THE BROCKHOEFT REPORT -------- Feedback Box:

Vol I, No. XV May 1994 Federal Prison, Ashland

Chapter 15:

"Immediately after taking office, Clinton put several new proabortion policies into effect. At that point no one had ever shot an abortionist in twenty years of child-killing. A few weeks later Michael Griffin stepped up with a revolver and blew abortionist David Gunn away. A few months later our beloved Shelley opened up with a rapid-fire volley of shots on Tiller the Killer, skillfully wounding him in both arms. Less than a year later the Reverend Paul Hill sent abortionist John Barnyard Britton and his volunteer armed body guard, James Barret, to their deserved eternities....

"As a result of the shootings, forty more (former) abortionists have voluntarily stopped killing baby people. (Source: National Abortion Federation.) Lay all this at the feet of Bill Clinton and his arrogance."

"False Stupidity Syndrome"

Chapter 15 of TBR

NOTICE TO NEW READERS: these are chapters of a book being published, a chapter at a time, as John Brockhoeft writes them....

"There are two things which go on endlessly: the universe and human stupidity." -- Albert Einstein

* * *

Bob asked, "John, do you believe there's intelligent life on other planets?"

I replied, "Intelligent life on other planets?! I wish we could find intelligent life on the planet earth!"

Bob (laughing), "Oh, John, you shouldn't be so cynical about your fellow man."

Me: "Why not? Look at the kind of people e have to deal with! Besides, I don't really think they're genuinely stupid. Actually, I think they're smart! If I knew someone who was genuinely mentally handicapped, who couldn't help it, I'd treat them with nothing but gentleness and kindness, never making fun of them. Special people like that--I'd defend them."

* * *

FALSE STUPIDITY SYNDROME

The best way of defining this extremely dangerous affliction is to offer the most blatant real-life example seen in American politics in recent memory, a specific example which ever reader of this column saw with his or her own eyes and heard with his or her own ears. It began in 1980 and recurred in '88 and '92. It involved George Bush. No, it wasn't Bush who exhibited FSS. No, no. Bush showed a little intelligence (of a sort), which goes to show that there is not necessarily any correlation between intelligence and wisdom.

It started such a relatively few years ago, in that presidential election year. You should be able to remember how it went. Before the Republican Convention in which Ronald Reagan won the nomination, George Bush was trying to challenge him for that nomination. Reagan sought the nomination on a (ha-ha) "prolife" platform. Bush was seeking it on an extreme no-compromise proabortion platform, promising to help kill as many American baby people as he could get his hands on.

With the American people, as a whole, being very much against abortion, Reagan was infinitely more popular. Those shadowy vipers (of the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission) who, from behind the scenes, completely control the political machinery of both the Democratic and the Republican parties, sensed what a groundswell of popular support Reagan enjoyed. They saw they had to throw most of the delegates to him in order to preclude any untimely political instability and unrest.

As the Republican Convention began, they took Bush aside and told him (paraphrased): "Look, you can see how much more popular support Reagan has. We have to give him the nomination in order to maintain the illusion, among the public, especially the antiabortion public, that they live in a politically pluralistic society in which they have a viable choice. If you step down as a challenger for the presidential nomination and join Reagan as his (vice-presidential) running mate, then, with your added support, the Republicans will be sure to win the White house. During his second term, Reagan will be a lame duck, so we'll make YOU President after retiring him. To keep the antiabortion people from getting restless during Reagan's administration, we'll have him appoint Supreme Court justices in such a way as to lower the proabortion majority to five against four. That way, just as many fetuses will be sacrificed as ever, and, once killed, the worthless little parasites will be just as dead as those who were killed when the majority was seven to two. But those stupid uneducated prolifers will celebrate, because they'll think they're making progress! While you are Reagan's Vice President for eight years [TBR note: until Bush ran again in '92, no Republican President had failed to be re-elected since Herbert Hoover in 1932] you will politically posture yourself as a prolifer. At the end of those eight years, the prolife people will forget you are proabortion, and they'll elect you as handily as they did Reagan. Then we will continue to manipulate, by Supreme Court appointments, to maintain the five to four proabortion majority."

Was the prolife movement as stupid as Reagan's and Bush's (and Clinton's) bosses predicted? No, it was even stupider, or at least pretended to be. How long did it take prolifers to forget that George Bush was proabortion? Eight years? No, it took them one day. From that very first day you never heard prolifers say one word about Bush being proabortion.

One day George Bush was challenging Reagan for the Republican nomination, while publicly proclaiming his own uncompromising pro-baby-killing position. The very next day, he announced he was stepping down to be Reagan's running mate and that he supported Reagan's prolife position. Ha-ha. What a difference twenty-four hours can make.

At that point, the prolifers pretended they had never even heard of the concept of "political expediency". Why, NO career politician would insincerely posture just to get SUPPORT, would he? "Duh...isn't that a remarkable coincidence? Yesterday George Bush was proabortion, but today he says he's running with Reagan and has become a prolifer! Isn't this wonderful? All in the same day! What a great day in the U.S.A.! I'm a poet and don't even know it."

During the four years (1976-1980) of the sincerely PROABORTION Jimmy Carter's presidency, a yearly average of 1.6 million American baby people were slaughtered. During the following eight years of the insincerely PROLIFE Ronald Reagan's presidency, a yearly average of 1.6 million American babies were slaughtered. During the (ha-ha) "prolife" George Bush's administration, a yearly average of 1.6 million preborn American baby people were slaughtered. Get it?

In '88, with Reagan being a lame duck, prolifers praised Bush, saying he would be a WHAT?! A STRONG prolife President!Bush's Democratic opponent was the baby-blood-thirsty Michael Dukakis ("I'm a card-carrying member of the A.C.L.U."). "Oh, no! Duh, we have to support Bush as the prolife candidate, don't we? For goodness sake! We can't have a baby-killer like Dukakis in the White House, can we? We've already got a proabortion Supreme Court and a proabortion Congress! Duh, but with George Bush we would, at least, have a prolife President, so there will still be hope, heh-heh."

Dear friends -- you who have common sense -- come on, please, be honest with me. We don't have to be able to read these silly people's minds to realize: these prolifers, who said they considered Bush to be antiabortion, weren't telling the truth. I'm not accusing them of outright dishonesty, of lying to each other and to us. They were kidding themSELVES! Could any degree of genuine stupidity have enabled these people to really believe such an absurd thing as that George Bush was antiabortion? Could anyone with an I.Q. above 75 honestly have believed, in the bottom of his heart, that Bush was antiabortion? Yet, they said it as though they truly believed it! This is a prime example of FSS.

[A note from John: Ah, friends, I'm feeling a little bad right now. This note was not part of my rough draft for this issue. I worked my brain for days on the rough draft, and now that I'm recopying it for the sake of neatness for my publisher, I'm feeling somewhat ashamed at the level of my sarcasm. I mean it -- I AM ashamed. I've started thinking: what if some of these people WEREN'T falsely stupid? What if some of them were genuinely.... Maybe I should be defending the poor fellows, bless their hearts. And even if some of them WERE displaying FSS, so what? What was left for them to do? They didn't have anyone like ME to vote for, unfortunately. And we all make mistakes. I've probably made some mistakes in this particular column, but I know that many things I said later in this column are right, and some of it might be worthwhile reading. And it's too late to rewrite the thing, so if I have committed folly thus far, let my mistake be published along with the right parts. But I apologize if I have cruelly and unnecessarily hurt anyone's feelings. And if you're one of those stupid prolifers who sincerely believed Bush was on our side, hay, don't feel so bad about it -- I've made mistakes as stupid as that, and even STUPIDER, I promise! You can't be very stupid, or you wouldn't have been able to read this deeply into TBR. And if you've read all the previous issues of this column, you're pretty smart by now, am I right or wrong? Without further ado, let me recopy the rest of this manuscript just the way I originally wrote it. But if my tone is too harsh from time to time, remember, it was written before this repentance.]

During Bush's four-year administration, more than six million of our nation's preborn baby people were slaughtered by our nation's enemies while Bush, as the Commander-in-Chief of all U.S. Armed Forces, did virtually NOTHING to defend the babies' lives. Then, near the end, while he was running for re-election against William Clinton, the prolife movement said Bush had been a WHAT?! A "WONDERFUL prolife President." (!) Those were the exact words of one of the movement's most prominent leaders. Prominent although cowardly, lukewarm, and compromising.

[Note: I don't feel bad about that part, nor for anything I've said about Bush or Clinton.]

In the autumn of '92, but before the November election, I was on the phone with a prolife friend, an attorney. I told him: "I hope Bill Clinton wins the election." He just took it right in stride and kept right on talking. So I repeated, "Wait a minute. Didn't you hear what I just said? I said I hope BILL CLINTON gets elected! Why are you not shocked by my wish?"

He replied: "Oh, I know how some people think. You think things have to get worse before they can get better."

He didn't understand at all! See what I mean, friends? The slaughter of the innocent in America had already been going on for twenty years (and only four under a Democratic President), for a total death toll of 30 million American lives, a body count equal to the entire living populations of the nations of New Zealand and Canada combined. Why would I think things had to get worse before they could get better? Since Clinton first entered the White House until now, he has only participated in the killing of a number of preborn baby people equal to the entire population -- every man, woman, and child -- of Ireland. But we can numerically project that, at this rate, between now and the time he leaves office, he will have additionally amassed a number of little corpses, victims of his war crimes against the preborn people of the United States, equal to the population of the nation of Costa Rica. That projected figure is based on the assumption Clinton will not be re-elected. No Democratic President has been re-elected since Franklin Roosevelt in 1944.

When my friend said he thought my wish to see Clinton in the White House was due to some theory that things need to get worse before they can get better, he showed he didn't understand my rationale at all. Things were ALREADY 30 MILLION TIMES as bad as they needed to be, for Heaven's sake! I wanted Bill Clinton to be elected so people would face reality and admit to how bad the situation already is!

What the prolife movement did NOT need was a hypocrite and false friend like George Bush looking them in the eye and sanctimoniously intoning: "I stand with you for the cause of life, and together we shall win!" (and the prolife movement said: "Hooray! [clap, clap, clap] Isn't he WONDERFUL! (clap, clap, clap). See it's still too early to get overly excited over abortion -- we have a prolife President whom we can re-elect (clap, clap, clap). Although Congress and the Supreme Court are both proabortion, at east we have a prolife President to lead, and we can still have hope for a solution within the system! Let's wait and see what he does for us in the NEXT four years. Amen, brother! Hooray! (clap, clap, clap)"

No, rather than an insincere enemy like Bush, what the movement really needed was a sincere enemy who would be somewhat honest about his own sleazy scumbaggyess and who would look them right in the eye and say: "I'm going to slaughter as many of your beloved fetuses as possible. Get used to it. AND I'm going to use your hard-earned tax dollars to pay for it, whether you like it or not."

Another four years of George Bush would have meant another opportunity for the movement to exhibit FSS, pretending they thought he was our friend. With William Clinton, they have in the White House an enemy of our people whom they can hate and feel good about it.

Later in Bush's administration the Supreme Court heard an appeal of an abortion case. Before they issued their ruling, I was discussing the case with my friend, Tim. He said, "Since Reagan and Bush have filled so many vacancies, maybe the Court will take this opportunity to overturn Roe v. Wade."

I told Tim that Reagan and Bush had had the abortion votes counted every time they appointed a new member and that the ruling would be proabortion, five to four. They would let it be "close" to give prolifers the illusion they were making "progress". After the ruling Tim admitted: "You were right: it was five to four against us." Tim is neither falsely stupid nor genuinely stupid. He's a friend of mine. But having read all the previous issues of TBR, he's substantially smarter than a year ago. Most of our people have gotten smarter in this time frame, but I haven't. I'm no smarter than I was ten years ago. But that time I already understood everything. Therefore, how in the world could I not be narrow minded?

Did you ever take into consideration that all five of those proabortion "justices" had been appointed by Republican presidents? Every Republican president since Dwight D. Eisenhower has added members to the proabortion majority. And of those five, THREE were appointed by Reagan and Bush! And those three all replaced retiring "justices" who were proabortion. If Reagan and Bush had appointed only antiabortion justices, like the prolife American people had elected them to do, the ruling would have been a seven to two overturning of Roe v. Wade, and we wouldn't be seeing any babies being openly slaughtered by scum who advertise it in the Yellow Pages with their phone number and "business" address listed therein.

This column has said before, but it bears repeating: truth, by virtue of being true, is always mere reasonable, never radical. I'm about to tell you a truth so "crazy"-sounding, so "quixotic", you may be tempted to wince and say: "Oh, why is John saying such things? Doesn't he understand practical politics and why some things work and others don't?" You better believe I do. I'm about to demonstrate just how extremely rational and psychologically normal I really am. In the process, you will discover how you, too, can think extremely normal thoughts. And in an upcoming Bible study I will show that I do know exactly what works in the politics of exigencies and what doesn't work at such a time.

Before we continue, please be patient and let me ask you a question. I admit right up front that I'm setting you up so that you'll have to agree with me. Do you really believe that preborn babies are human beings, no different than, say, you or me or people who live in Arizona or Texas? I do. Beginning in 1984 I mentally disciplined myself to always think like that and never to think with even the slightest inconsistency toward preborn baby people.

Thanks for your patience. Now I'll reveal the "weird" consistency I showed in a phone call with a friend. But bear in mind that you can't have exactly the right attitude about abortion without first having exactly the right attitude toward the babies themselves. I was on the phone with Joe in '92 before the election. We were talking about Clinton and Bush. Joe said, "I like ol' George. He's done everything we wanted him to." That astounded me, because Joe is relatively hard-core. What did George ever do of substance? Do you mean like how he refused to give up babies' body parts for medical experiments after he had already let those babies be killed? Do you mean how he did not give federal funds to pay the killers, even though Planned Parenthood would kill a low-income mother's child for free if she couldn't afford it? And perhaps you mean one or two other silly little meaningless things in addition? Whoopee! Yeah, George Bush was a WONDERFUL prolife president, wasn't he?

The 1.6 million babies per year figure boils down to about 4,600 per day. I knew Joe knew that. So I gave him a metaphor: "What if there was a revolution in Mexico and the new government and the people were hostile to the U.S.? Then suppose some bands of Mexicans came across the border and killed 4,600 Texans and Arizonans before going back south of the border? Would it be expecting too much to want ol' George to send some U.S. Armed Forces personnel in pursuit of the war criminals? But then, what if the same bands of Mexicans returned the next day and killed another 4,600 Americans along our southern border, and again the day after that? And what if Bush then went to Congress and asked them to issue a declaration of war against Mexico, but Congress refused? Would it be too much to expect Bush to forget about Congress and act unilaterally as Commander-in-Chief of our Armed Forces, mobilizing U.S. military personnel in the Southwest? Under those circumstances, if he declined to do his duty thus, wouldn't we consider him the most wretched and cowardly failure of a President in the history of our nation before Roe v. Wade? In fact, wouldn't such damnable irresponsibility even cause us to compare Bush to some kind of scum?

Joe replied, "I see what you mean. But what about the separation of powers?"

(A reference to the fact that the Founding Fathers designed our form of government with three separate branches: Executive (President), Legislative (Congress), and Judicial (Supreme Court and lower courts) and divided authority amongst them. Hence, if one or more branch(es) became abusive, exceeding its bounds and oppressing the people, the other one or two branch(es) could rise up and balance out the abuse of the rogue branch(es). In such a situation, the President is, by far, in the best position to correct injustices. Because if the injustice originated with the Executive and/or judicial branch(es) and some honorable Congressman saw intolerable evil therein and wanted to correct it, they would have to form a majority coalition of hundreds of other Congressmen to agree to take remedial action. Similarly, if the Supreme Court were the remaining honorable branch, it would still need a majority of at least five of the nine members to agree to the honorable course of action. Whereas the President, being only one man, is (theoretically) free to make bold decisions all by himself and to go completely one way or the other. And being the Commander-in-Chief of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines, who could stop him?)

So I said, "Wait a minute, Joe. You're not the one who is in a position to ask 'what about the Separation of Powers?' I am. They're killing baby people! If the Founding Fathers meant anything by dividing up the powers -- if they meant for one of the branches to be able to rise up and take control at any given time -- it was surely for such a time as this! With our land already defiled by the shedding of innocent blood and becoming more defiled every minute by fresh new blood, the President of the United States has it within his power to get up out of bed any morning, any day, and say to himself: 'You know, I think I'll stop abortion today -- right now. Abortions are war crimes against my people, so I think I should declare martial law and mobilize my military forces against these domestic enemies who are killing my people.'"

George Bush could have taken such decisive action on his very first day in office and saved over eight million American lives, becoming the greatest hero in American history. Of course, I never for a minute expected him to do such a thing, or any little meaningful thing to defend our preborn people. But the only reason I expected nothing from him was because I knew all along that he was proabortion and favored the slaughter of our children.

Yet, if some honorable and brave man were to ascend to the White House while we have a Supreme Court and Congress as wicked as now, you must admit that the Presidential action suggested in the preceding paragraph would be the most reasonable, if not the only reasonable, course to take. Unless you are willing to think inconsistently toward preborn baby people, you have no choice but to admit that my thinking is extremely rational, extremely psychologically normal. Unless you are willing to apply a double standard against preborn baby people, saying either that they aren't really human beings or that they are less human or less worthy than born people, then you have no choice but to think exactly as I do in order to avoid the appearance of severe mental illness or False Stupidity Syndrome.

If my demand that you think exactly like I do sounds arrogant, please write to me and offer me some alternative way of thinking about the babies, which is not inconsistent with how you think about born people. I don't think there is any alternative rational line of thought, but I'd be willing to listen and analyze your rationale as honestly as I can from my very narrow-minded position.

The American people hate William Clinton more than any president in American history. Christian antiabortionists hate him and feel good about it. Because the public hates him and everything he stands for so much, he is causing more people than ever to think antiabortion-wise! He is inspiring good men everywhere to take a bold stand against his Communistic NWO gun-control policies and all kinds of righteous causes! Clinton is inspiring Americans everywhere to dream of a return to our nation's Godly roots! We may not have been able to withstand another four years of George Bush's destructive, deceitful treachery, while he held out a false glimmer of "hope" to the falsely "stupid" Christian population (please remember that by calling them falsely stupid I'm actually saying I think they're genuinely smart). Yet, because people will use any excuse to put on a show of FSS rather than face a painful truth, and since, because Clinton's undisguised treachery and wickedness makes us want to puke, therefore he is actually helping our people.

Pat Robertson would have been the absolute worst president we could have had right now, because of the very confidence he would have inspired in our people, while there would have been no change at all under him. Bill Clinton is the "best" president we could possibly have at a time like this. He may be the most "effective" president we have had since Teddy Roosevelt. I can't imagine who could have been a more "effective" president, unless it would be Hillary.

Clinton is so unpopular he can't make any public appearances without being jeered. Having him in the White House has resulted in political instability such as this country has never seen. This is actually a good thing: look at what the twenty years of political stability before Clinton's tenure gave us: 30 million dead and the threat of God's divine wrath. This instability has manifested itself in two obvious ways.

The most obvious is the startling wresting of power by the Republicans in the mid-term Congressional election. Called a "landslide" by the establishment-controlled papers, our friend, Paul deParrie, aptly referred to it as "a mudslide". The reason for such widespread victory by the Republicans: the public's way of renouncing Clinton and his party. This revolution inspires hope, but not because there is any honor in the GOP. For one thing, it shows that the people are fed up. Also, when the people see that the GOP won't do right either, it could result in more instability with the public realizing it's time to completely reject the machine-politics of both parties. I guarantee the Republicans won't do anything right. I'd like to see them prove me wrong, but don't hold your breath. I'm glad I first mentioned my desire to have Clinton in the White House (to help people overcome their false stupidity) in the August issue of P&A. I promise I wasn't thinking of the mid-term elections when I wrote that. But the results of those elections proved me right.

The other sign of Clinton-inspired political instability is seen in how much the Armed Forces hate him. He disgusts them all, except for the small minority of queers among them. The normal men bitterly resent how he has sodomized their ranks. You can't blame them at all, because it dishonors military service to have sissies among their ranks, to say nothing of the danger resulting from a decreased operational readiness, the threat of AIDS-tainted blood (both from battle field wounds and transfusions), etc. Our military men can't forget how he dodged the draft during the Vietnam War, using deception to avoid serving.

Shortly after taking office, Clinton ordered U.S. military doctors in Europe to perform abortions on military women and the female dependents of servicemen who wanted them, a thing those medical officers had never done. There were more than thirty of them, and every one of them defied him, refusing to follow orders, refusing to kill babies.

You have to remember: these young doctors are active duty commissioned officers. The Armed Forces own these men. Who ever heard of such a thing: young military officers defying their Commander-in-Chief, the President of the United States?

While Clinton and his entourage stayed aboard the Aircraft Carrier USS George Washington, during the fiftieth anniversary celebration of D-Day, "The Old Man" of the ship practically had to order his men to "voluntarily" attend a speech by Clinton on the flight deck. Before going ashore, Clinton and/or some of his buddies stole $561 worth of fancy towels and bath robes from the officers' staterooms bearing the ship's insignia. The Commanding Officer, bless his heart, sent the White House a bill demanding reimbursement for the missing items. Do you have any idea what the operating cost of an aircraft carrier is, with its crew of 5,000 men and officers? In other words, the cost of the towels and robes was as nothing. It was apparently just a dig at the "Commander-in-Chief".

At one point in the U.S.'s "intervention" in Somalia our guys were facing a threat by hostile forces and asked Clinton for some heavy weaponry, including tanks. Clinton refused to send the weapons they needed, citing a fear that the rebellious Somali war-lords would view the influx of equipment as a challenge and a signal of intent to escalate the U.S.'s role. The thing that effeminate antimilitary men like Bill Clinton, Randall Terry, Flip Benham, et al, can't understand is that it is the lack of operational readiness which invites attack. As a result, seventeen of our men in uniform, having been denied adequate equipment, were attacked and killed. In a feeble attempt to make up for the cowardly blunder, the government posthumously awarded the soldiers the Medal of Honor. The dead soldiers' next of kin were invited to the White House to receive our nation's most distinguished military honor on behalf of their fallen loved ones. As Clinton ceremonially handed the medal to one father and offered his hand, the father refused to shake it. I appreciate that.

Add to this the closing of so many military bases, the reduction in personnel, the scrapping of our B-52 strategic bombers, and you can see why our conservative men in uniform despise their "commander".

There's a point in all this: in any country, no matter what it says on paper, or what the media says, and without regard to figureheads, puppets, etc., the actual defacto government is whoever the military is obedient to. With all the political instability and unrest stirring in this country, if Clinton were to try to declare a state of emergency (martial law), as many have surmised, and try to mobilize our own military men against dissident U.S. citizens, the military might just tell him: "Hey, no way, pal. We might have martial law, but not under YOU! We're not going to go around shooting our fellow Americans."

I don't know about y'all but I could live with that. I'd rather not get shot if it can be avoided. It can ruin your whole day.

Immediately after taking office, Clinton put several new proabortion policies into effect. At that point no one had ever shot an abortionist in twenty years of child-killing. A few weeks later Michael Griffin stepped up with a revolver and blew abortionist David Gunn away. A few months later our beloved Shelley opened up with a rapid-fire volley of shots on Tiller the Killer, skillfully wounding him in both arms. Less than a year later the Reverend Paul Hill sent abortionist John Barnyard Britton and his volunteer armed body guard, James Barret, to their deserved eternities.

All three of these dead men now believe with all their hearts that abortion is a damnable, damnable wickedness. All three of these men now weep and groan and wring their hands in despair, crying out in pain and anguish and remorse over all the poor little baby people whom they tortured to death. There'll be a cold day in Hell before they ever get a parole hearing.

Please believe me: I do not gloat over this at all. I'm not happy about it, but neither do I pity these fallen fiends, these vanquished monsters.

As a result of the shootings, forty more (former) abortionists have voluntarily stopped killing baby people. (Source: National Abortion Federation.) Lay all this at the feet of Bill Clinton and his arrogance.

Before Clinton moved into the White House there were no state militias. Now we have them in twenty states and counting. Two gunmen, not members of militias, have fired on the White House in the past two months. A few weeks earlier a pilot of a small aircraft did a kamikaze attack on it. DO NOT ASSASSINATE BILL CLINTON! WE NEED HIM!!

By the way, I just assumed the second gunman was not a militia man. I have no more idea as to his identity than the Secret Service.

Mind you: I do not support Clinton for re-election. But I did make known to my closest advisors that I wanted him to win in '92, and I want him to be allowed to serve out this term. If we lost him our people would lose a lot of their enthusiasm. If you wanted Bush to be re-elected and don't like me, now that you know I wanted Clinton to win, that's fine. I'm not running for a popularity contest. If someone is going to like me I want them to like me for the right reasons. And I don't mind if someone hates me, as long as they hate me for the right reasons. But if you still can't understand that, all things considered, Bill Clinton is the least dangerous enemy of our people, including our preborn people, that we've had in the White House in decades -- even after I've explained it so carefully to you -- then you need not waste any more time reading TBR.

* * *

The Reverend Paul Hill is the most valorous, honorable, gallant, and finest example of manhood American Christianity has produced since Sgt. Alvin York's display of gallantry in 1918, if not in our nation's entire history. I don't watch T.V. so didn't know he had been interviewed by Connie Chung until my friend, Jim, told me. Jim said that Mrs. Chung asked Paul to address the idea expressed by some people that he might be mentally incompetent, and Paul sloughed off the question. Later, it was explained to me, Mrs. chung asked a variation of the same question and Paul said something like, "one more question like that and this interview is over." Jim said this reaction had led to some speculation that Paul might be thinking about using "insanity" as a defense in an appeal of his conviction. In Florida all death sentence cases are automatically appealed whether the convicted person requests an appeal or not. I was asked my opinion as to the likelihood of Paul pursuing such a course.

I told Jim of my certainty that Paul will not claim insanity in any appeal. When Paul took offense at Mrs. Chung's inquiries of his mental state, it was a matter of honor. He was justifiably indignant for his own sake, for the babies' sake, and the Lord's sake. Paul thinks about preborn baby people exactly as if they're the same as born people, because they are. Otherwise, he couldn't have done what he did. So, if anyone suggests that he might be insane because of what he did, Paul knows it is only because the helpless people he defended are preborn that the question is even asked. If Paul had killed the same men in the same manner but in defense of a bunch of ten-year-olds (or any other age group) then his action would have seemed psychologically normal to everyone. Therefore, the suggestion that the extremely sound-minded Paul Hill might be "insane" degrades the baby persons' equal worthiness.

I wouldn't blame Paul, or any other of our people, for using any legal maneuver and playing by the hostile court system's own rules. I wouldn't count it as dishonorable. But I surmise that Paul is looking at it this way: he is in a degree of such apparently insurmountable worldly trouble that no kind of legal maneuvering can get him out of it. It's true that our Lord could miraculously deliver Paul, but that's exactly what it would take -- a miracle outside our court system.

So my speculation is that Paul, figuring such a move would do him little or no good, figures he might as well remain perfectly steadfast and faithful, refusing to cooperate with the system in any way, looking them in the eye and saying: "I'm not guilty of not doing it. And the reason I'm not guilty of not doing it is because of permanent sanity!"

Such a plea would be perfectly rational and coherent to me, because I'm normal, like my friend Paul Hill. If you are normal, and not pretending to be stupid, you can perfectly understand such a plea, too.

* * *

Yours-in-Christ,

Johnny

Chapter 16, The Brockhoeft Report

Back to Contents

Feedback Box Got feedback? Send it, along with name or url of the article, and a little of the text on either side of where your comment belongs, so I know what you are responding to, and I'll post your response. I might even place it right smack dab in the article! (If you don't want your email posted, SAY SO!)