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

Vol I, Issue 2 (c) John Brockhoeft 7 May, 1993 (5th Anniversary), Federal Prison, Ashland

Dear Friends,

Have you ever stopped to consider how strange are left-wing, liberal types? They hate my guts, on the one hand, but they're always going around saying nice things about me, never bad things. It's a weird situation. I'm a Christian, so I have to be loving; but killing babies is an injustice of such magnitude and desperation that I feel compelled to revile it and even the people who do it. Yet the liberals, who know nothing of genuine love, who hate my guts, say only nice things about me! Some things they say are small compliments. It's embarrassing for me to admit it because I don't want to seem lacking in humility, but the nice little things they say about me are all absolutely true: I'm a very narrow-minded, intolerant, reactionary, Bible-thumping fundamentalist. Nothing wrong with that is there? But some of the compliments liberals pay me are so wonderful that I'd never dare to say such things about myself because I'd sound like the world's worst egomaniac: they call me a zealot and a fanatic! My reaction to them: "Hey, thanks a lt, pal, I think you're a fanatic, too!" Here I should note that when they say these things they say them in a tone as though they are meant to be insults! They hate me, but they say nice things about me, but they say these things as though insulting! It's all very confusing. To make things more confusing some folks who are on my side, prolifers, act like they don't like being called these things. They're scared to death the media might call them "narrow-minded" or "intolerant" or "zealots." Why? Because they've all been assimilated, at least a little bit, into the new, dominant, liberal culture, and nowadays these terms are thought to carry negative connotations. The idea of negativism being attached to these terms is so prevalent that I must warn you that the statement I'm about to make concerning Almighty God is made in all reverence without fear of blaspheming. Think about it: The Lord, Himself, is narrow-minded (such and such things are absolutely wrong, and other such and such things are absolutely right). Also, is God not intolerant? Hasn't He forbidden homosexuality, murder, adultery, etc? Hasn't he vowed to send all those who do these things, unrepentantly, to hell?

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

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

Why in the world do left-wing liberals think we should hang our heads when they call us "zealots?" What else is there for a genuine Christian to be besides a zealot? What's the opposite of zealotry? Lukewarmness, isn't it? The Bible says lukewarmness is the thing to be ashamed of, not zealotry. Revelation 3:16--"...because you are lukewarm--neither hot nor cold--I am about to spit you out of my mouth." (NIV)

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

THE REASON THE UNITED STATES WAS ONCE A GREAT NATION, BESIDES BEING BLESSED BY GOD, IS BECAUSE SHE WAS FOUNDED ON TRUTH, JUSTICE, AND NARROW-MINDEDNESS.

Narrow-mindedness: the feeling of certainty that one has discovered truth and unwillingness to turn aside from one's creed. Narrow-mindedness = faithfulness. It must be a sad thing not to be narrow-minded, not to be committed, not to have a firm foundation.

The sensitive reader will have noticed that the first section of this issue was written, mostly, with tongue in cheek. So if anyone laughed at how I made fun of the left-wingers in part one, I want it understood that I'm here putting al kidding aside and hope to be taken seriously.

Many years ago, but well within my lifetime, the leftists had thoroughly infiltrated and taken control of the public education system. Consequently, their teaching of American history, today, is false. I'm 42, and anyone in my age group or older knows the truth: The U.S. was founded by Christians on Christian principles. The 56 signers of the Declaration were nearly all Christians and devout members of mainstream denominations. I'm fond of referring to Thomas Jefferson. I really admire him. Today's liberals, in an attempt to undermine our nation's roots in Christianity, will tell you, "Oh, but Jefferson was a deist!" See how stupid these people are? Are liberals the only people who don't know what the word "deist" means? It means, literally, "a believer in God." I'm just a dumb ol' Protestant who never studied Latin, but I know that much! They call Jefferson a deist as though they think it means he was an atheist. Atheist was totally unheard of among our founding fathers; there was not one atheist among them. With, perhaps, only two exceptions, they were all devout Christians. The remaining two or three were deists. They still, at least, believed in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. So the term "deist," then, was used to distinguish those very few who, though they believed in God, The Father, remained uncertain of the divinity of His Son, Jesus Christ. It should be noted, too, that Jefferson experienced a conversion later in life and died a devoted Christian.

[P&A editor: Webster's original dictionary further clarifies the distinction between "deist" and "Christian": "Deist. One who believes in the existence of a God, but denies revealed religion; one who professes no form of religion, but follows the light of nature and reason, as his only guides in doctrine and practice; a freethinker." "Deism: ...deism implies infidelity, or a disbelief in the divine origin of the Scriptures." In other words, Thomas Jefferson would have fit into a number of "mainline" denominations today, which believe the words of Scripture before them bear an uncertain relation to any words which God Himself may have at one time uttered. That is, Jefferson would have fit into these denominations today, before his conversion. But even before his conversion, he would have been viewed as a bit fanatical among mainliners, because he was an avid student of the sayings of Jesus. He even authored "The Jefferson Bible", a collection of Jesus' sayings.]

In 1776 an ad hoc committee gave to Jefferson the responsibility of writing up the formal Declaration of Independence which gave birth to our nation. He could have chosen to word the document in any number of ways. For example, he could have written, "We hold these opinions to be fairly reasonable..." That would have been the (ha ha) broad-minded thing to say, wouldn't it? But Jefferson? Oh, no. Unh unh. He had to go and write, "We hold these truths to be self-evident..." (emphasis added). What? Truths? You mean "truths" as in facts? That's pretty narrow-minded, isn't it? What? Self-evident truths? Why, that's the height of arrogant narrow-mindedness, isn't it? Of course it is. That's why I like the Declaration so well. Thomas Jefferson is one of my heroes. I want to be as narrow-minded as was he.

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

In 1947 the U.S. government believed so firmly in the two above mentioned principles that it hung several men by their necks until they were dead. The criminals had killed people of all ages, but the judges specifically cited abortion, the killing of the preborn, among their crimes. If you want documentation of this, examine the Nuremberg proceedings and look up Allied Control Order #10. How quickly we forget.

Abortion is illegal in every way. It is forbidden by the law of God; it is forbidden by the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; it is forbidden by the Declaration of Independence and by the natural law. The natural law is more forceful than laws written in books even when the two are in agreement. Our own common sense upholds the validity of the natural law which says you can't go around killing members of your own species. Even animals in their natural habitat, governed by instincts, understand that. The natural law says one human being cannot kill another innocent human being. That's an irreversible natural law; that's the truth, and truth is eternal.

We can greatly rejoice in the wisdom of that founding father, Thomas Jefferson. The Declaration of Independence clearly upheld and proclaimed the validity of natural law. It was the legal document upon which the United States of America was founded and which defined what the new nation was all about.

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

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

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

At the very first moment a legislative body would pretend to enact such a thing, or at the very moment a judicial body would issue such a decree (such as Roe v. Wade), two things would happen: 1. The "law" itself would become null and void; and, 2. The "government" that pretended to pass it would become illegal. This is what Jefferson meant when he wrote: "...that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it..." So whenever a government pretends to have the authority to pass a law which allows the shedding of innocent blood, and blood is actually shed, then that "government" has, itself, become illegal. In such a terrible scenario, here again, there could be no such thing as an illegal government. It wouldn't be just a bad government; it wouldn't be any kind of genuine government, but an entirely criminal organization. Such is the cartel in Washington, DC, today; but such is not the wonderful form which the founding fathers passed down to us Americans as our heritage. Those ungodly, unbelieving left-wingers in Washington have forfeited not only the moral but also the legal authority to rule us. They have only power, as in fire power, but they have neither legal, nor moral, authority.

Nowhere does the U.S. Constitution say anything about women having a right to abortion, but it does say their babies have a right to live. The 14th amendment says, "...nor shall any state deprive any person of life...without due process of law." In a case such as putting someone to death -- "without due process of law" means, simply, that if someone is charged with a capital crime for which he could be sentenced to death and executed, he must first get a fair trial through "due process." At the time the Constitution was written it was naturally felt that it need not be said that you cannot arbitrarily kill any innocent human being, such as a baby. Of course you can't do that!

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

Here I want to apologize to the readers for seeming to insult their intelligence. I realize I'm rambling on and on about this one point -- the illegality of abortion -- but I consider it of such urgency that I want to frame it in the most indisputable terms, leaving no stone unturned. I consider this matter to be absolutely essential to maintaining a proportionately proper attitude of opposition to child-killing. You'd be surprised at how many prolifers, even activists, actually believe abortion is legal. I groan in despair every time I hear a prolifer use the expression "legal abortion" because I know there is no hope for such a mild attitude ever to be triumphant over the criminals. Perhaps you know a prolifer who thinks abortion is presently legal. You can use the points I've outlined in this issue to prove your position and toughen the prolifer up. Though I am belaboring the point, please, let me keep your attention.

The only other matter I want to pursue in the attempt to prove that abortion is already illegal is with a brief explanation of natural law and a couple illustrations to prove this law is valid. Natural laws cannot be reversed. In science there are physical laws of nature, e.g., the law of gravity: what goes up must come down. But there are spiritual natural laws, too, and in this discussion we're concerned only with the spiritual realm. The natural laws says you can't just go around killing innocent victims. That's automatically illegal. Natural laws include those few things which are so basically right or so fundamentally and obviously wrong that they govern human behavior as certainly as gravity governs the behavior and direction of a falling object. Natural laws are self-enacting, unrepealable, eternal, and binding on all human society. They are valid and operable even in the absence of parallel, written, man-made laws and even in the presence of human laws to the contrary. Imagine, for example, the following illustration.

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

Mankind doesn't inhabit the moon, but the Lord is there and everywhere. The Lord is the Author of natural law, so it is illegal to commit murder anytime, anywhere. Nether the U.S. Supreme Court, nor Congress, nor any human government can validly reverse the natural law. They have no more power to repeal spiritual natural law than to reverse the physical laws of nature. Let me offer just one more illustration, a ridiculous one. The ridiculousness of the following scenario is intentional, to make a point.

Imagine that all 537 members of Congress voted for, and passed, a law saying that if anyone jumped off the Golden Gate Bridge they would not fall. Not just that they were not allowed to fall but that they actually would not fall! Then suppose, even, that all nine Supreme Court members approved the law. Can anyone imagine that the "government" has it within their power to pass such a law and for the law to be operable? Of course not. Everybody knows if someone goes to the rail the day after this "law" goes into "effect" and jumps, that the jumper will fall. By the same virtue, how, then, can anyone believe any legislative or judicial body has it within their power to make it legal to kill babies? Ridiculous! Everybody knows these little ones are human beings, people, the same as the rest of us. They are not just potential human beings. They're not moderately human beings. They are absolutely human beings, the same as the rest of us. Therefore, anything that applies to innocent human beings, in general, also applies equally to them. You can't just go around killing innocent people; it's automatically illegal; you can't legally kill babies. Abortion is illegal, absolutely illegal, already illegal, always has been and always will be. Everywhere. Any political power which fails to acknowledge this ceases to be any kind of legitimate government. It is nothing more than a criminal entity which has forfeited its moral and legal right to exercise authority over anyone. Once this becomes generally accepted by the (presently) moderate prolife movement then, perhaps, it will be able to shed some of the moderation it its attitude and take the first step toward becoming an absolutist, uncompromising anti-abortion movement. What preborn American babies do not need is a nice, polite, moderate prolife movement. What the babies need is a tough, unbending anti-abortion movement. I'm sorry to say it because I love everyone in the movement, but there are elements of moderation (read: compromise) among us. You can't have a right attitude about abortion without having the right attitude toward the babies.

EVERY WAR IS A GENUINE WAR
BUT
NOT EVERY PEACE IS A GENUINE PEACE

If abortion is not legal then what is it? Is it murder? No, it's worse. Murder is the killing of an innocent person which is forbidden by the state, but whenever a sovereign government sanctions the slaughter of innocent civilians and participates in the crimes, it is a war crime and a crime against humanity. Historically, the United States has upheld this principle by its participation in the famous Nuremberg Trials. Shortly after World War II an international tribunal, including U.S. Attorney Jackson, brought to trial former "officials" of the defeated Nazi Germany in Nuremberg. On the witness stand one Nazi criminal testified: "But our judges assured us that this was legal, that it was quite legal," referring to the slaughter of Jews, gypsies, union members, unborn children, and others. But the international panel of judges said it was not legal. They put the criminals on trial, convicted them, and hung them, insisting that the hangings were not a violation of ex post facto principle because the slaughter of innocent civilians had already been illegal at the time the crimes were committed. The judges said when the Nazis singled out certain groups of civilians and killed them it was already illegal because Germany, though a sovereign nation when the war began, did not, could not, have the authority to legalize murder. No government has such authority. It should be emphasized that during the Nuremberg proceedings Attorney General Jackson referred to abortion, specifically, as "a war crime and a crime against humanity." Abortions committed as a "choice" for East European and Jewish women were prosecuted under Allied Control Order #10 as "war crimes." Every abortion is an act of aggressive, unjust warfare that defiles our land and incurs the wrath of God against us. When Christian Americans accept this they'll be able to shed more of their moderation, perhaps all, and will be poised to assume the position where we can actually win the war. Then, and only then, will we be able to show the zeal and passion necessary to uproot and tear down this abomination in our midst.

* * * * * *

I want to thank everyone who wrote to the U.S. Parole Commission on my behalf. I'm sorry to report that the full national board in Washington has turned down my appeal and ordered that I serve out my sentence to expiration. That means no sooner than 3/10/95 (if I lose none of my good time) or as late as 7/10/95 (if I lost all my good time). "All things work together for good to them that love God, to them that are the called according to His purpose."

* * * * * *

The two following stories are from the "Welcome to the Twilight Zone" department.

* * * * * *

PRO-ABORTIONISTS RAISE A CHANT TO ANTI-ABORTIONISTS AND THE ANTI'S GENUINELY ENJOYED IT.

December, 1992. Cincinnati, OH. At about the time Brockhoeft's parole was revoked a group of his friends gathered at Planned Parenthood's abortion chamber for their usual Saturday morning picket and counseling session. As usual, Planned Parenthood had a handful of volunteers, child-killing enthusiasts, on hand to counter the prolifers. At one point the pro-death forces raised a chant, in unison, "Pray by day, and bomb by night; that's the motto of right-to life. Pray by day, and bomb by night; that's the motto of right-to life." These domestic enemy agents actually expected their chant to make our people feel bad! When the pro-aborts saw that our people actually enjoyed it, they stopped.

When the chanting stopped, one of Brockhoeft's closest friends, a very nice Christian lady, pleaded with the other side, "Oh! Please don't stop! We like that chant! It's our favorite one!" Those on the other side of the fence were completely bewildered and mute, milling around listlessly. They simply could not understand why our people would not be ashamed of the idea that some Christian Americans might be willing to literally fight, applying the use of actual force, in defense of American babies.

* * * * * *

And to conclude this issue...from the darkest corner of the Twilight Zone...

IN JANUARY HILLARY ADMITTED SHE WORSHIPS SATAN [OR BLASPHEMED GOD (TAKE YOUR PICK)].

Before sharing this story (copied, next page), a couple things should be pointed out. I wrote the above caption myself. It did not appear in the original story. Secondly, credit for the story must be given to one of the finest pro-life publications, Life Advocate, P.O. Box 13656, Portland, OR, 97213. Subscriptions available on a donation basis (they suggest $30 and in my opinion it's well worth it. The issue from which the Hillary story is reprinted was 52 pages -- all good stuff). Their magazine's masthead extends permission to reproduce material without express permission if credit is given and "used to support the cause of stopping abortion." In other words, I reprint this without their prior knowledge and defend them in saying that their views are not necessarily the same as mine. However, I've never noticed any hint of compromise in their position. Fine folks.

SUMMARIES OF ARTICLES INCLUDED WITH CHAPTER 2 "A Word For (from) the Clintons"

[Ed: these articles, especially those in the Cincinnati Enquirer, are summarized to minimize copyright infringement.]

By Lurleen Stackhouse (Life Advocate, March 1993) Stackhouse tells the "full story" behind her mention in the January 21 Washington Post, which told how she confronted Bill and Hillary Clinton in the AMEC church on Inauguration Day. She had travelled from Indiana with other Rescuers to Washington DC. They prayed "that the new president would not make a mockery of God's law with his ungodly agenda." She was told no tickets were available, but a security guard got her a ticket a few rows behind the Clintons. The congregation waited 45 minutes for the Clintons, listening to several choirs and speakers. A reading from the Qu'ran was included. The Lord gave her Micah 3:8, "But as for me, I am filled with power, with the Spirit of the Lord, and with justice and might, to declare to Jacob his transgression, to Israel his sin." When the service was over everyone was asked to stay seated until the Clinton's had left. "However, as they walked down the aisle I stood and reached out for Mr. Clinton. He took my hand and I said, 'Mr. Clinton, America must stop killing babies.' He looked at me with a blank stare on his face. I repeated this statement to him. "Hillary then came to give me a hug and I said, 'Hillary, it's against God's law to kill babies.' She stepped back, shaking and trembling, and then grabbed my arm. Her countenance transformed from a pleasant demeanor to the appearance of being possessed. Her eyes were enraged as she replied, 'It is God's law to kill babies.' "I drew back in shock...I fully expected her to say 'It is God's law for women to have a choice'...As the Clintons got into their limousine I approached the car. Through the glass I continued to plead with Mr. Clinton to stop killing babies. Again he had a troubled stare...."

"Protests could stop parole" By Ben Kaufman, Cincinnati Enquirer, 11/92. Brockhoeft's parole was set for 12/6/92, but Brockhoeft's judge and prosecutor, and PP people, besieged the parole board with calls. Brockhoeft had "torched Planned Parenthood's Margaret Sanger Center in Mount Auburn on Dec. 30, 1985." When sentenced 1/11/91, the judge said parole could not come before February, 1995. No one was sure why parole was considered early.

"Early parole rapped" (same reporter, same paper, same month) Brockhoeft's judge said the parole board mistakenly gave Brockhoeft credit for time served on another charge. Brockhoeft "harassed staff and clients at its temporary quarters in Avondale" after he burned Planned Parenthood to the ground. He wore a full face mask. He called himself "a member of the 'Army of God for the Unborn.'"

"Arsonist's parole delayed" (Same reporter, same paper, 11/19/92) The U.S. Parole Commission decided to rehear whether to parole Brockhoeft, who had plea bargained; he confessed to burning the Margaret Sanger Center 12/30/85, and then was not prosecuted for "The $250,000 fire at the Women's Med Center, at 173 E. McMillan St., about a five minute walk from the Sanger Center (and) The attempted pipe bombing of the temporarily relocated Sanger Center at 3333 Vine St., Avondale." The two fires started within seconds of each other, suggesting to the abortionists that B. did not act alone.

Chapter 3 Published in July, 1993 by Shelley Shannon, and reprinted in the December/C/1993 issue of P&A

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!)