whenever abortionist David Gunn killed a baby it was a specific
act of homicide. When Michael Griffin shot him it was another
specific act of homicide. Both acts were homicidal, but the similarity
ends there, because, thereafter, the acts diverge widely in nature.
If the word "homicide" is isolated (like if it simply appears on a list of
spelling words, and is not used in a sentence) it becomes dispassionate
and meaningless. Then it is merely a word, not a victim.
The dispassionateness of the mere word is pointed out to illustrate
the obvious fact that we cannot honestly, and fair mindedly, analyze
any particular act of homicide without asking thee questions: who
got killed?...Who did the killing?...And, why?
A preborn baby is an innocent human being. It is obvious
to anyone with the most fundamental sense of justice that the
deliberate killing of an innocent person is the most horrendous
breach of justice, the ultimate human rights violation. That's
what abortionist Gunn did to weak, little people. Why did he
do it? TBR Can think of only two possible motives. We will
be willing to publish any alternative ideas proposed by thoughtful
readers. Only, please, do not submit such a silly and irrational
notion as that he killed babies because he loved their mothers
and wanted to "help" them.
Our first thought is that he did it for money.
He considered a child's entire life to be worth no more than
250 U.S. dollars. The other possibility is that he was in
league with the devil, whether deliberately or "merely" in
fulfillment of left-wing ideology.
TBR doesn't remember who the author was, but someone once said:
"Indifference is the most sincere form of hatred."
It seems an inescapable conclusion that abortionist Gunn hated
those babies, at least, to some extent. We know from the Bible
those babies were created in the very likeness and image of
Almighty God, and that God loved them. So it also seems
inescapable that Gunn hated the Lord or, at least, scoffed at
Him in derisive disbelief.
To speak frankly and forthrightly, Gunn was industrial-strength
scum. Scum, pure and undiluted, in exactly the same class as
Adolph Hitler and for exactly the same reason. I hesitated,
briefly, to use that word -- scum -- because I'm not an entirely
impolite fellow; and I'd rather avoid offending folks if it can be
done without sacrificing truth. But here is a case where the truth
needs to be emphasized, and scum provides a nice, little emphasis
Those moderate prolife allies who will take offense at my use
of scum -- do you know how little it would take to keep them
from being offended at this very same usage? Thirty years,
that's all. Maybe less. Gunn, Griffin, prolife friends, you, and
me -- if we had all been born thirty years sooner, and if all these
things had happened thirty years ago, in 1964, and I called Gunn
scum, not one of these prolife friends would have taken offense.
This was still a Christian nation in 1964, and, though already
starting to crumble, still had some semblance of greatness.
Do you know what else is funny about it? You can take the
thirty years either way! Take it thirty years from now, to
2024 AD. Abortion will be history then, having been vanquished
and forbidden either by Christians' wrath and intervention or by
the Lord's wrath and intervention. You are free to choose either
one; but you cannot choose neither one; because if you do not
choose the one, then the other will come automatically through
So, if you want to sort of "help" the Lord usher in the
apocalypse and millennium...if you want to sort of "hasten"
these events...go ahead! Simply do nothing! Or, better yet,
offer to compromise with Hillary and Janet! Who knows? --
you might, thus, help me get out of prison sooner (i.e., at the
Lord's second coming)! Who knows? -- if you, thus, "urge"
Jesus' return to occur suddenly enough, you might even prevent
Hillary and Janet from chopping my head off! Who knows? --
if you "help" bring the Great Tribulation in suddenly enough
you might, thus, even cause them to chop my head off and
send me to an eternity of joy! And I'll have you to thank for it!
Yet, if, right now, you are offended by my calling abortionist
Gunn scum; and if you do not throw away the paper you now
hold in your hands, but only misplace it; and if you rediscover it,
yellowed, thirty years from now, you will not be offended upon
rereading it. In the year 2024, when you look back to this time,
you will feel the same revulsion and abhorrence toward abortion
as you now feel toward Adolph Hitler's slaughter of innocent people.
Please read this sentence aloud: "Adolph Hitler was scum." Didn't
sound bad at all, did it? Didn't offend you at all, did it? See what
I mean? Well, that is approximately how you'll feel thirty years
from now if you read these words: abortionist Gunn was scum.
But all this is neither here nor there, so let us go forward with
our study of homicide.
Michael Griffin killed abortionist Gunn. He killed Gunn so
he wouldn't be able to kill any more babies. An earlier issue
of TBR commented that everybody in the whole world believes
in the use of force insofar as the question is not whether force
is ever justified, but at what point? It should seem obvious that
such a statement is neither exaggerated, arrogant, nor overreaching;
because your own common sense tells you that if ever you
meet a man who is trying to kid himself into believing force is never
justified, you can easily change his mind, in less than five seconds,
simply by threatening to kill his mother or daughter. Of course,
neither you nor I would ever make such a threat; but we can be sure
that, if so, the guy would change his mind right away. In an interview
our friend and fellow absolutist Andrew Burnett once offered this
"You hear people say 'violence' never solves anything,
or whatever. That's an absurd notion, to say that 'violence'
never solves anything. The police, just ten blocks from
here, just blew a guy away the other night. And why did
they do that? Because he was about to run over a cop.
In other words, 'violence' does solve something. That
cop is still alive."
Having already dismissed the "morally neutral" tag, and now
rejecting the even more ludicrous "unjust" categorization, TBR
once again applies the only remaining alternative: just. Since this
will be the last issue of this journal which will openly make this
proclamation, let it be emphasized: not only was it just, but, in
fact, it offers the most prime example of genuine justice. Thus,
it exemplifies not the finest (i.e., most obscure) point of justice,
but the most fundamental point. Mike Griffin's act did not answer
the question: where does justice end? It answered this one: where
does justice begin?
In other words, if someone will say it was unjust, what in the
world will they offer as an example of something that would be
just and more obviously so?
Momentarily, we'll examine the three perspectives from which
the justice of Griffin's act can be seen. Please, let us, first, point
out how some of our moderate allies in the prolife movement twisted
a Scripture completely around to "prove" something that is not valid
at all. When Mike executed that abortionist a score of prolifers sang
in perfect harmony:
"He who lives by the sword shall die by the sword!
Jesus said: 'He who lives by the sword shall die by the sword'!"
See how people can twist things around 180E? That verse was
not meant as a warning for Mike. But, no, Mike was the fulfillment
of that verse! It was meant as a warning for the abortionist, not for
Mike Griffin! The abortionist lived by the sword and died by the
sword. Mike won't die by the sword, thus fulfilling the verse that
way. He fulfilled it the other way!
These prolifers who quoted this verse to Mike -- did they ever tell
it to David Gunn while he was still alive and putting babies to the
sword? Of course not. Yet he was the kind of person it would have
been truly appropriate to quote it to. The ones who never met
Gunn because they live in other parts of the country -- do they
ever tell the abortionists in their own cities: "He who lives by the
sword shall die by the sword"? Of course not. Never. Why, for
goodness sake! You can't go around quoting the Bible like that
nowadays! They know the abortionists would call the police and
have them arrested for terroristic threatening. They'd end up
doing a year in jail, and this sacrifice would accomplish nothing.
Therefore, I don't blame them for not quoting it to their local
abortionists. I wouldn't either, for the same reason. Yet, neither
will I misapply it to Mike, and neither should they.
You prolife friends who cited this verse against Mike Griffin, do
you want to keep using it against our people, against Christians?
Okay! Fine! Tell it to Sgt. York! Tell it to Teddy Roosevelt and
George Washington! When you go to heaven look up George
Washington. Ask him: "During your Christian walk on earth,
did you believe in the entire Bible as the inspired word of God?"
(Note: he read the King James Version).
"Surely, I did," he may reply.
Then ask him: "Well, then, since, during the Revolutionary War,
you lived by the sword, how did you reconcile your conduct with
Jesus' statement: 'He who lives by the sword shall die by the sword'?"
Perhaps he will answer somewhat along these lines: "Well, friend,
we knew we were not being disobedient, because we understood
that the Lord had not intended that verse to be applied to the
circumstances surrounding the War of Independence. That did not
mean the circumstances caused the verse to be invalid! It meant,
simply, that the verse had no bearing on those particular circum-
stances in the first place!"
But, my prolife friends, you don't have to wait until you go to
heaven and discuss the matter with General Washington to
understand you have made a mistake. There is someone you
can go to today. Since you have used this Scripture in this way
against Mike Griffin, now you must go to your children for the
right answer. You must go to your sons, your Catholic and
Protestant sons, who are currently active-duty members of the
U.S. Marine Corps, Army, Navy, Air Force, and Coast Guard.
You must tell your son: "Now, son, it's fine for you to be a
U.S. Marine during a time of peace. But remember! -- if war
breaks out you must desert your unit, because Jesus said:
'he who lives by the sword shall die by the sword'"!
Your son won't give you the answer. You'll give it to yourself.
On the way to his camp to give him this sermon you will realize
it would be wrong to tell him such a thing. Then you will have
your answer -- the right one.
With armed force, Griffin engaged an enemy of our country,
a war criminal who was killing our people, our children. Indeed,
and, in fact, Griffin's act is as prime an example as there could
be of the conduct of justified and defensive warfare. If it is not,
neither is anything anyone has ever done throughout human history.
It matters not that Griffin had taken no military oath, nor that he
did not wear a uniform with insignia. Few of Gen. George
Washington's men wore uniforms, either. If Griffin's act fell short
of justified warfare, Washington's conduct fell even shorter of that
mark; because the circumstances today are much more evil and
intolerable than in his day.
TBR hopes that when you realize it would be wrong to deliver
that verse, in that context, to your U.S. Marine son, you will
admit to yourself that, by the same virtue, you were wrong to
use it to rebuke Griffin. We all make mistakes. When we see
one, we must not pretend we do not. The Lord knows better.
He knows our hearts.
As this journal has previously stated, and as we now repeat,
it is by no means our intention to encourage anyone to bomb
abortuaries or to shoot abortionists. Yet, neither can we over-
emphasize the extreme importance of the correct response to
these things which have happened, in the event they happen
You do not, necessarily, have to shoot abortionists or burn their
joints in order to prove you are not a coward. You do not have
to do these things in order to show you have rejected all moderation
and all willingness to compromise with evil. You need not do these
things in order to be an absolutist. Absolutism is not a tactic or a
strategy. It is an attitude! It is the only winning attitude! So it is
TBR's intention only to recruit friends into a movement of men
(with all due respect to Shelley and many other fine ladies) with
perfect attitudes toward the babies.
Only two people have picked up guns and opened fire on baby-
killers. What marks a man as a compromising coward is not
whether he follows the example, in action, of these two brave
friends. The dead giveaway lies in how a man reacts to our
friends. Nor is it possible to entirely separate a man's attitude
toward these two and his exact attitude toward the babies. The
man who has guts enough to tell the truth, right now, and
acknowledge our friends' justice proves, as far as TBR is
concerned, that he has forsaken cowardice and willingness
to compromise with the wicked.
For the future (i.e., the near future), the extreme importance of
the 1993 shootings lies not in whether they lead to more shootings.
No, much, much more important than that, the shootings defined
who the babies are as a people. (Are they 90%, 99%, or 100% as
worthy as the rest of us?)
Yet the shootings signified something even more important than
that. Since it is us upon whom the babies' lives depend, and since
it is us upon whom the final outcome of this war hinges, the absolutely,
singularly, paramount importance of the shootings is that they precisely
defined who we are as a people! Those guns not only made loud
reports concerning our two friends who fired them. They also made
very loud statements about those of us who will embrace these two
brave souls and about those moderates who will reject them.
A movement of absolutism can win this war outright. We don't
have to be satisfied with saving only twenty out of every thousand
babies appointed for destruction. But without the right attitude
we'll never pursue a winning strategy. Without the right attitude
no strategy can succeed.
Please let us remind our readers that we are not calling for disunity.
We are calling for unity...but the right kind of unity. The moderate
prolife movement has always been fragmented, scattered, and in a
state of disunity; and always will be. Because there are a hundred
different levels of moderation -- and everyone thinks his own level
is the right one -- but none of them is. On the other hand, we, who
are absolutists, can enjoy complete unity and be of one heart,
because there is only one degree of absolutism -- that degree which
was perfectly defined by our two friends.
THREE LEGITIMATE PERSPECTIVES
The justice inherent in the shootings can legitimately be viewed
in any one of three ways or any combination of them. Only one
is needed to establish that justice was actually done.
1. Justifiable homicide
2. Capital punishment
3. The conduct of justifiable war
Because of this journal's unflinching assertion that abortion is a
war crime (since it is committed under "government" auspices) and,
thus, an act of (unconventional) unjust warfare, our main interest is
in the just war view. Nevertheless, we'll examine the other, equally
The above caption is exactly the phrase police detectives use
over a dead body when they conclude that the person who inflicted
death acted in self-defense or the defense of another innocent
person. If this is established immediately then the person who
did the killing isn't even arrested or charged with any offense.
Preborn persons are endowed by God with the inalienable right
to life. Since it is legally impossible for the "Supreme" Court to
take away the child's right to life, it is also legally impossible
for that court, or any other agency, to take the justice out of
the justifiable homicide status inherent in the execution of
abortionist David Gunn.
Liberalism (more accurately, left-wingism) has crept into the
Church recently (within the past thirty years). There are now
those among us who believe, counter to generations of
(mainstream) Christians who went before us, that capital
punishment is always wrong. Some claim that in the account
of the woman caught in adultery (John 8:3-11) Jesus invalidated
and overturned the Old Testament commandment to administer
capital punishment. Exactly what did He say? What were His
(Note: you are already aware of my position on the question of
capital punishment. If you are already inclined to disagree, can
we agree on something else? Can we agree to bear patiently with
one another and to be honest, both with one another, and with the
Lord? We can surely agree that it is extremely important to arrive
at the actual truth of Jesus' teaching in this matter: it's a matter of life
and death! Also, whether you are right, or I'm right, that which is
actually true is very important; because it decides whether genuine
justice -- Godly justice -- is observed or cast aside!
(Please let me get something off my chest. I ask you to believe
how I reach conclusions. Please believe that all I've ever wanted
to know is the actual truth! Since childhood I've searched for
nothing but truth! Even then I saw that to arrive at the actual
truth was extremely important -- all that mattered! I saw that
we cannot cause anything to be true simply by wishing it were
so. The real truth won't go away! It is that truth I've always
(In grade school they taught me the world was round, but that,
long ago, everybody thought it was flat. Of course, I understood
that the earth never conformed its shape to the way everybody
believed. They were just wrong! Actual truth is completely
external, standing on its own two feet, independent of whether
people believe it or not. I apologize for using such a silly and
childish illustration, but I want you to know I consider spiritual
truth to have the same character. Of course. Who doesn't? Yet,
haven't we all, at some time or another, been using the Bible to
make a point when, suddenly, the other guy said: "There's a
thousand different ways to interpret the Bible!"
(I like it when people say that. I reply: "yes, but God has only one
way to interpret it; and His way is the only way that's right; so let's
search for that one!"
(The point is that, on the one hand, no one living in the twentieth
century would even think of trying to make the earth flat simply
by believing it is so. Yet, on the other hand, some folks seem to
feel as though they can make a questionable spiritual matter valid
simply by believing it and proclaiming it loudly enough.
(Please believe that I would never just decide to believe something
simply because it was what I wanted to believe, and, then, only
afterward, go window-shopping for Scripture to support my point.
Anybody can do that...and find what they're looking for! But that
approach can lead to an invalid conclusion! Please believe that,
in my study of the Bible, if I encounter a passage of Scripture in
which the message seems to be painful and hard to receive, I do
not take an inclination to look for a more pleasing way to interpret
it. I want to know the actual truth -- even if it hurts. As Patrick
Henry said in his famous speech:
"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it might cost,
I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst
and to provide for it.")
The reader's patience is appreciated, and we now return to the study
of Jesus' statement on capital punishment. Which of the two following
statements contains Jesus' exact words in John 8:7 (as found in the NKJV)?
A. "He who is without sin among you, let him
throw a stone at her first."
B. "No one who has sin among you may throw a
stone at her first."
Statement "A" is correct. We can all reach agreement on that simply
by looking it up. Yet, there are some who claim that statement "B"
is what the Lord really meant! Do the two statements mean essentially
the same thing, or is there a difference? There is a subtle, but very
He didn't tell them not to stone her! He told them -- literally -- to go
ahead and stone her! He was literally offering for someone -- anyone --
to step forward, take the initiative, and throw the first stone!
Had He told them not to stone her, he would have given the
Pharisees an excuse to accuse Him. And He would have given
those Christians today who oppose capital punishment, on the
basis of Jesus' teaching, a leg to stand on.
Yet He knew the qualifier: "He who is without sin..." would make
them all too ashamed to do it! None would have the audacity to
Jesus had to choose His words with special care in this instance.
So we must pay very particular attention to His exact words to
ferret out the actual truth. This passage of Scripture even warns us,
ahead of time, of the great care needed in studying the exact wording:
3 Then the scribes and Pharisees brought to Him a
woman caught in adultery. And when they had set her
in the midst, 4 they said to Him, "Teacher, this woman
was caught in adultery, in the very act. 5 "Now Moses,
in the law, commanded us that such should be stoned.
But what do you say?" 6 This they said, testing Him,
that they might have something of which to accuse Him...."
See?! We've been forewarned that the Pharisees were trying to
entrap Jesus, and so He would have to word His answer just so.
He saw through their trickery.
The Pharisees were correct in their citation of Mosaic law.
They were invoking Leviticus 20:10. The man who commits
adultery with another man's wife, he who commits adultery
with his neighbor's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress, shall
surely be put to death.
What the Pharisees did not clarify is that this commandment,
and, in fact, the entire "Mosaic" law, did not originate with
Moses. Those words came directly from the mouth of God!
At the beginning of that twentieth chapter it says:
Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying: "Again, you
shall say to the children of Israel..."
Who is this God? And who is this Jesus? And is the God of the
Old Testament the same God of the N.T.? This God who spoke
to Moses, this God of the Bible, our God, is the only real and living
God. He is a God of both justice and mercy. He is a God, first, of
justice to all and then a God of mercy to those who trust in Him
and call upon Him for forgiveness from a contrite heart. Since there
can be no untruth nor inconsistency in our God, it must be, then,
that mercy can be reconciled with justice -- even the kind of justice
that calls for punishment.
We cannot accuse the Lord of inconsistency. Who are we to
correct our own Maker? Can the clay say to the potter: "Wait a
minute, you're making a mistake"? Furthermore, we rejoice that
He is also a God of mercy and forgiveness; because if He were a
God of justice only, we would all be doomed by our own sins!
Jesus is this same God. Jesus is divine. He is God. He is eternal,
from everlasting to everlasting. He did not begin (i.e., first come
into being) when Mary gave birth to Him in Bethlehem as God the
Son. He was already God, already existed, before that. He is the
God of both the O.T. and the N.T. He quoted from the O.T. and
taught from it. He had it memorized; because He was, in fact, the
divine Author of it.
In Matthew 4:4, where Jesus quoted Deuteronomy 8:3 to Satan:
"It is written, 'Man shall not live by bread alone,
but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God,'"
to whatever extent He was referring only to the Bible, He was
referring to the Old Testament, for none of the New Testament had
yet been written.
Jesus is the God who gave Moses the commandment to carry
out capital punishment for adultery. More than a thousand years
later God the Father sent Him in physical, human form to walk
upon the earth for thirty-three years, teaching, and then to be
sacrificed as an atonement for our sins -- for the sins of the woman
caught in adultery, for yours, and mine. Jesus came to show us both
God's justice and mercy. His public ministry lasted three years,
during which He showed mercy, and culminated in the ultimate
fulfillment of justice, as He was crucified for our sins.
But during those three years, before His atoning blood was shed,
He was meek, gentle, merciful, forgiving, healing. The common
people He encountered loved Him for these things. If the scribes
and Pharisees, who were jealous of both His popularity and of the
authority He apparently commanded, could have gotten Him to
plainly give the woman over to death by stoning, He may have lost
some of the love and devotion of His followers.
JESUS DID NOT WANT THE WOMAN TO BE STONED --
TBR WHOLEHEARTEDLY AGREES WITH THAT!
We have never doubted that! We even agree that he deliberately
chose His words in such a way as to persuade the mob not to stone
her. We have no problem there. That's not the point.
We use extreme, extreme caution in reading anything into the Bible,
anything not explicitly stated therein. But here we dare to interject
something which we hope is not unreasonable. Upon the first reading
you might get the impression they had caught her right then, and had
drug her practically right from the bed to Jesus. The Bible doesn't
give any indication how recently the adultery had occurred. We
theorize, for two reasons, that some time had passed; the adultery
had not occurred that day.
The first reason: Where was the man? Moses' commandment
called for capital punishment of the man and woman alike.
Could it be that the man was not available, due to the sin having
taken place considerably earlier?
The second reason: don't we all want to believe she was remorseful
when they had stood her before Jesus? Don't we want to believe
Jesus' mercy was related to her remorsefulness? Had she been
dragged straight from bed, would she have had time to reflect and
arrive at true remorse? Embarrassment, yes. True remorse?
Unlikely. We don't know, though.
The Pharisees thought they really had our Savior on the spot. They
expected that either way Jesus answered, He could hurt His own
cause. They wanted Him to tell them not to stone her. Not because
they cared about mercy toward her, but so that they would have a
clear-cut accusation to bring against Him. He would have been defying
the law of God.
His perfect blood had not yet been shed; the atonement had not
yet been made! Jesus did not want this poor woman to be put to
death, and especially not before His crucifixion. Yet, on the other
hand, He could not contradict justice and His own law, the divine
law of God.
6 This they said, testing Him, that they might have
something of which to accuse Him. But Jesus
stooped down and wrote on the ground with
His finger, as though He did not hear. 7 So when
they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up
and said to them, "He who is without sin among you,
let him throw a stone at her first." 8 And again He
stooped down and wrote on the ground.
(Note: we have heard a legend that, as He wrote in the dust with
His finger, He was listing the secret sins of all those who were standing
immediately nearby -- sins they thought no one else knew about.)
9 Then those who heard it, being convicted by their
conscience, went out one by one, beginning with the
oldest even to the last. And Jesus was left alone, and
the woman standing in the midst. 10 When Jesus had
raised Himself up and saw no one but the woman, He
said to her, "Woman where are those accusers of yours?
Has no one condemned you?" 11 She said, "No one, Lord."
And Jesus said to her, "Neither do I condemn you; go
and sin no more."
TBR is thrilled that Jesus spared this woman's life and saved her
soul! Yet, we also notice that His reply to the Pharisees proclaimed
both divine mercy and divine justice. It is entirely false to say His
choice of words reversed and overthrew the virtue of capital
punishment. On the contrary, He reaffirmed and upheld this form
of justice for extraordinary crimes. He never said that no one ever
again should be subjected to this form. That's a Hindu concept,
not a Christian one.
THE GRIFFIN CASE AS AN EXAMPLE OF
The Brockhoeft Report openly admits that, in order to assert that
Griffin exerted actual capital punishment, it is necessary to
acknowledge that he sort of "took the law into his own hands."
Well, so what? We [TBR] heartily laugh at the whole concept of
"taking the law into your own hands." Our laughter is not because
the concept goes too far. It's because the idea does not go nearly
Under certain circumstances people can go far, far beyond merely
"taking the law into their own hands." They can become the law.
When there arises a situation of desperate circumstances, and in
a place where there is a complete absence of any legitimate, legal
authority, people have the power, the right, the duty, to appoint
themselves as upholders of genuine justice. And their self-
appointment can be perfectly legitimate and wonderfully
authoritative. That's t he whole point, right there -- the
authoritativeness of the thing. That is what we mean to
demonstrate here. History has proven it out. How do you
think this nation was born?
Please let us offer a fictional illustration of something that often
really happened, only a century and a half ago, on the American
frontier, as pioneer families moved into the new U.S. territories.
An uninhabited territory is not a civilization. It is just a wilderness.
But when two or more people move into this region to live together,
they must decide at some point whether to make up a true civilization
or a merely barbaric society. What if this group of people included
only such occupations as woodworker, ironworker, farmer, etc.,
but there was not a lawyer among them? That would not keep them
from comprising a small unit of civilization, would it?
For our illustration let's say a few families totaling thirty people
moved into the wide-open Montana territory in 1869. The nearest
courthouse was over a thousand miles away. There was no U.S.
Marshall nor prosecutor within a thousand miles. There were no
policemen and no jail.
One of the arrivals was a criminal. He murdered another citizen.
Of course, the legal observation of due process, fair trials,
admissible evidence, etc., by those trained and competent in law --
these things are all crucial to the administration of justice, admittedly.
To diminish their importance, in this case, however, let's say the
murder was eye-witnessed by fifteen people -- half the entire town.
So it was a publicly known fact who the murderer was.
The townspeople appointed themselves guardians of justice.
They fashioned a noose in the end of a rope; threw it over a stout
tree limb, and hung him.
Well, what were they supposed to do -- just let the guy go around
killing them off one by one? If that were the case then they, themselves,
would not be constituting a civilization! Like the murderer, they, too,
would be barbarians, only less cold-blooded than him. What were they
supposed to say to one another?...
..."Uh, excuse me, folks, but we've had a murder here, and we all
know for a fact who did it--that guy right there (pointing).
Has anyone of you ever served as a judge? (No show of hands.)
No? Okay, is any one of you an attorney, or has anyone had any
training in law? (No hands.) No? Okay, well, I guess that settles
that, folks! There's nothing we can do about it then! We'll just have
to let him kill more of us, if that's what he wants; because, after all...
we can't take the law into our own hands, can we? For Pete's sake!
For ordinary citizens, like us, to take the law into our own
hands would always be terrible and intolerable, wouldn't it (heh heh)?"
No, they didn't act like that. They didn't pretend like they were stupid.
They had not been acclimated into left-wing ideology. They had never
gone insane watching Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, Phil Donahue, et. al,
They did more than merely "take the law into their own hands."
They became the law. They became the embodiment of the true
and just law. They executed the murderer. In the absence of any
other, formal, legal authority they appointed themselves. The crucial
point we want to make, and to emphasize, is that this appointment,
even though a self-appointment, and even though made by those not
trained as attorneys, was, nevertheless, perfectly AUTHORITATIVE!
Under those circumstances they constituted legitimate authority.
Thus, the hanging was more than a mere justified homicide. It
exemplified a legitimate exercise in genuine capital punishment.
The reason Griffin's act can be seen in the same way is that he
found himself in exactly the same circumstances. Innocent people
were being killed. It was a publicly known fact who the killer was.
There was a complete absence of any legitimate authority protecting
the babies. In fact, there was no legitimate authority, period.
"Authority" is not made legitimate simply by protecting some groups
of innocent people while disregarding the safety of others.
Certainly, whenever possible, and when there are available
competent attorneys and judges, the administration of justice
should be left to them. But there were no such persons both
willing and able to procure justice of the babies in Pensacola,
or the state of Florida, or anywhere in the U.S. In this complete
absence of legitimate authority, Griffin had the perfect right to
appoint himself as a legal authority. It did not matter that he had
never seen the inside of a law school classroom. Since the killing
of a baby is the most manifest and fundamental breach of law,
therefore, Griffin's understanding of law is far superior to that
of all nine members of the Supreme Court combined.
Just as the frontiersmen who settled the wild West did not need to
ride a horse over a thousand miles to ask someone's permission
to appoint themselves as guardians of justice, likewise, it did not
matter that Griffin had asked no one's permission to appoint himself.
If the Lord God of heaven recognized Griffin's appointment as
authoritative, then it is absolutely so. Then the authoritativeness
is equal whether everyone in the world agreed with Griffin or no
one agreed with him.
The only valid argument against Griffin's act as a study in capital
punishment is that, whereas capital punishment is ordinarily inflicted
as a means of retribution [punishment for past crimes], Griffin's
act was meant to be preemptive [prevention of future crimes].
Even this point [insofar as it is an objection] is made somewhat
moot by the fact that it only serves to more richly justify the act.
DEFENSIVE, JUSTIFIED WARFARE
It is by this perspective TBR prefers to hold Griffin's act. Justifiable
homicide happens only in sporadic, isolated cases, usually
unexpectedly, and on an ad hoc basis. Capital punishment is much
more complicated, legally, than defensive warfare. Also, capital
punishment shows only justice, but does not demonstrate manly
honor and valor. Justified warfare does. If an exercise in capital
punishment does, indeed, fulfill divine justice, then God is glorified
by it. As hard as that may sound, God is always glorified when
people obey Him.
"To obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than
the fat of rams." 1 Samuel 15:22.
Yet, if an injustice is so horrible widespread, and oppressive that
it demands toe conduct of defensive, Godly warfare -- then it is
TBR's belief that God is even more greatly glorified by this conduct
than by capital punishment.
Little more need be said on the Griffin case as a study in justified
warfare. See TBR vol. 1, #'s 2 and 3 for a more thorough examination
of abortion as a war crime which, thus, causes any armed opposition
to it to be legitimately classed as actual, defensive warfare. It does
not matter whether Griffin had reasoned out abortion as a war
crime and an act of actual, evil warfare. It only matters that that is
the truth. He engaged in warfare even if he, himself, did not realize
it at that time.
Except for God, Griffin stood alone. One man does not make an
army. This, too, is irrelevant. Sometimes, in a war, a particular
operation can be carried out by one man. Also, the other side,
being made up entirely of active war criminals, does make up
an army, however irregular and disunited their forces may be.
In other words, it is possible, in an actual war, for only one army
to be showing aggression -- if their "opponents" aren't men
enough to mobilize.
In the conduct of justified and defensive warfare a man can walk
like a man. During a time of honorable, justified peace a man can
still walk like a man. As a participant in an unjust, shameful peace
a man can only walk like a woman. It is a fine and noble thing for
a woman to walk like a woman-- but for a man, so to walk, never.
And if a bunch of left-wing femiNazis don't like it -- that's tough.
* * *
A FINAL CLARIFICATION OF OUR POSITION
ON CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
TBR believes that Jesus' statement concerning the woman caught
in adultery, ultimately upheld the justice of capital punishment.
Yet, we also know He deliberately spared her -- in her own specific
case. She was remorseful, and the Lord showed her mercy. Therefore,
wanting to learn from, and imitate our Savior as much as possible,
we would NOT advocate capital punishment for any former abortionists
who remorsefully have repented from their sin and turned to God.
We have never heard of any activist who would dispute this position.
As far as we are concerned, such a person could move in right next
door, and we'd be willing to live in peace with him or her and be
his or her friend.
Take, for instance, Dr. Beverly McMillan, M.D. Many years ago
Dr. McMillan was an abortionist. She was broken hearted upon
seeing the body parts. Then, when women who had undergone
abortions by her returned, grieving, for what they had done,
Beverly shared their grief. Unable to bear the load of grief and
guilt any longer, she turned to Jesus, confessing her sin and asking
forgiveness. She got it. So if the Lord, a perfect God, no longer
holds her accountable for her past, how can we, who are not perfect,
dare to do so? She is our sister in Christ, no less. Not to mention
that she is a fellow-activist, defending babies confrontationally enough
to have been arrested several times. Needless to say, there is no
one in our movement who would pose a threat to someone like
Beverly, but, even if so, you can be sure that we would be the first to
stand alongside her husband, Roy, in willingness to violently defend
her life. Roy, also, is a long-time activist as well as a decorated
Vietnam veteran. Though we do not personally know this couple,
they seem, even, to be fellow-absolutists. In the Feb., 1994, issue
of Life Advocate Roy, apparently speaking for both of them, wrote;
We believe that violence is not always wrong, and that peace
is not always right. We believe that peace is an ultimate good.
We believe that human kind must strive to eliminate violence
and that the human heart, through Christ, yearns for the day
when we can beat our weapons into plowshares and when the
lamb will lie down with the lion. But until that day, Christians
must continue the bitter struggle to occupy until He comes.
Yet, those who continue in this peculiarly sleazy wickedness are
criminals regardless of what the current panel of Supreme Court
"justices" say. Some day our people will be in authority, and we
will fulfill whatever justice God demands.
This is not a threat to act as Griffin did in appointing himself.
Neither I, nor anyone I know, will repeat Griffin's act as a
self-appointed agent, however authoritative we may consider
his self-appointment to have been. We won't be satisfied with
stopping only one abortionist like he did. No, we're talking only
about when our people are in publicly recognized seats of power,
when we occupy the White House, the Senate, and the House
of Representatives. We're talking about when our people actually
hold the reins of power in the U.S. Justice Department with public
recognition, and when we, with authority publicly established
through the democratic process, will reform public policy.
Then we will pursue the war criminals of the abortion conflict
with the same vigor as our own fathers pursued the Nazi war
criminals after W.W.II, knowing, as our fathers then knew, that
we are not in violation of ex post facto principal; because the
abortions committed even now are already illegal.
You can be absolutely assured that this will happen -- that the
zealous among God's people will fill public seats of authority.
History gives endless proof of it, and the Bible declares it will
happen in the end. History has wearily proven over and over
that the pendulum swings back and forth, back and forth, from
"right" to "left" to "right", etc. When it swings to the left God is
mocked, justice is overthrown, and evil reigns. then there is
always a correction as the pendulum swings back to the right.
History has shown an unending sequence of mistakes and
The pendulum has never stopped swinging, only pausing,
briefly, at the beginning and end of each cycle. But one day
it will stop. It will come to rest on the right side -- on God's
side -- the side where truth and justice lie. It is now paused
on the left. But the weight of the leftist's evil and injustice is
rapidly becoming unsustainable. Surely, the pendulum is poised
to swing once more. Inevitably, at least once more, it will swing
back to the right with a thunder.
You leftists, you who kill babies, you who participate in this evil in
any way, you who promote it, repent now. Believe that thing which
you cannot yet see. In other words, if you repent now, while it still
seems impossible for the Lord's people ever to ascend to power again,
then, when it comes to pass, we will be able to believe your repentance
is sincere. We will rise to power, to public positions of genuine authority,
again. It may have been predestined that there are still enough brave
men who love God, justice, and truth to willfully rise to power through
an uncompromising stand. In which case it might not be necessary for
the Lord our God to publicly and visibly show His face. And in which
case He will continue to insist that people begin believing without first
seeing. Woe to those who steadfastly refuse to believe until they see
Him! It will be too late.
Believe now! Repent now! And know this: that if the brave among
those who proclaim His name are too few to assume authority through
their own (blessed by God) exertions, then the Lord Jesus Christ will
soon return and install the few in office through almighty, irresistible
power. Either way, unless you repent, there is no hope for you to
escape. When the Lord came 2,000 years ago it was as a lamb, gentle,
to show mercy. This time it will be to show justice.
If you repent now, and if our people's ascension to public authority
is brought about without the Lord's physical return, then we will be
able to show you the same mercy shown the woman caught in
adultery. But if you wait until this changing of the guard appears
imminent, and only then make a show of "repentance" to save
your own skin, it will be too late. Too late.
* * *
Here we conclude this issue and our study of the Griffin case.
We feel we've held it up for examination in every possible light.
If we've overlooked any reasonable point we hope a reader will
be kind enough to point it out. Thanks for bearing with such a long
issue and reading this far. Until the next issue, I'm still
Click for Letter 8 of Brockhoeft Report.
Back to John 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.
To contact e-mail: BrotherDonaldSpitz@gmail.com