Tonight: ARTL anti-Coulter/Romney video on O'Reilly

I've received an email from American Right to Life that Bill O'Reilly will play its "The Ann Coulter hang-ups" video tonight and allow Coulter an opportunity to rebut. Adds the email:

Fox News producer Dan Bank turned down ARTL's offer to provide an opposing guest preferring to let Ann Coulter defend herself unopposed. ARTL's president Brian Rohrbough: "We're looking forward to a fair and balanced report tonight as though there could be any such thing as fair or balanced when it comes to defending those who intentionally kill unborn children."

The video is almost 10 minutes long, so obviously, if O'Reilly does what ARTL says he is going to do, he'll only show a clip. Here 'tis:

The email goes on to narcisstically claim, "ARTL's... video... and its associated website AnnCoulterApology.com, document the growing rift between the right-wing pundit and popular Christian pro-family leaders."

In fact, the lnk between all in the video is ARTL, a group I gave up on as off the deep end last year when it picketed James Dobson at Focus on the Family.

ARTL continues to engage in friendly fire. So many real enemies to fight - Barack Obama anyone? - and it picks on Ann Coulter and Mitt Romney. How I wish Mitt Romney were in the White House at this moment.

A reminder that 1-1/2 years ago the ARTL board gave itself 12 years to stop abortion in the U.S. It failed to hold its 1st annual conference last year.


Comments:

Apparently someone on the PL side wants to entertain the proaborts. And I'm sure they're very, very entertained.

Posted by: Doyle Chadwick at April 7, 2009 5:40 PM


They are trying to separate the wheat from the chaff, the legislators and pro-life leaders who are pro-personhood from those who only call themselves pro-life, but don't act it - or even worse, they use "pro-life" to advance their own agenda and to get elected but, forget "pro-life" once they start legislating.

The bold proclamation that all human beings are persons is necessary in order to advance this civil rights movement. Anyone who cannot proclaim that the personhood of all human beings must be respected by our laws is not someone fit to be leading our movement. Their voting records and support of candidates who lack pro-life conviction need to be challenged. If they do not respond to the challenge, then they are no good to us in their position and we have the patriotic obligation to challenge them come election time.

Personhood must be demanded by the people and there is no reason that we should accept anything less. These legislators represent us, and if they are not true to us, then they have failed us and should be replaced.

Posted by: just saying at April 7, 2009 5:43 PM


I agree that we need a personhood ammendment, but I disagree that alienating our allies is the best way to achieve this goal.

Posted by: Lauren at April 7, 2009 5:47 PM


No need to alienate - just challenge them, educate them, then provide them the venue to support personhood. If they still don't... why are we calling them an ally? We should never slam the door behind them, but it isn't alienating someone to vote them out of office - it's called the democratic process.

Posted by: just saying at April 7, 2009 5:51 PM


But you aren't just voting someone out. You close the door on someone who supports our cause and open it to someone who does not. The net affect is that we lose someone who is, at the very least, sympathetic to pro-life thought.

Posted by: Lauren at April 7, 2009 6:06 PM


What does it matter of they are "sympathetic" to our thought if they will not vote pro-life when push comes to shove? Elections happen anyway, so why not nominate a better candidates?

Posted by: just saying at April 7, 2009 8:05 PM


They will vote pro-life. Romney would have ultimately voted pro-life and nominated strict constitutionalist judges.

Posted by: Lauren at April 7, 2009 8:17 PM


Allies don't promote, legislate or force taxpayers to fund abortion.

Posted by: Martha at April 7, 2009 8:19 PM


I wish they would interview me now that I'm a non-Christian. From the "outside" (non-Christian view) this is just retarded. It's so ironic that American Right to Life would rather have all of the babies be slaughtered than save the majority of them. I know they feel good because they can claim that this is God's way of doing things, but because I don't have a God at this point, they make God look petty, illogical and annoying. They are just like liberals: addicted to their self-righteousness.

Posted by: Nathan Sheets at April 7, 2009 8:21 PM


Martha, please show me where Romney has done this since he became pro-life.

Posted by: Lauren at April 7, 2009 8:26 PM


Nate, glad to read "at this point," rather than a concrete denial. Keep thinking.

Well, O'Reilly didn't feature ARTL or Coulter. Was I punked?

Posted by: Jill Stanek at April 7, 2009 8:36 PM


I was not glued to the tv but, I was watching diligently for it and never saw even a mention. FOX has been promoting this all day! It either did not air or it was the shortest segment ever.
Have you found anything out from anyone else?

Keep up the good work, Jill!

Kent

Posted by: Kent Chambers at April 7, 2009 8:47 PM


Lauren, you said, "They will vote pro-life." If by they, you mean Romney. I am not one who would invent much in that statement.

And as for the segment on O'Reilly, he mentioned something about Ann Coulter's mother being sick (or something to that effect). She's rain-checking on the segment.

Posted by: just saying at April 7, 2009 9:38 PM


Lauren,

Mitt Romney's alleged pro-life conversion was in November 2004. Here are a few highlights of his political career since that time:

1. As governor of Massachusetts in April 2006, Mitt Romney signed the Massachusetts Health Care Reform Plan that pays for even elective abortions ($50 co-pay).

2. In 2006, Mitt Romney gave a permanent seat on the MassHealth payment policy advisory board to Planned Parenthood.

3. Mitt Romney signed a 2005 bill that promotes chemical abortions with Plan B.

4. As governor of Massachusetts, Romney appointed openly pro-abortion Democrat Matt Nestor to a district court in March 2005.

I think the facts speak for themselves.

Posted by: Bert at April 7, 2009 10:08 PM


to Nathan Sheets:

Where does a pre-born baby's right to life come from, if not from God?

Posted by: m. ballentine at April 7, 2009 10:56 PM


Ballentine: "Where does a pre-born baby's right to life come from, if not from God?"

Social contract.

I personally believe that the right does come from God, but that it is not a requirement to understand God to understand the rights. Do you have to personally KNOW the clockmaker to understand that the minute hand refers to the current minute? Of course not. The origin of the right is a non-issue. The issue is the consistent application of the right.

Change people's hearts to follow God for their soul, not to advance a moral agenda.

Posted by: Oliver at April 7, 2009 11:26 PM


Also, this bit on Romney/Ann Coulter is ridiculous. Its an unfortunate waste of time and a foolish distraction.

Posted by: Oliver at April 7, 2009 11:32 PM


I think Romney just said he was pro life because it was essential to winning the Republican nomination, or to be chosen as a running mate. If he had become President I am sure he would have been a pro life one. And I agree with Jill.... if only he was in the White House instead of the current occupant.

Posted by: Joanne at April 8, 2009 12:35 AM


Ann canceled because of her mom. (No joke!) O'Reilly says she'll be on tomorrow.

Jill, you would support anyone as long as he/she was running against someone worse. Romney authorized taxpayer funded elective abortions in 2006. That's wicked Jill. To say you wish he was in office is sick. (If we were killing Jews, Jill, you would support him if he used his governmental authority for tax funded concentration camps.)

Romney will run in 2012. Thanks to ARTL for exposing the pro-choice in the supposed pro-lifers and planning ahead for the next election.

Many thanks to Marilyn Musgrave for taking the high road today (after endorsing Romney) and admitting on Bob Enyart Live that any pro-lifer who knew Romney authorized tax funded elective abortions could no longer support him. There's a hero in a growing world of compromising pro-lifers.

Posted by: Will D at April 8, 2009 12:40 AM


Joanne said - "I think Romney just said he was pro life because it was essential to winning the Republican nomination"

Well....yeah.

Then to my dismay, followed it up with this - "And I agree with Jill.... if only he was in the White House instead of the current occupant."

No wonder we're losing...

Posted by: Will D at April 8, 2009 12:44 AM


Martha said - "Allies don't promote, legislate or force taxpayers to fund abortion."

Amen to that. Even further, allies do not reject the personhood of the unborn. If someone does not believe in the personhood of the unborn, they are not pro-life. PERIOD.

No one can make the case that someone who denies the personhood of blacks is somehow pro-black or pro-abolition. It simply doesn't hold water and the same is true with the personhood of the unborn.

The Republican heroes - George W. Bush, John McCain, Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney, etc. - all deny the personhood of the unborn. You'll never hear that on Jill Stanek's blog except right here in the comments.

Posted by: Will D at April 8, 2009 12:53 AM


Lauren said - "They will vote pro-life. Romney would have ultimately voted pro-life and nominated strict constitutionalist judges."

Lauren, you ignorant fool. Open your eyes, please! 'You will know them by their fruits.' 60% of the federal judiciary has been appointed by Republicans and it is solidly pro-abortion. 7 of the 9 US Supreme Court justices have been appointed by Re-publican presidents and not one believes in the personhood of the unborn. Not one. Quit with the empty rhetoric. Isn't 30 years of history enough for you to realize that the strategy isn't working?

Posted by: Will D at April 8, 2009 12:59 AM


"to Nathan Sheets:

Where does a pre-born baby's right to life come from, if not from God?"


If someone believes babies should be born, there is no reason to require a particular religious belief to feel that way.

After all, there are many, many different religions in the world, and agnostics, and atheists, and people who are spiritual without an allegiance to a particular religious tradition.

Posted by: Wil at April 8, 2009 5:09 AM


Apparently someone on the PL side wants to entertain the proaborts. And I'm sure they're very, very entertained.
Posted by: Doyle Chadwick at April 7, 2009 5:40 PM

Speaking only as an outsider, I think this is an interesting debate. Personally, I don't see a way to get from where we are to where you want to be, and obviously there is a difference of opinion in the "movement." Would Romney be a step forward, or backwards? What would be different if he were in the White House right now?

Posted by: Hal at April 8, 2009 7:52 AM


Oliver,

I don't think it's a waste of time to expose the way in which Christian voters were misled by certain leaders during the 2008 election cycle. It's the only way we can hopefully prevent it from happening again in 2012.

Bert

Posted by: Bert at April 8, 2009 8:18 AM


Will D said "Lauren, you ignorant fool. Open your eyes, please! 'You will know them by their fruits.' 60% of the federal judiciary has been appointed by Republicans and it is solidly pro-abortion. 7 of the 9 US Supreme Court justices have been appointed by Re-publican presidents and not one believes in the personhood of the unborn. Not one. Quit with the empty rhetoric. Isn't 30 years of history enough for you to realize that the strategy isn't working?"

No, it is not solidly pro-abortion. It is barely pro-abortion. Instead of insulting me, perhaps you can go out and actually try to change things. All absolutists have done this election cycle is ensure the election of Obama and other radical pro-aborts. If there is a man who wants to end legalized abortion on one hand and one who wants to sign FOCA on the other, I think the choice is pretty clear.

There was no viable candidate that supported a personhood ammendment. Work to find one next time, don't attack past candidates.

Let me spell this out for you. This whole Ann Coulter thing is ridiculous. It will do NOTHING to garner support for your cause, and will only serve to make you look more crazy than Ann Coulter to outsiders. Is that really what you want?

Push for the merits of personhood, don't attack those who are doing what they can to end abortion.

Posted by: Lauren at April 8, 2009 9:08 AM


Good post, Lauren.

Posted by: Bethany at April 8, 2009 9:22 AM


Thanks, Bethany. I just get so irritiated by the in-fighting. We all agree that a personhood ammendment would be great. We support any personhood measure that comes before us. However, those in charge of the personhood movement seem to think their time is better spent antagonizing other pro-lifers than actually working towards personhood. It's ridiculous. I'm hesitent to even say anything because I don't want to make the firestorm bigger, but I feel like there needs to be an understanding that we aren't going to save children by fighting with each other.

Let's all just stop with the fighting and work to end abortion.

Posted by: Lauren at April 8, 2009 9:30 AM


I couldn't agree with you more, Lauren. I had a long post written up and I deleted it... I think you are right, it's probably not a good idea to say much more. Let's just focus on working to end abortion.

Posted by: Bethany at April 8, 2009 9:53 AM


If the troops discover that the officers have been ignorantly taking them in the wrong direction, spending blood and treasure, not taking ground but giving it, and strengthening the enemy, the troops must point this out to them. But then to find out that the generals have be lying, and are not fighting for our cause, but their own advancement? Well, now it's time for the troops and the officers to swear allegiance to another Army. 'cause the one we're in has, in practice, become the enemy. Mitt Romney is a proven liar, and if you believe a liar you are foolish.

Posted by: McBurney at April 8, 2009 10:14 AM


Lauren said - "No, it is not solidly pro-abortion. It is barely pro-abortion."

You're wrong Lauren and have no evidence to the contrary. Even Jill would have to agree with me on this point.

Lauren said - " If there is a man who wants to end legalized abortion on one hand and one who wants to sign FOCA on the other, I think the choice is pretty clear."

The only Republican that ran who wanted to end legalized abortion was Alan Keyes. If you think McCain or Romney or Ron Paul wanted to end legalized abortion, you're crazy.

James Dobson said 2 weeks ago that we've lost every battle on the life issue in the past 30 years. He's right.

Posted by: Will D at April 8, 2009 10:18 AM


Bill Keller is a bad, bad man.

Bill Keller false prophesied that Bush would not be re-elected in 2004 because he wasn't "pro-life enough," that God had told him this.

Bill and I also had some lengthy phone and email exchanged where he supported the starvation and dehydration of Terri Schindler Schiavo while he had his LivePrayer program literally around the corner from where she was being tortured and killed.

Bob Enyart and I have some good faith disagreements, but I won't doubt where his heart is. In that regard, he needs to stay as far from being associated with Bill Keller as he can. Keller is dark-hearted false prophet and mean, too.

Posted by: Jacqueline at April 8, 2009 10:49 AM


Will D, the republicans running wanted to overturn Roe V. Wade. That is an important first step in overturning abortion completely. Alan Keyes didn't have a shot in hell at winning. Supporting him only gave votes to Obama, a man who is more anti-life than almost anyone in the world.

You say that our way isn't working, but instead of working for real solutions you do things that have zero chance of working and blast us for doing things that actually DO have a chance. It's ridiculous.

When you come here with solutions, maybe you'll be given some respect. Instead, you come here and insult us all and say "You idiots aren't doing anything. You've failed." Your plan seems to be alinating anyone who might help you.

Posted by: Lauren at April 8, 2009 10:51 AM


Bill Keller, after threatening to sue my friend and fellow Christian for publicizing what he said about how Terri "deserved to die" responded to me as such:

Bill Keller wrote:
Jacqueline..unlike you..I have talked to the actual doctors who dealt with Terri when this tragic accident happened..as well as the attorneys..fro BOTH sides..ever wonder why EVERY court has ruled a certain way????....I am not going to argue with you about this..I have NOT taken a public position on this either in my Devotional..or TV program..since I am all to aware of ALL of the facts..not just the ones that have been spun in the last 6 years by both sides..I committed Terri..and this situation to the Lord many years ago..and pray for her..and ALL involved..

This is but one nugget.

Posted by: Jacqueline at April 8, 2009 10:59 AM


Im curious Will D, what good have you ever accomplished for the pro-life movement, even in the slightest? Oh it doesnt count causing trouble within the movement by the way. Thats a bad thing.

Posted by: Oliver at April 8, 2009 11:39 AM


Lauren,

Perhaps we should be more concerned with doing what is righteous in the eyes of God than with what we think is more politically practical. I don't think God wants us to support evil men like McCain or Romney in the hopes that some good may come of it.

We aren't going to win this fight based on political manuevering. As John Quincy Adams famously said, "Duty is ours, results are God's."

Bert

Posted by: Bert at April 8, 2009 12:29 PM


Again, what has your movement done to save these children?

Posted by: lauren at April 8, 2009 1:23 PM


There is alot of hate on this site. "Father foregive them for they no not what they do."

Posted by: Mike at April 8, 2009 2:31 PM


Mike, I think you are mistaking disagreement for hate. At least on my part. I disagree with the tactic of attacking other pro-lifers for no reason.

Posted by: Lauren at April 8, 2009 3:14 PM


How about the tactic of trying to expose where the pro-life movement has going wrong for the purpose of correcting course?

Posted by: Bert at April 8, 2009 3:24 PM


You must be almost completely ignorant of Romney's actions as governor of Massachusetts regarding abortion and gay marriage Jill Stanek.

How about you FIRST spend like 20 minutes getting informed about Romney's actions and AFTER THAT you tell us if you still think it would be a good idea to have Romney in the White House?

That's reasonable enough, right? Its not like I am asking you to go on Bob Enyart LIVE and have a recorded discussion about it.

Posted by: Ezek1319 at April 8, 2009 3:42 PM


You must be almost completely ignorant of Romney's actions as governor of Massachusetts regarding abortion and gay marriage Jill Stanek.

How about you FIRST spend like 20 minutes getting informed about Romney's actions and AFTER THAT you tell us if you still think it would be a good idea to have Romney in the White House?

That's reasonable enough, right? Its not like I am asking you to go on Bob Enyart LIVE and have a recorded discussion about it.

Posted by: Ezek1319 at April 8, 2009 3:42 PM


Oliver asked:

"Im curious Will D, what good have you ever accomplished for the pro-life movement, even in the slightest?"

A huge direct influence that Will Duffy has had to save babies from being violently slaughtered through abortion is:

1) Helping to save babies through sidewalk counseling in Denver at the 20th & Vine location.

and

2) Will organized a campaign to protest the building of an abortion clinic in Portland, OR which resulted in the contracters stopping work because of the knowledge that they were helping to build a place for killing babies.

Those are significant effects from Will's activity just within a few months of pro-life activism. He's done far more, but I don't have all the details to share as well as he could.

Oh yeah, I would also bet $1,000,000,000,000,000 that Will Duffy has "accomplished more for the pro-life movement" than Jill Stanek has. And that you would get more effectiveness in giving Will D $100 then if you gave Jill Stanek $1,000.

Posted by: Ezek1319 at April 8, 2009 3:55 PM


Jill Stanek asked:

"Well, O'Reilly didn't feature ARTL or Coulter. Was I punked?"

If you were paying attention to the O'Reilly Factor last night you would have heard Bill's announcement that Annie couldn't make it "because her mother is ill".

I am not sold on that excuse because Ann has used the line "My mom is waiting on me to go to dinner" as her excuse to end the phone calls when she can't gie an intelligent response to the facts about Romney supporting/passing tax-payer funded $50 abortions and legalizing gay marriage on those radio clips in the video.

This makes me wonder if she is just using another mom excuse as a way to get out of talking about it since the facts are NOT ON HER SIDE.

Listen to how completely unhinged she gets when talking to Deace! How she immediately calls pro-life heroes and excellent lawyers like Phyllis Schlafly and Charles Rice "kooks" because they agree with Deace, Enyart and the rest of us who point out that Romney was NOT pressured into legalizing gay marriage and getting tax-payer funding for abortion!

Now, I realize that you disagree with us simply because you hate Enyart and ARTL Jill. But, if you can just LOOK AT THE HARD FACTS concerning Romney's role in legalizing gay marriage and bringing passing legislation for tax-payer funded abortion through $50 co-pays then you will be forced to agree with us that Romney is not pro-life and is just claiming to be in order to get the GOP nomination.

He hasn't fooled us, but its kind of astonishing that you let Romney fool you so easily.

Just look at the facts FIRST (lay out the facts in front of you and examine them) and then tell us if you still support Romney for president or even for dog catcher!

Posted by: Ezek1319 at April 8, 2009 4:04 PM


Jill Stanek stated..."A reminder that 1-1/2 years ago the ARTL board gave itself 12 years to stop abortion in the U.S. It failed to hold its 1st annual conference last year."

A Pro-Life conference is not mandatory unless you are part of the National Right to Life, Focus on the Family, Jay Sekulo, Mitt Romney, and now Jill Stanek fund raising industry. You are simply part of the problem.

You exposed for all the Stanek groupies just what your priorites are. A Pro-Life conference is never more important when you could be outside a killing center and witnessing to homicidal women and girls.

Posted by: theonlything2fear at April 8, 2009 4:08 PM


Ezek: "Those are significant effects from Will's activity just within a few months of pro-life activism. He's done far more, but I don't have all the details to share as well as he could."

He helped to protest one clinic? I thought you guys were incrimentalists! I thought it was all abortion gone or no abortion gone? What good does shutting one clinic down do if your aim is stop it all?

Although Im glad he has done this, personally Im not that impressed. Hundreds and thousands of pro-lifers have done the same. What has he done that has had a lasting effect? Has he helped to support legislation that would change our culture towards abortion? Has he helped to further the moral discussion amongst the pro-choice side?

Protesting an abortion clinic is great, but it does not put him in any position to call someone else a failure.

Posted by: Oliver at April 8, 2009 4:10 PM


Furthermore, who says that we are Romney supporters? We just think its a waste of time and effort to try and spear Ann for her support of him. She obviously didnt know what she was talking about and is a rather stubborn person. Why make such a big deal about attacking her other than to pat yourself on your self-righteous back?

Posted by: Oliver at April 8, 2009 4:13 PM


The challenge for all of you in the fundraising pro-life industry is this:

1. SHOW THE EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY OF WHAT THIS VIDEO CLAIMS (in slick Mitt's own words).

2. SHOW THE EVIDENCE OF EVEN ONE REPUBLICAN APPOINTED SUPREME COURT JUSTICE THAT IS NOT PRO-CHILD KILLING.

3. SHOW THE EVIDENCE OF HOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING IS NOT TAKING MONEY OFF THE MURDER OF INNOCENT CHILDREN.

Put up, or shut-up!

Posted by: GODISNOWHERE at April 8, 2009 4:18 PM


Oliver stated with trembling hands..."Why make such a big deal about attacking her other than to pat yourself on your self-righteous back?"

Oliver, you are the one making this a big deal by defending the political "R". Then you challenge the facts about other pro-life activists who have actually saved babies from their imminent slaughter.

Here's a FACTUAL challenge Oliver;

1. SHOW THE EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY OF WHAT THIS VIDEO CLAIMS.

Posted by: theonlything2fear at April 8, 2009 4:25 PM


Trembling hands? Is this how you guys debate? Im totally on your side now!

TONT2F: "SHOW THE EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY OF WHAT THIS VIDEO CLAIMS."

Hm...see, I dont need to try to point to the contrary because I dont care. My point is that by making a big deal about Ann Coulter, you are only making things worse.


TOT2F: "Then you challenge the facts about other pro-life activists who have actually saved babies from their imminent slaughter."

Are you mentally ill? When did I challenge the facts about Will? Im saying that what significance do those facts have to place him in a special place to denounce anyone? Besides, I thought you guys were "absolutists" and want the approach to be "all or nothing." How is knocking one mill down anything other than an incrimentalist approach?

Posted by: Oliver at April 8, 2009 4:30 PM


Lauren stated..."I just get so irritiated by the in-fighting."

You don't know how to argue your point without emoting.

"We all agree that a personhood ammendment would be great. We support any personhood measure that comes before us."

OOPS! Wrong! National Right to Life doesn't. Focus on the Family doesn't. Jay Sekulo doesn't. Mitt Romney doesn't. John McCain doesn't. Sarah Palin doesn't. President George W. Bush and Laura didn't/doesn't. Chief Justice John Roberts doesn't. Sam Alito doesn't. Antonin Scalia doesn't. Clarence Thomas doesn't. Anthony Kennedy doesn't...

"However, those in charge of the personhood movement seem to think their time is better spent antagonizing other pro-lifers than actually working towards personhood. It's ridiculous."

Oh really. What happens when you only prune a weed and don't get the roots? It's simple, but think it through.

"Let's all just stop with the fighting and work to end abortion."

OK! And you are elected president of the Lauren's Pro-Life End ALL abortion organization. Define your plan in order of priority.

Posted by: GODISNOWHERE at April 8, 2009 4:45 PM


Oliver stated..."Hm...see, I dont need to try to point to the contrary because I dont care."

You learned from Ann quickly. Are you also late for dinner with your Mom?

Posted by: theonlything2fear at April 8, 2009 4:48 PM


ARTL is holding ann coulter's feet to the fire (and warning others for supporting immoral candidates)because they 'love their neighbor'.

Posted by: mballentine at April 8, 2009 4:56 PM


"You learned from Ann quickly. Are you also late for dinner with your Mom?"

What a great zinger! How about instead of thumping your chest, you actually read my posts? I never said I supported Romney, just that you are all wasting time and energy fighting Ann.

I also noticed that you failed to respond to my confusion over your stance. Arent you an "all or nothing" pro-lifer? Why worry about shutting down one mill or saving even one preborn? I thought you were incrimentalists?

Posted by: Oliver at April 8, 2009 5:06 PM


Mballentine: "because they 'love their neighbor'."

Right and their rudeness here is also a sign of loving their neighbor?

You guys mind going off and trolling some other board? We prefer for the posters here to read the post that they rant at.

Posted by: Oliver at April 8, 2009 5:09 PM


The greatest lie that "christians" tell:

"They will vote pro-life. Romney would have ultimately voted pro-life and nominated strict constitutionalist judges."

Posted by: JamesC at April 8, 2009 6:08 PM


Oliver,

Definition of "non-compromised" strategy:

Doing everything you can to save babies from abortion WITHOUT ACTUALLY SUPPORTING some abortions!

If you pass a law that says "abortion is prohibited unless..." you're passing a law that says "abortion is okay IF...". So babies die BECAUSE of your "pro-life" law. Before that law, the blood was all on the pro-aborts' hands. Afterward, you're partly responsible for the deaths of the babies who die IN ACCORDANCE with the law you passed.

Shutting down an abortion clinic: GREAT!

Making an abortionist retire: GREAT!

Ending abortion 100% in any one state: GREAT!

Imposing regulations on ANY medical clinic: GREAT!

Requiring ALL pregnant women to see an ultrasound: GREAT!

Talking just one mom into keeping her baby: GREAT!

Convincing 50 moms to keep their babies because there are ugly signs of what abortion really is outside the office: GREAT!

Physically standing in the driveway to prevent abortion traffic: GREAT!

Holding up contractors who build abortion clinics to public ridicule and hatred: GREAT!

Passing a law that says "abortion is prohibited unless the mom's parent signs a piece of paper (in which case this law AFFIRMS the right of that mom to kill her baby): Uh... The Devil's Work!

Passing a law that says "abortion is okay in ANY single circumstance": The Devil's Work!

Helping to elect a man who YOU KNOW to support the killing of ANY innocent children (i.e. Romney or McCain: The Devil's Work!

I shake with grief and anger when I think of ALL THE CHRISTIANS in our world (and in the pro-life cause) who are BUSY doing the Devil's Work!

STOP IT!

There is not a single Bible verse that supports your doing that! The stories of Moses and Rahab have NOTHING to contribute in support of your side, because no hero in the Bible ever said, "Here, you MAY kill this innocent child -- I ALLOW you -- so long as I can save this one." If they had said that, they wouldn't have been a hero, would they?

Posted by: Bob Kyffin at April 8, 2009 6:09 PM


Oliver: "Right and their rudeness here is also a sign of loving their neighbor?"

Would you rebuke the guy who said this? "Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs."

or this? "You blind fools!"

Posted by: JamesC at April 8, 2009 6:15 PM


But Bob, you forget the verse where Paul said "Let us do evil that good may come of it!"
And the one where Christ says "Verily, my little children, do the lesser evil that you might achieve good for my kingdom!"

Bob, you know God will honor us on judgment day for standing against abortion and supporting laws where only some kids were snuffed out for the greater good!

Posted by: JamesC at April 8, 2009 6:22 PM


Shhhh!!! @ James

Careful, James -- some people may take you seriously. Not everyone here reads the names to know sarcasm, and if those same people don't know the Bible....

Besides, many of these people WANT to believe they're doing good, and might refuse to actually read the Bible, afraid they'd be proved wrong. ;)

Bob

Posted by: Bob Kyffin at April 8, 2009 6:36 PM


Oliver, you said in an earlier post that a pre-born's right to life comes from "social contract'.

Does that principle apply to Jews, in Nazi Germany?

And, you're right we do need to change peoples hearts, but can't we, at the same time, advance a moral agenda, as well?

Posted by: mballentine at April 8, 2009 6:45 PM


Do you really think those comments are helping? They're not.

You seem to believe that we sit around and say "Hey, we passed a restriction, now we're done!"

No, we want to see an end to all legalized abortion. We are simultaneously trying to reduce the number of abortions that now occur. The two do not have to be mutually exclusive.

Posted by: Oliver at April 8, 2009 6:47 PM


Oliver asked:
"Im curious Will D, what good have you ever accomplished for the pro-life movement, even in the slightest?"
A huge direct influence that Will Duffy has had to save babies from being violently slaughtered through abortion is:
1) Helping to save babies through sidewalk counseling in Denver at the 20th & Vine location.
and
2) Will organized a campaign to protest the building of an abortion clinic in Portland, OR which resulted in the contracters stopping work because of the knowledge that they were helping to build a place for killing babies.
Those are significant effects from Will's activity just within a few months of pro-life activism. He's done far more, but I don't have all the details to share as well as he could.
Oh yeah, I would also bet $1,000,000,000,000,000 that Will Duffy has "accomplished more for the pro-life movement" than Jill Stanek has. And that you would get more effectiveness in giving Will D $100 then if you gave Jill Stanek $1,000.
Posted by: Ezek1319 at April 8, 2009 3:55 PM

Oh I'm so impressed that you'd bet $1,000,000,000,000,000 dollars.

Hmm...Jill has done all those things you mentioned Will doing, and more. Picketing? Sidewalk counseling? So have all the other pro-lifers that you continually throw stones at. So how exactly are you guys better than us again? Somehow we pro-lifers even manage to do all those things without needing to attack our own side. We like to focus on more important things- you know, like the actual enemy.

Posted by: Bethany at April 8, 2009 6:51 PM



Would you rebuke the guy who said this? "Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs."

James, do you think we are "pigs" and "fools"? To call a brother/sister in Christ a fool is to endanger yourself to hell fire, so be careful in responding.


Posted by: Bethany at April 8, 2009 6:56 PM


But Bob, you forget the verse where Paul said "Let us do evil that good may come of it!"

You so badly have taken that verse out of context.

In fact, we could use it against you, if we were so inclined to twist Scripture to suit our purposes...for example:

"Or can we say, "Let's do evil so that good will come from it"? Some [the Enyart crowd] slander us and claim that this is what we say. They are condemned, and that's what they deserve."

But I don't think that would be very nice, would it?

Posted by: Bethany at April 8, 2009 7:01 PM


But you are slandering us, and big time, when you say that we are "doing evil so that good may come".

Posted by: Bethany at April 8, 2009 7:03 PM


Careful, James -- some people may take you seriously. Not everyone here reads the names to know sarcasm, and if those same people don't know the Bible....

Nice, Bob Kyffin. I thought you were above that type of thing.

Posted by: Bethany at April 8, 2009 7:04 PM


The challenge for all of you in the fundraising pro-life industry is this:
1. SHOW THE EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY OF WHAT THIS VIDEO CLAIMS (in slick Mitt's own words).
2. SHOW THE EVIDENCE OF EVEN ONE REPUBLICAN APPOINTED SUPREME COURT JUSTICE THAT IS NOT PRO-CHILD KILLING.
3. SHOW THE EVIDENCE OF HOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING IS NOT TAKING MONEY OFF THE MURDER OF INNOCENT CHILDREN.
Put up, or shut-up!
Posted by: GODISNOWHERE at April 8, 2009 4:18 PM

How about you show us evidence that what you guys did in South Dakota saved the lives of any babies at all?

Posted by: Bethany at April 8, 2009 7:15 PM


Oliver,

No, I don't think my comments are doing any good, because I don't think you're listening to anything I say. In fact, I don't think you'd listen to Jesus if he told you this personally. It's simple teaching from the Bible -- do not do evil so that good may come of it.

Bethany,

(sighs) You illustrate my point.

James knows he was taking the verse out of context, because he was being sarcastic. He's saying some people would take that and other Bible verses out of context to defend what you're doing.

I, though, was NOT being sarcastic. I was venting my grief and anger at people who try to pass laws which say YES, KILL THESE BABIES, but don't kill these others.

So I'll ask the question of you which got me into so much trouble the last time I was here:

Bethany, if you knew it would save 99 babies' lives, would you sign "Bethany's Law" which says, "Abortion is totally prohibited except for once a year, when Bethany will personally kill a baby on the altar of Incrementalism."

So if you sign it, Bethany, you save 99 lives. If you don't personally authorize the killing of 1 child to save 99, then all 100 die.

Your answer, given your stated philosophy, should be obvious -- you SHOULD choose to kill the one child to save the others (which is exactly what you do when you pass, say, South Dakota's 2008 attempt to ban "most" abortions, but which specifically allowed abortion in cases of rape and incest).

But if you really think about what you're doing, Bethany, and pray about what God would WANT you to do, I think you'd come to a different, equally obvious answer: "No, Bob, I will NOT save those 99 babies by condemning one to death."

That's the Christian answer. It's wrong for us to SUPPORT IN LAW (regardless of what you personally believe, and regardless of the INTENT in your heart) the killing of any innocent child, even to save 99 or 1,000,000 others.

Bob Kyffin

Posted by: Bob Kyffin at April 8, 2009 7:50 PM


Bob, no. Many, many times you people have directly accused us of "doing evil that good may come".

While that quite obviously was a sarcastic comment (no, I didn't miss that!), the obvious implication was that we are trying to "do evil so that good may come".
And my point is, that is slanderous.


Posted by: Bethany at April 8, 2009 7:55 PM


Bob Kyffin, I would never sign that law. My intent is always to save lives.

Your group made every effort to ensure that the law said that every baby could still be killed legally. And guess what? They are. And some of them could have been saved. Now they are ALL dead.

Posted by: Bethany at April 8, 2009 7:59 PM


Bob Kyffin, just to ensure that you understand. The only way your analogy could possibly be analogous is if the law being introduced in South Dakota had said this:

"All babies who are conceived by rape or incest will be killed under this law"

Posted by: Bethany at April 8, 2009 8:02 PM


Bethany, we made a very loud statement (and so did American Life League, South Dakota Right to Life, and many other principled pro-life organizations) that no Christian should support a law which would become the law which says that "abortion is allowed for rape and incest cases" which is what that 2008 South Dakota initiative said.

So, obviously, if you supported that law, you were promoting evil (a law that is PRO-ABORTION for 5% of kids) that good might come of it (i.e. saving the other 95%).

You can remain blind and deaf if you want to, but I don't know how you can honestly not see this very obvious analogy.

Posted by: Bob Kyffin at April 8, 2009 8:03 PM


Bob Kyffin (and this goes for all of the Bob Enyart followers) I say this in all sincerity:

I do not believe you are in this because you care about the babies.

I believe you are in this because you want to "be right", all the time, no matter what.

I believe you are in this to talk about statistics and numbers and to try to pass yourself off as morally superior to others.
But as for the babies? I don't think that is your highest priority.

Posted by: Bethany at April 8, 2009 8:06 PM


"All babies who are conceived by rape or incest will be killed under this law"

That's actually basically what it said, except for those few moms who would choose life instead of abortion. Remember, even the pro-lifers support that exception (they just voted for it, so of course they support it!), and so why should they not?

Or is it true that you don't think Roe v. Wade is a bad ruling? After all, it doesn't say ALL babies MUST be aborted. It just says MAY (which is all the S. Dakota law said).

So YOUR analogy is flawed. Mine is valid.

Posted by: Bob Kyffin at April 8, 2009 8:08 PM


If it were, you would not waste time fighting those who want to defend life. You would spend your time fighting the real enemy.

Posted by: Bethany at April 8, 2009 8:10 PM



"All babies who are conceived by rape or incest will be killed under this law"
That's actually basically what it said, except for those few moms who would choose life instead of abortion. Remember, even the pro-lifers support that exception (they just voted for it, so of course they support it!), and so why should they not?

Bob Kyffin, in what world does "can be killed" automatically mean "will be killed"? It doesn't.

Just imagine, if that law had been passed, pro-lifers would have been able to focus MORE of their efforts towards helping victims of rape and incest and could have very likely prevented 100 percent of abortions, with or without the law being as it was.

But as it is now, 100 percent are dead, if the mothers so choose- for ANY reason. What part of that don't you understand?

From my perspective, bob Kyffin, it is you and your party who have done evil so that "good" may prosper. You did evil in letting those babies continue dying for no reason.

I bet you don't like it when the shoe is on the other foot.

Posted by: Bethany at April 8, 2009 8:13 PM


Or is it true that you don't think Roe v. Wade is a bad ruling? After all, it doesn't say ALL babies MUST be aborted. It just says MAY (which is all the S. Dakota law said).

Guess what makes Roe vs Wade different, Bob Kyffin? I can tell you exactly what. It wasn't legal before... Duh! If you take away the legal authority to kill 95 percent, that is GOOD. If it's illegal and you GIVE authority to kill 100 percent, that is BAD.

Posted by: Bethany at April 8, 2009 8:14 PM


I'll be back to discuss more tomorrow.

Posted by: Bethany at April 8, 2009 8:19 PM


Exactly, Bethany.

Think of it like this, Bob. Roe spilled a bag of marbles. We're doing what we can to pick up the marbles with the ultimate goal of getting them all.

You're coming up and knocking marbles out of our hands in order to feel morally superior.

Posted by: Lauren at April 8, 2009 8:22 PM


Bethany and Lauren,

The main difference between Roe v. Wade and the 2008 S. Dakota law is that pro-lifers never worked for and supported a ruling which allowed abortions.

In S. Dakota, in 2008, pro-lifers DID go out and campaign for a law that is PRO-ABORTION for some babies. And, sadly, you're still defending it today as if it were a good law.

Any law which supports abortion for any babies works against the concept that there exists a Right to Life (i.e. Personhood). So by supporting these laws, you're knocking marbles out of the hands of sincere pro-lifers who refuse to support any abortions, because if it weren't for you and your laws, we would be making more progress in convincing people of there is a Right to Life.

In Texas, in 1970, they had a law which had an exception that allowed abortion in a very few cases. But the Supreme Court realized that if Texas had exceptions that allowed even one innocent baby to be killed then Texas did NOT recognize the Personhood of the unborn child. It's in the text of Roe v. Wade, and in the audio transcripts. You can read for yourself how exceptions undermine (ALWAYS) the Right to Life and Personhood. When you support laws with exceptions you ARE working against Personhood.

This is probably the last time I'll post anything here unless you invite me back, wanting to hear more. You're just not listening. I'm wasting my time here. You're hopeless. I can do more good elsewhere, other than on Jill's blog, where I get bootprints in my face, not just from you, but from her. She can hate American Right to Life all she wants, ridicule us, and work against us, but ultimately I'm convinced they're the ones who are going to prohibit 100% of the babies, because they get it.

Unfortunately, they're going to have to accomplish Personhood over the obstacles you're unwittingly placing in their way. I could only condemn you more if you KNEW you were doing evil. You may be aggressively ignorant, but I don't think you mean to do evil. I just wish you'd pray and search your souls to see if maybe there's a grain of truth in what I say.

Good Bye

Posted by: Bob Kyffin at April 8, 2009 8:39 PM


Bob, get over yourself. You don't come in here with a charitable attitude trying to convert people to your cause. You come in here insulting us and questioning our faith. Do you really think that is doing anything to help?

Posted by: Lauren at April 8, 2009 8:52 PM


Bethany, I don't know if this helps, but..

IF forty years ago, the pro-life movement would have stood firmly on God's word, 'do not murder the innocent', and held fast to that principle, would be be better off, today? Who knows. But at least, we would have been honoring God, with our actions.

Do laws that try to regulate abortion (today's pro-life strategy) make abortion more acceptable, more reasonable, to this generation, and the next generation, and the next...?

And, will these laws, (that will save some babies,) cause millions more to suffer and die, because abortion has been made to seem reasonable to the public? Who knows.

I choose the strategy that I know honors God's command, "do not kill the innocent."

I'm not smart enough, or foolish enough to play guessing games with the lives of the innocent.

I am humble enough to honor God. I think you are, too

Posted by: mballentine at April 8, 2009 9:05 PM


Lauren, I came in here probably two years ago with a very charitable attitude, hoping I could convert people with reason and logic, by explaining our strategy in about 15 different ways. Some people -- 3 or 4 -- have actually seen the logic of what I'm saying, and have told me so. But I've grown increasingly cynical about the willingness of the rest of you to listen to anything I say, no matter how I say it.

It's just a waste of time. It's your way or the highway, which is what you accuse us of.

Posted by: Bob Kyffin at April 8, 2009 9:44 PM


Jill Stanek: “So many real enemies to fight [and American RTL] picks on Ann Coulter and Mitt Romney. How I wish Mitt Romney were in the White House at this moment.”

Yes, how much better to have our own Republican child killers in power! At least then we get a seat at the table! No?

Indisputable Jill: After Mitt’s alleged 2004 political pro-life conversion, Romney authorized tax-funded elective abortion. (Whereas millions of ‘pro-choicers’ support abortion only in some cases; and millions of other ‘pro-choicers’ oppose paying for abortion with public money, PRO-LIFE ROMNEY FUNDED ELECTIVE ABORTIONS WITH TAX DOLLARS. That and a dozen other aggravating circumstances convict him of giving lip service to pro-lifers as he takes life from innocent children and gives blood-money to for-sale pro-life leaders.

That's why American RTL exists. As Jill put it, ARTL "continues to engage in friendly fire." Yes. Because the friendly kind is preferable to the unquenchable lake of fire kind. For as long as our leaders prefer Republican pro-aborts to Democratic ones, that's EXACTLY what we'll get: Republican pro-aborts.

Jill, first you defended laws that end with, "and then you can kill the baby," thinking you are not compromising on God's command, and that these laws will not further erode the nation's ability to ever affirm personhood. Now you dream of electing an aggressively pro-abortion Republican like Romney. Please Jill, can't you see the moral slide?

-Bob Enyart
AmericanRTL.org

Posted by: Bob Enyart at April 8, 2009 9:48 PM


Battle of the giant egos and publicity hounds-
Stanek v. Enyart. Get your tickets here.

Posted by: Bystander at April 8, 2009 10:06 PM


Bystander, I'm about to make a suggestion regarding valid targets of criticism. I'm interested in your take...

Posted by: Bob Enyart at April 8, 2009 10:45 PM


Jill Stanek: “1-1/2 years ago the ARTL board gave itself 12 years to stop abortion... It failed to hold its 1st annual conference last year.”

Jill, you criticize ARTL for criticizing pro-lifers. You level criticism at ARTL for other than moral failure, while ARTL tries to criticize only that. American RTL has limited their criticism to exposing those who...
* dishonor God:
http://artlaction.com/release/20080825/james-dobson-violates-pledge-made-invoking-god
* disobey God:
http://www.americanrighttolife.com/PBA+Fiasco and,
unwittingly undermine personhood and the God-given right to life:
http://www.americanrighttolife.org/news/oppose-regulations-because

Jill, the week ARTL was formed it stated that while National RTL counts upward (currently hosting it’s 37th Annual Convention with no end or accountable goal in sight, no?), ARTL events would be counting downward. Why? “Our charter gives the founding directors and officers twelve years in which to end abortion in America. At that time, if they have not, they are required to turn over ARTL to an entirely new slate of leaders, their leadership coming to an end, either because they have succeeded, or failed… ARTL's board members, officers, and spokesmen serve without salary.” ARTL is avoiding the career-minded, high-salary, retirement-funding job-security model in the war to end child killing, because it has not well-served the unborn.

[Bystander, here's what I'd like your take on:]
Jill, of course you can criticize pro-life groups for anything you please. But consider ARTL’s practice, of not criticizing superficially or for tactical disagreements, but only for alleged fundamental moral failures.

Jill Stanek: “So many real enemies to fight [and American RTL] picks on Ann Coulter and Mitt Romney. How I wish Mitt Romney were in the White House at this moment.”

If Romney is not the enemy to the pro-life industry, then American RTL’s leadership is desperately needed.

Jill, Mitt Romney is a mass-murdering pro-life Republican child-killer who recently and egregiously committed the atrocity of authorizing funding for elective abortion. First you defended immoral "and then you can kill the baby" laws. Now you defend those guilty of actually killing the baby. You defend those who fund the killing of innocent children. You defend their lies, and those who swear by them. Please Jill, can't you see the moral slide?

-Bob Enyart
AmericanRTL.org

Posted by: Bob Enyart at April 8, 2009 10:55 PM


Bethany stated..."If you take away the legal authority to kill 95 percent, that is GOOD. If it's illegal and you GIVE authority to kill 100 percent, that is BAD."

HUH? Clueless! What part of the 100% are wondering if they'll be in your acceptable 5% death trap?

ANSWER: 100% of them.

Posted by: GODISNOWHERE at April 8, 2009 11:10 PM


Bystander, I posted this to Jill, but perhaps because it contained links (I don’t know) it was “held for approval,” so I’ll try again, re-posting without the links:

Jill Stanek: “1-1/2 years ago the ARTL board gave itself 12 years to stop abortion in the U.S. It failed to hold its 1st annual conference last year.”

Jill, you criticize ARTL for criticizing pro-lifers. You level criticism at ARTL for other than moral failure, while ARTL attempts to criticize for only that. American RTL has limited their criticism to expose those who...
* dishonor God:
See ARTL’s site: Dr. Dobson Violates Pledge;
* disobey God:
See ARTL's PBA Ban Saves None; and,
* unwittingly undermine personhood and the God-given right to life:
See ARTL’s Oppose regulations because…

Jill, the week ARTL was formed it held its first convention; you're refering to it not holding its second, which it decided not to do because it was immersed in promoting Colorado's historic personhood amendment, which doubled doubled the industry's conventional wisdom that the most a total ban could possibly garner is 13% (we got 585,000 votes in liberal Colorado, 27%, and that with opposition from almost all leading pro-life groups and Republicans). ARTL stated that first week that while National RTL counts upward (currently hosting its 37th Annual Convention and counting, with no end or accountable goal in sight, no?), American RTL events would be counting downward. Why? “Our charter gives the founding directors and officers twelve years in which to end abortion in America. At that time, if they have not, they are required to turn over ARTL to an entirely new slate of leaders, their leadership coming to an end, either because they have succeeded, or failed… ARTL's board members, officers, and spokesmen serve without salary.” ARTL is avoiding the career-minded, high-salary, retirement-funding job-security model in the war to end child killing, because it has not well-served the unborn.

[Bystander, here’s the part I’d like your take on:]
Jill, of course you can criticize pro-life groups for anything you please. But consider ARTL’s practice, of not criticizing superficially or for tactical disagreements, but only for alleged fundamental moral failures.

Jill Stanek: “So many real enemies to fight [and American RTL] picks on Ann Coulter and Mitt Romney. How I wish Mitt Romney were in the White House at this moment.”

If Romney is not the enemy to the pro-life industry, then American RTL’s leadership is desperately needed.

Jill, Mitt Romney is a mass-murdering pro-life Republican child-killer who recently and egregiously committed the atrocity of authorizing funding for elective abortion. First you defended immoral laws. Now you defend those who fund the killing of innocent children. Please Jill, can't you see the moral slide?

-Bob Enyart
AmericanRTL.org

Posted by: Bob Enyart at April 8, 2009 11:15 PM


OK one more time for all of you dodge ball pros. This time the challenge is easier.

The challenge for all of you in the fundraising pro-life industry is this:

1. SHOW THE EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY OF WHAT THIS VIDEO CLAIMS (in slick Mitt's own words).

2. SHOW THE EVIDENCE OF EVEN ONE REPUBLICAN APPOINTED SUPREME COURT JUSTICE THAT IS NOT PRO-CHILD KILLING.

Hello? Hello? Hello? Hel...

Posted by: GODISNOWHERE at April 8, 2009 11:16 PM


Friends, enemies and neutrals: What Bob Enyart and friends have been saying here is right and true! Why do you some of you resist the righteousness and truth of God? There is far more love in accepting His chastening than pursuing your, "this is all we can hope to do because the people aren't ready attitude." Also, you have the attitude, "we're the shakers and movers, what have you done so, don't criticize us." Since when have the ways of God been the ways of the masses? The time has come to rethink your strategies. God is not impressed by the leaders you elect! There are so many examples I could add to what has been presented. One recent representation of what happened at the hands of our Christian Republicans is the North Dakota Senate voting down HB 1572, the human being law. Brave Republicans passed it in the ND House but, 7 cowardly Republicans turned it down in the Senate. 2 Democrats stayed home and didn't vote. This swing vote is why it failed. Christian Republicans gave in so, abortion will continue. I will echo what has been stated before; I am against any law that ends with, "and then you can kill the baby!" I need to go to bed for now but, I want to leave you with this question, "Why would you vote for a liar? Can anyone say he or she is a Republican, Christian, pro-lifer; then get elected or make money from books & t.v. and be all those things they claim to be in name only, and they still are wonderful in your eyes?" They are not, in God's eyes, I can emphatically assure you. I'll be back...Good night!

Posted by: Kent Chambers at April 8, 2009 11:26 PM


Hey Jill,

ARTL never claimed to have an annual conference, and the board does meet regularly. Why the mischaracterization?

Posted by: Josh at April 9, 2009 12:01 AM


Lauren said – "Alan Keyes didn't have a shot in hell at winning."

Neither did McCain. The Bob Enyart Live radio program said time and time again before the election that McCain didn’t have a chance at winning the election. We all knew he would be slaughtered and he was. But again, you miss the point. Replace Keyes with someone else, maybe the apostle Paul or Jesus Christ himself. Neither would win an election. No matter what you say or believe, you wouldn’t vote for them! Your strategy is not godly or moral, it’s nothing but compromise.

You will always support evil as long as he/she is running against someone worse. The Democrats don’t compromise on their anti-life position, so why in the world do you compromise on your pro-life position?

Posted by: Will D at April 9, 2009 12:29 AM


Oliver said – "Im curious Will D, what good have you ever accomplished for the pro-life movement, even in the slightest? Oh it doesnt count causing trouble within the movement by the way. Thats a bad thing."

Can you agree Oliver, that whatever I’ve accomplished or have not accomplished for the pro-life movement has no bearing on whether or not I’m right or wrong on the arguments I put forth?
(It is getting a little discouraging writing the arguments and getting no responses to the content of my posts.)

For the record, and for those comparing me to Jill Stanek, I don’t see myself EVER accomplishing what Jill Stanek has already done for the movement.

Posted by: Will D at April 9, 2009 12:31 AM


People say that ARTL is divisive and attacks the pro-life movement. I don't really see it that way. They are attacking the enemy. Mitt Romney is the enemy. John McCain is the enemy. George W. Bush is the enemy. Ron Paul is the enemy.

We all forget that Jesus was especially hard on those who were religious. Paul rebuked Peter to his face because he was to be blamed. Paul tells us of the greater importance of judging fellow believers as opposed to outside the body of Christ. (I Cor. 5:12) I have no doubt you all would react the same to these two men.

Anyone named a brother that denies the personhood of any group of people, whether Jew, or black, or the pre-born, is the enemy and must be fought. Not only do they deny personhood, but they want some abortion legal. Never forget that George W. Bush opposed the abortion ban in South Dakota saying, "If I can't kill a few babies, I'd rather it be legal to kill them all." Yet no one here, not even Jill herself will criticize him for this.

Why the dishonesty?

Posted by: Will D at April 9, 2009 12:44 AM


People say that ARTL is divisive and attacks the pro-life movement. I don't really see it that way. They are attacking the enemy. Mitt Romney is the enemy. John McCain is the enemy. George W. Bush is the enemy. Ron Paul is the enemy.

We all forget that Jesus was especially hard on those who were religious. Paul rebuked Peter to his face because he was to be blamed. Paul tells us of the greater importance of judging fellow believers as opposed to outside the body of Christ. (I Cor. 5:12) I have no doubt you all would react the same to these two men.

Anyone named a brother that denies the personhood of any group of people, whether Jew, or black, or the pre-born, is the enemy and must be fought. Not only do they deny personhood, but they want some abortion legal. Never forget that George W. Bush opposed the abortion ban in South Dakota saying, "If I can't kill a few babies, I'd rather it be legal to kill them all." Yet no one here, not even Jill herself will criticize him for this.

Why the dishonesty?

Posted by: Will D at April 9, 2009 12:45 AM


Jesus: You will know them by their fruits.
Lauren: Romney would have ultimately voted pro-life…
Joanne: I am sure Romney would have been pro life…
Colossians: don't let anyone deceive you with persuasive words

Nathan Sheets: I don't have a God at this point…
Jesus Christ: “he who does not believe is condemned " John 3:18

Oliver: the right to life comes from… a “social contract”
Enyart: then it’s not a right, is it?
God the Son: “Do not murder” Mark 10:19
God the Son: “Do not kill the innocent” for “in the image of God, He made man”

Lauren: This ARTL Coulter video against Romney “will do NOTHING…”
Prediction: ARTL’s effort will make Romney radioactive such that the majority of pro-lifers who were duped by Ann, Focus, Nat’l RTL, Sekulow, etc., into defending him will refuse to do so in 2012.
Bethany: Good post Lauren.
Lauren: Bethany. I just get so irritated by the in-fighting.
Me: Then Lauren, stop infighting :)
Patient: Doc, it hurts when I do this.
Doctor: then don’t do that.
Lauren: We all agree that a personhood amendment would be great…
Me: As long as you leave out of your “we” those who oppose personhood and refuse to support all the recent personhood efforts, including Romney, Bush, McCain, Palin, Romney, Paul, Scalia, Alito, National, Sekulow, Pavone, the Bishops, AUL… and did I mention Romney?

Bethany: Picketing? Sidewalk counseling? …all the… pro-lifers that you continually throw stones at [do these things].
Me: Bethany, I seem to recall that National Right To Life has always opposed the army of sidewalk counselors who have saved tens of thousands of children (Colorado RTL’s Jo Scott alone has over 1,000 confirmed saves). National also opposed the best chance in the 1990s to end child killing, which was the rescue movement, which dwarfed the non-violent protests of the civil rights movement and saved thousands of children. In the 1980s, they opposed Reagan’s offer to work for a federal human life amendment saying they prefer a state-by-state approach. And a quarter of a century later they now oppose the state personhood efforts. [Oh, and btw, NRTL has unceremoniously expelled MANY leaders and groups along the way who have questioned them. Notice that the pro-life industry only objects when groups like ARTL take action against others, and yet for decades it tacitly approves when Nat'l does likewise. Jill? You see, American RTL is standing up for the little guy, who has been mocked for thirty years trying to right the wrongs of the pro-life seat-at-the-table fundraising industry.] Bethany, please don’t assume that the pro-life industry always supports what is good and opposes what is evil.

Bethany: I do not believe you (Enyart, etc.) are in this because you care about the babies.
Me: Bethany, it’s safest to judge actions, and as Jesus said, fruit. Judging motives is hazardous of course. You guys criticize ARTL for attempting to judge immorality, and here at Jill’s site, you guys repeatedly judge superficially (you haven’t had a second conference?) and motives. Please judge us if it appears to you that we have violated God’s command.
Bethany: “I believe you are in this… to pass yourself off as morally superior to others.”
Me: Wow.

Bethany: Abortion “wasn't legal before… Roe vs Wade”
ARTL’s Ron Paul profile: “19 states permitted abortion for various reasons before Roe.” It turns out that it wasn’t the Republican U.S. Supreme Court that first legalized abortion! It was the Republican governors in Colorado, California, and hundreds of other Republican legislators around the country (oh yeah, some Democrats were guilty too). A Republican justice wrote Roe v. Wade; it was passed by a Republican majority; abortion is affirmed by the 60% of the federal judiciary, a majority!, nominated by Republican presidents (most by Reagan, Bush, and W. Bush; and the current Republican U.S. Supreme Court (seven of nine are Rs) keep child killing legal; Alito and Scalia can find no protection for an unborn child in law; and with hubris the “most pro-life justice on the court” Antonin Scalia says that he would strike down a law that bans abortion in America.

[Anyone recall the definition of insanity?]

Consider: lawmaking is not like other things. The law is the great teacher. A billion people have said things like: abortion is okay, because it’s legal. If Roe were simply overturned, a thousand pro-life laws would keep abortion legal (like in Indiana, abortion is illegal unless the woman signs her informed consent). Law confers authority. When you repeatedly confer authority to kill a fetus, even though you think you do so begrudgingly, you teach millions that some abortion is good, and you further undermine the acknowledgement of the God-given right to life and personhood of the unborn among judges, politicians, the media, ministers, Christians, and the public.

Thank you, for your encouragement, to:
Martha
Bert
just saying
m. ballentine and mballentine (related?)
Will D
Marilyn Musgrave
McBurney
Ezek1319
theonlything2fear
GODISNOWHERE
JamesC
Bob Kyffin (Wow. Glad to be on THIS guy’s side!)

G’nite all.

-Bob Enyart
American RTL

Posted by: Bob Enyart at April 9, 2009 1:10 AM


Oh yeah!

And thanks Kent Chambers!

-Bob

Posted by: Bob Enyart at April 9, 2009 1:19 AM


Will: "Can you agree Oliver, that whatever I’ve accomplished or have not accomplished for the pro-life movement has no bearing on whether or not I’m right or wrong on the arguments I put forth?"

Of course I can agree with this. My point had nothing to with assualting your reason but only to clarify your own failure at universal change. Just to keep the record straight.

Bob Kyffin,

You are full of sh*t. Ive protested your flawed reasoning before and you have yet to ever respond. You only continue to spew ramblings like a spinning top.

I dont really spend my time debating why exactly the "incrementalist" approach is just fine ethically, considering my real concern is, you know, saving babies and not, as you so adamantly pursue, trumping other pro-lifers. However I have a few simply points for your consideration.

Your analogy, which is a clear window into your madness...

Bob: "Abortion is totally prohibited except for once a year, when Bethany will personally kill a baby on the altar of Incrementalism.""

Now your analogy suggests that our goal is to create legislation that ACTIVELY kills a child. The absurdity is unreal. We have no such goal. Our only goal is to continue to limit the scope of abortion. The legislation we promote does not one single thing to promote abortions. It only specifies types of abortions to be made illegal. We no more tacitly promote some abortions by not limiting them specifically in a piece of legislation than you promote an abortion mill by only protesting at one specific mill that day.

Consider a more reasonable analogy...

A terrorist has 20 hostages, 5 adult men, 5 adult women, 5 children and 5 elderly. If the terrorist agrees to only allow the children and elderly to be removed until further negotiation is accmplished, would it be imoral to take only the elderly and children? Of course not. In fact, I would argue that it would be imoral to do the opposite.

Posted by: Oliver at April 9, 2009 1:21 AM


Oliver, you wrote: "A terrorist has 20 hostages, 5 adult men, 5 adult women, 5 children and 5 elderly. If the terrorist agrees to only allow the children and elderly to be removed until further negotiation is accmplished, would it be immoral to take only the elderly and children? Of course not."

Correct.

But, would it be immoral to offer: "Mr. Terrorist, if you let me save 19 hostages, I'll consent, albeit begrudgingly, to you killing one child."

Of course it would.

That is called child sacrifice.

Law confers authority. That's why if Roe was simply overturned, the authorizatin of our own pro-life laws would keep abortion legal and hundreds of thousands or millions would be killed while we attempt to repeal or supercede our own laws. Oliver, when you repeatedly confer authority to kill a fetus, even though you think you do so begrudgingly, you teach millions that some abortion is good, and you further undermine the acknowledgement of the God-given right to life and personhood of the unborn among judges, politicians, the media, ministers, Christians, and the public.

Posted by: Bob Enyart at April 9, 2009 2:13 AM


Excellent posts Bob!

Posted by: Ezek1319 at April 9, 2009 2:26 AM


Bethany said:

"Many, many times you people have directly accused us of "doing evil that good may come"."

Yes, because THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE ACTUALLY DOING!

You have argued repeatedly that laws that say its legal to rape a young girl if some regulation or little barrier is put in the way such as a parental consent requirement - that you think that is a good law that pro-lifers should promote passing.

Wait, it wasn't rape with exceptions you were promoting, its was murder with exceptions WHICH IS MUCH WORSE!!

Yep, you're fine with doing evil that good may come. Should have a pic of you and your arguments for regulating abortion next to the explanation of that phrase.

Posted by: Ezek1319 at April 9, 2009 2:31 AM


Oliver,

To be honest, in 2 years of debating this subject you are the first person to make a cogent and reasonable argument against my position and in favor of incrementalism, such that it made me stop and think. Good job, and thank you -- I have 10 times more respect for you now than for the others who've debated me here and elsewhere in all that time.

IF the law worked as you seem to think it does, then your argument would certainly be correct. But it doesn't work that way.

If you Google "Model Traffic Code" for instance (it doesn't matter which one you find, they're all pretty much the same) and look up laws for Stop Signs, you'll see it uses the word MUST. "Must stop..." Similar language, meaning the same thing will say, "shall yield..." Must and Shall have specific legal meanings. When an abortion law says "Shall provide an ultrasound image..." it means there's no choice. They have to, or else they've violated the law.

"No person shall..." is a prohibition, very specific. If a law says "No doctor shall perform an abortion..." that's very specific too. Unless there's an exception, that means a doctor performing an abortion has violated the law.

The problem is there are no incremental anti-abortion laws written this way. If they had no exceptions, they wouldn't be incremental, by definition. All incremental laws have exceptions for something.

When there's an exception, the law (traffic or otherwise) uses phrases like, "Except as otherwise provided... shall" or "This section shall not apply if..." or "Stopping is prohibited unless..." or "No driver shall... unless..."

Language such as this is in every incremental law, including Parental Notification Laws, the S. Dakota "Ban Except for Rape & Incest", Abortion Ultrasound bills, etc. "Abortion shall be prohibited unless..."

It might not sound like these laws specifically allow an abortion, because it doesn't say "An abortion shall be performed if..." but it doesn't actually have to say that in order to mean the very same thing.

Look at traffic laws with regard to speeding. "No person shall drive a vehicle at a speed greater than..." and you can read through the law to see it set rates of speed: "...forty miles per hour in..." or "...sixty-five miles per hour on..." Each of these subsections which sets the speed is assumed to be preceded by the first part, i.e. "No person shall drive a vehicle at a speed greater than... sixty-five miles per hour in..."

You can try to read through the speed laws and find it, but I'm 99% certain that you will never find a law which actually says "A driver may drive a vehicle at a speed up to..." In fact, nowhere will you find a law which says "A driver may drive a vehicle at..." any speed. "May" equals permission in legal language -- not compulsion, but allowance.

So, if you follow the logic you used in your most recent post to me -- that the S.Dakota law does not "allow" or "promote" abortion because it doesn't specifically require it, whereas it does prohibit certain abortions, then you must also, by the same logic, believe that no one is allowed to drive a vehicle at any speed under these traffic laws, because above "x" speed such behavior is permitted. But BELOW that speed, there is nothing specifically authorizing it, so therefore...

Obviously, people can drive at any speed UP TO the prohibition set by the traffic law. It is ASSUMED that someone "may" drive a vehicle, and by the very fact that there's a law on the subject you can PRESUME that they "shall" drive a vehicle. The very fact that there's a law REGULATING driving speed means there is a PRESUMPTION that it's permissible to drive. In fact, you could point to this law and say "I'm allowed, so long as I...", and so the stand of the police is that "you shall" be allowed to drive "unless"...

The South Dakota law, and all these other laws are the very same. By the very fact that there is a law on the books to PROHIBIT abortion in some cases (there isn't in some states, and those are the safest states for unborn children, because if Roe v. Wade is overturned, there is NO authorizing law to allow abortions), indicates to every lawyer, every politician and every judge (and don't second guess citizens -- citizens inherently understand this too, even if only subconsciously) that there is an ALLOWANCE of abortion in the cases specified.

"Abortion shall be prohibited unless the parent of a minor child grants permission..." is the VERY SAME as saying "Abortion is allowed (legal) if the parent of a minor child grants permission." Remember, this MUST be so, or else you would be breaking the law just driving to work, because there's certainly no law saying you "may" or "shall" drive at any speed. It's presumed you can drive because there is a regulation saying how fast is too fast, and it's presumed that abortion is legal because there's a regulation prohibiting abortion "except..."

So if Roe v. Wade is overhthrown tomorrow, all these pro-life laws -- 30 or 40 of them around the country -- BECOME PRO-ABORTION LAWS! Democrats and NARAL will FIGHT to KEEP Parental Notification laws ON THE BOOKS! And Abortion Ultrasound Bills! And Prohibitions Except for Rape and Incest! Because that's the law that says it's legal to perform an abortion in the State of ______.

Does that help? If not, there's no point in my continuing to try to explain.

Posted by: Bob Kyffin at April 9, 2009 2:44 AM


Oliver,

Naturally, I reject your argument about the terrorists though, because it's based on your assumption that we're just saving lives with these pro-life legislation, not that we're acutally authorizing abortion, as I hope I've proved with my detailed explanation.

You're correct -- the law which I proposed to Bethany is a flawed analogy, because I was being extreme and the law actually demanded the death of a child. I wanted to see if she'd go for it, because her posts prior to that seemed to suggest she'd consider that a fine trade. But the law I usually propose would be like this:

"Oliver's Law prohibits abortion in all cases, except when the baby has reached the third trimester, when abortion is allowed." This, obviously, is backward from the normal prohibition of late-term abortions, but actually it would be more effective in "saving babies", right, because it'd save 95% or more of the babies, and only kill those children whose mothers are wicked enough to still want to kill their child even though they look like the baby already born in the bed next door.

I'd ask you if you'd sign it, and save 95% of the babies, even though it does specifically allow 5% of babies to be killed. Naturally, as I've just explained, the law would be able to accomplish EXACTLY the same result if it only prohibited the 95% and no more, because that leaves the court with the PRESUMPTION that abortion is okay during the third trimester.

It's that VERY SAME PRESUMPTION that gave us Roe v. Wade, because the Supreme Court PRESUMED that Texas did not consider unborn babies to be Persons under the law, because if they were there would not be an exception in the law where an innocent Person could be killed. Texas did NOT have any law on the books explicitly authorizing (i.e. "shall.." or "may...") abortion. All they had was a prohibition with an exception: "Abortion shall be prohibited except..." And that exception -- that ill-founded attempt to "protect" babies -- has killed 50 million children to date.

So, what do you say, Oliver? Would you "save" 95% of the babies by signing "Oliver's Law"???

Bob

Posted by: Bob Kyffin at April 9, 2009 2:57 AM


Obviously, in the first recent post I meant to say in the 11th paragraph:

"So, if you follow the logic you used in your most recent post to me -- that the S.Dakota law does not "allow" or "promote" abortion because it doesn't specifically require it, whereas it does prohibit certain abortions, then you must also, by the same logic, believe that no one is allowed to drive a vehicle at any speed under these traffic laws, because above "x" speed such behavior is prohibited. But BELOW that speed, there is nothing specifically authorizing it, so therefore..."

Posted by: Bob Kyffin at April 9, 2009 3:05 AM


"How I wish Mitt Romney were in the White House at this moment."
I assume, then, that you also would prefer Bill or Hillary Clinton whose administration was also, demonstrably, to the right of Obama. And, of course, that would also rule in Julie Rudiani, the cross-dressing pro-abortion activist whose New York economic policies would be clearly preferable to the "Hopeful Change" agent currently in the White House, though they would not be "good," in any absolute sense. Gerald Ford, too, would be a good choice, as would Mike Dukakis and Walter Mondale. All men more or less "better" than the Black Marxist. Tell me this is your opinion and I'll give you credit for consistency. But not wisdom. Brownback went down this road a few minutes, ago, I think.

Posted by: Doug Parris at April 9, 2009 6:59 AM


I can totally see what Enyart, Kyffin, and co. are saying.

But the way they put it, it comes down to semantics.

If the law said, "Abortion of children not conceived in rape or incest is prohibited," would it be better? That doesn't give permission to kill those children.

What about laws that say you cannot bring a minor to another state for an abortion? Do they implicitly allow abortions in the state?

The thing about these laws is that they can be improved by other laws. If the first law was accompanied by a law that said "Abortion of children conceived by rape or incest is illegal," abortion would be illegal. But by your logic you would oppose both.

What if the laws were introduced together, as companion laws? One law would prohibit abortion of children conceived without rape or incest; the other law would prohibit killing children whose conception resulted from rape or incest. Would you recommend voting for both, against both, or for only the second?

If a law says "A minor can't leave the state to get an abortion," and another says "Abortion is illegal in this state," then the minor can't get an abortion. If the law says "A minor cannot get an abortion without parental permission," and another says "No one can get an abortion," abortion is still illegal.

Let's rephrase Oliver's law. In committee, it is changed to "Abortion is prohibited in the first and second trimester." Would you still vote against it? I wouldn't. If you then pass a second law which says "Abortion is prohibited in the third trimester," abortion becomes illegal. But you don't like either of these laws. Why is it worse to pass them in the other order?

There is very little I want more than for all abortion to become illegal. If a law makes some abortions illegal, though, I would want it to pass. I am in favor of laws that prohibit the abortion of black babies, or gay babies, or girl babies. That doesn't mean I want straight, white, male babies to die.

And if it is illegal to kill 95% of the babies, abortionists would not have an easy time staying in business. Many, if not all, would have to close their doors, so many (perhaps all) of that five percent could be saved as well (assuming that abortionists didn't just start claiming all the abortions were a result of rape). And by treating most of the preborn as if they have worth and rights, perhaps public opinion would change enough that those rights could be extended to all preborn. How can you argue it is righteous to not save the lives of the 95%?

Do not misunderstand me--you will find no one more anti-abortion than me. I fully support personhood laws. I think that embryo research is a personal insult to the children I have lost as embryos. I think that fetal rights extend even to those preborn babies who will not survive outside the womb. I think that failing to allow a blastocyst to implant is as awful as tying a newborn in a plastic bag to prevent her from breathing. I long for the day when so-called doctors who killed innocent children are tried for their crimes against humanity.

But I fully support a law that says, "Michelle Obama may not abort her children." Because if even one baby is saved, it is a victory.

Posted by: YCW at April 9, 2009 7:54 AM


Jesus: You will know them by their fruits.
Lauren: Romney would have ultimately voted pro-life…
Joanne: I am sure Romney would have been pro life…
Colossians: don't let anyone deceive you with persuasive words

I'll keep that verse in Colossians in mind when you guys come here trying to deceive us with persuasive words.

Bethany: Picketing? Sidewalk counseling? …all the… pro-lifers that you continually throw stones at [do these things].
Me: Bethany, I seem to recall that National Right To Life has always opposed the army of sidewalk counselors who have saved tens of thousands of children (Colorado RTL’s Jo Scott alone has over 1,000 confirmed saves). National also opposed the best chance in the 1990s to end child killing, which was the rescue movement, which dwarfed the non-violent protests of the civil rights movement and saved thousands of children. In the 1980s, they opposed Reagan’s offer to work for a federal human life amendment saying they prefer a state-by-state approach. And a quarter of a century later they now oppose the state personhood efforts. [Oh, and btw, NRTL has unceremoniously expelled MANY leaders and groups along the way who have questioned them. Notice that the pro-life industry only objects when groups like ARTL take action against others, and yet for decades it tacitly approves when Nat'l does likewise. Jill? You see, American RTL is standing up for the little guy, who has been mocked for thirty years trying to right the wrongs of the pro-life seat-at-the-table fundraising industry.] Bethany, please don’t assume that the pro-life industry always supports what is good and opposes what is evil.

Wow. Way to put words in my mouth and set up a nice strawman, Bob Enyart. So much easier to argue your opponent when you are making their arguments for them, isn't it?

When did I ever say anything about any industry or organization? I was speaking about individual pro-lifers. Individual pro-lifers are continually sidewalk counseling, picketing...and most of them somehow manage to do it without the help of the Bob Enyart crowd. What does that have to do with NRTL?

Posted by: Bethany at April 9, 2009 7:57 AM


Bethany: I do not believe you (Enyart, etc.) are in this because you care about the babies.
Me: Bethany, it’s safest to judge actions, and as Jesus said, fruit. Judging motives is hazardous of course. You guys criticize ARTL for attempting to judge immorality, and here at Jill’s site, you guys repeatedly judge superficially (you haven’t had a second conference?) and motives. Please judge us if it appears to you that we have violated God’s command.

What about continually sowing discord among brethren? Calling sisters and brothers in Christ "pigs" and "fools", terms for the Godless.

Posted by: Bethany at April 9, 2009 8:03 AM


You have argued repeatedly that laws that say its legal to rape a young girl if some regulation or little barrier is put in the way such as a parental consent requirement - that you think that is a good law that pro-lifers should promote passing.
Wait, it wasn't rape with exceptions you were promoting, its was murder with exceptions WHICH IS MUCH WORSE!!
Yep, you're fine with doing evil that good may come. Should have a pic of you and your arguments for regulating abortion next to the explanation of that phrase.

Zeke, if raping little girls was legal with no restrictions whatsoever, and there was a way that I could save 95 percent of them while I found a way to save the remaining 5 percent, of course I would do it.
If I didn't, all 100 percent would still be raped, LEGALLY.
How could I possibly consider myself to be doing good, if I allowed 100 percent to continue being raped legally when I could save 95 percent from that injustice?

Never mind. You won't get it no matter how many times you are presented with it.

Will Duffy, thank you for having the courage to defend Jill to Zeke. I respect you for that.

Posted by: Bethany at April 9, 2009 8:07 AM


And like its been repeated over and over to the point where it's ridiculous, we don't STOP at laws which protect 95 percent. We keep working to protect the rest. We don't think, oh well, 95 percent are saved- that's good enough for us. We keep going till we can save all of them. How can this be any clearer? We are NOT okay with killing ANY of them. And it'd be nice if at the very least you people could acknowledge that instead of accusing us of wanting to sacrifice children!

Posted by: Bethany at April 9, 2009 8:15 AM


Friends, enemies and neutrals: What Bob Enyart and friends have been saying here is right and true! Why do you some of you resist the righteousness and truth of God?

You're assuming that Bob Enyart's truth is God's truth.

What you don't seem to realize is that the devil himself is able to quote scripture and is quite good at it.

I don't automatically believe what Bob Enyart says just because he throws verses at us and claims to be morally superior to us.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 9, 2009 8:18 AM


The above was me.

Posted by: Bethany at April 9, 2009 8:19 AM


The reason that rape-and-incest exception laws are so much more successful is because so many people buy into the pro-choice argument that a woman should not have to be pregnant against her will. The thing is, most recognize what the pro-choice-to-kill-a-baby won't admit: most women get a choice before they get pregnant. Most woman choose to have sex, knowing (however slim they may think that the chance is) that they may get pregnant. The sixteen-year-old who screwed around but doesn't want her parents to know, and so gets an abortion, made the choice to screw around. Then, she made a second choice-to get an abortion. The sixteen-year-old who was raped by her uncle did not make any choice leading to her pregnancy. So those who think that women should have a choice about getting pregnant have much more sympathy for the second girl. Pro-lifers have much more sympathy for the second girl. Pro-choicers even probably have more respect for the second girl.

But their babies get equal respect from pro-lifers (and from pro-choicers). Their babies are equally valued by those who value life, and devalued by those who devalue life.

So we do need personhood laws to protect both babies, but in the meantime, if we can protect one baby by appealing to a broader base of support, I am all for it. And I am also for as much education as possible on what abortion is, on prenatal development, and on anything you can think of that may save the lives of some babies.

Posted by: YCW at April 9, 2009 8:20 AM


Ycw, I completely agree. (8:20)

Why don't they want to acknowledge that we support the personhood laws?

Posted by: Bethany at April 9, 2009 8:22 AM


Oliver, reconsider your position on 'where the right to life comes from'. Then, together, we can affirm to the Nathan Sheets of the world there is a God of justice and mercy.

The foundation of our movement, is of course, Jesus Christ. And, those entering abortion clinics, or debating the issue on this web site, should always be told of the saving grace of our King.

Nathan Sheets is lost. Let's tell him, and others like him, There is a God. Babies are made in His image and no government, no social contract, no pro-life organization has the authority to bargain with an innocent child's life.

Posted by: mballentine at April 9, 2009 8:28 AM


Bethany, YCW,
The "choice" movement was based on the HARD cases of rape and incest. Norma McCorvey lied and said she was gang raped, to garner public support. There is an outcry over abortion for rape and incest, even though they only comprise 1% of all abortions.

Even here you will notice, the hard cases are always thrown out as to why abortion should remain legal. Robert Berger, anyone? :)

Posted by: Carla at April 9, 2009 8:39 AM


Bob Enyart, 10:55p, wrote:

Jill Stanek: “1-1/2 years ago the ARTL board gave itself 12 years to stop abortion... It failed to hold its 1st annual conference last year.”

Jill, you criticize ARTL for criticizing pro-lifers. You level criticism at ARTL for other than moral failure, while ARTL tries to criticize only that. American RTL has limited their criticism to exposing those...

Bob, here's my point. ARTL has expended 15% of the time it allotted itself to wipe out abortion.

ARTL, therefore, lives in a glass house. Show me stats, Bob, show me laws. Show me where ARTL has decreased or stopped abortion by 15%.

Or is the plan 0% until you get 100%? YES, that is what ARTL actually supports. So we're to rest easy knowing that in 2017 all abortion will be ended, thanks to ARTL?

All I see is ARTL expending energy attacking Coulter, Dobson, and Romney as not pro-life or not pro-life enough, while ARTL has no demonstrable evidence its being pro-life enough has made a hill of beans difference. This is your strategy? This is how you think you're going to stop abortion? The problems are Coulter, Dobson, and Romney?

Bob, Will, I'm not wasting any more energy arguing with you. At the shallow end you're fools and at the deep end you're lunatics. I know your theology, Bob. I'm not sure about Will, but in my mind you're at the deep end. You're the leader of a cult. I've got a good mind to ban both you and Will. You're dangerous.

Posted by: Jill Stanek at April 9, 2009 8:40 AM


You're the leader of a cult.

Amen to that.

Posted by: Bethany at April 9, 2009 8:43 AM


READERS BEWARE: Bob Enyart's theology:

http://withchrist.org/bullinger.htm (scroll down)

http://www.geocities.com/mikem2u/theplot.html

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Bob_Enyart

Posted by: Jill Stanek at April 9, 2009 8:52 AM


Jill, WOW. I haven't read all of it, but this part caught my eye... Does Bob really believe this?

"So God sent his Son to Israel. But they rejected him, thus foiling God's plan."

WOW. To think that he would think that God's plan could actually be "foiled"... I knew a lot of the weird stuff Bob teaches, but this one was new to me.

Posted by: Bethany at April 9, 2009 8:55 AM


Yes, and he believes we should still be following OT law.

Posted by: Jill Stanek at April 9, 2009 8:58 AM


Death to shrimp eaters? Oh no...

Posted by: Hal at April 9, 2009 9:14 AM


Hal, lol.

Posted by: Bethany at April 9, 2009 9:20 AM


"Does Bob really believe this? "So God sent his Son to Israel. But they rejected him, thus foiling God's plan." WOW. To think that he would think that God's plan could actually be "foiled"... I knew a lot of the weird stuff Bob teaches, but this one was new to me."

I think this is one of those strange consequences of open theism, Bethany.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at April 9, 2009 9:25 AM


It makes no sense to me. How can one believe that God is all knowing, and all powerful, but that He could be surprised by something or that His plans could fail? That is just so wrong, and contradictory- and it's scary to think that these people believe that. It's like believing that WE control GOD.

God knows all, and sees all...future, past, present. Nothing gets by Him or takes Him by surprise.



Posted by: Bethany at April 9, 2009 9:34 AM


Indeed, Bethany. To me it seems to make God, who is pure action, very passive, dependent on our actions. Yet the primary cause of all our actions is God, the first cause. (That's right Zeke; we got that from PAGANISM via Aristotle. Therefore, it is wrong.) Thus the primary cause of our actions is the same being whose actions are determined by our actions.

So I think even without divine revelation it doesn't cohere.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at April 9, 2009 9:47 AM


Bobby, I've been doing more reading on Bob Enyart and saw more about what he teaches. He apparently teaches that Jesus blood is not redemptive of our sins, and that anyone who believes so believes in a vindictive and bloodthirsty God???
Here is the list of falsities he apparently teaches (from an apologetics site which lists the beliefs of Moral Government Theologists):

That...
* God does not fulfill some of His own prophecies.
* God changes His mind and is not immutable.
* God does not have sovereign control over earthly events.
* God does not know His future actions.
* God does not know ahead of time the free decisions of humans.
* God's foreknowledge is limited in the area of man's free decisions.
* Many of the things God predicted never came true.
* The atonement shows a willingness on God's part to forgive, rather than a desire to punish sin.
* God forgives completely out of His grace rather than a need for personal vindictive satisfaction.
* God never needed His wrath abated because of sin.
* The atonement does not pay our debt for sin.
* The devil has deceived us into believing that Christ was a ransom for us, and that he redeemed us by paying for our sins.
* Jesus did not pay for our sins.
* To believe that our salvation was literally purchased with Christ's blood makes God to be vindictive and bloodthirsty.
* One is ultimately responsible for his/her own salvation because of free will.
* Imputed righteousness is a lie. God does not look on Christians through the garb of Christ's blood.
* True repentance means ceasing from all sin before we die.
* Salvation is not so dependent on whether we accept Christ - it's whether He will accept us. We need to do more so that He will want to accept us.
* Salvation is dependent upon our adherence to moral law.
* God is holy only because He chooses to use His attributes in a loving way.
* God has the ability to make wrong choices or to sin.
* Our moral character is shaped merely by our individual acts of sin.
* If an individual unknowingly commits a sin, it is not a sin to that person and they will not be held to account for it by God.
* The sin of Adam is not transmitted to us, and it would be unjust for God to pronounce us guilty because of his sin.
* If God condemns us all because of Adam's sin, God must also save everyone because of what Christ did (Rom. 19). This is universalism, and therefore both parts of the argument must be wrong.
* Our moral depravity is shaped solely by wrong and sinful choices we make.
* We as humans are able to fulfill the law.
* Humans are not bound to a sinful flesh that continually wants to sin. Through good choices and an iron will, mankind can turn away from sin in and of him/herself.
* One can achieve perfection if that individual sets his/her goals high enough.

Wow. Just sickening. And I thought his constitutional monarchy page was bad.

Posted by: Bethany at April 9, 2009 10:05 AM


Jill and Bethany, you mis-characterize and downright lie re. B Enyart. YOU are just sickening.

Posted by: mballentine at April 9, 2009 10:14 AM


Mballentine, what has Bethany mischaracterized?

Posted by: Lauren at April 9, 2009 10:22 AM


If I have said anything that is incorrect, please by all means, let me know. I'll stand corrected.

Posted by: Bethany at April 9, 2009 10:26 AM


Bethany, give evidence that B Enyart ever said, "One can achieve perfection if that individual sets his goals high enough."

Or, admit that you are bearing false witness

Posted by: mballentine at April 9, 2009 10:28 AM


Bethany, I don't find those ideas particularly disturbing. The idea that homosexuals should get capital punishment, that's sickening.

These may not be traditional christian ideas, but I see them as more logical and certainly harmless. who cares if he believes these things:

* To believe that our salvation was literally purchased with Christ's blood makes God to be vindictive and bloodthirsty.
* One is ultimately responsible for his/her own salvation because of free will.
* Imputed righteousness is a lie. God does not look on Christians through the garb of Christ's blood.


Posted by: Hal at April 9, 2009 10:33 AM


Mballentine, you do understand that it is only bearing false witness if one knows it is untrue, correct?

I'm willing to hear Bob Enyart clarify his position for me, if he disagrees with the above statement.
Was that the only part you had a problem with, by the way?

Posted by: Bethany at April 9, 2009 10:34 AM


Hal, it is not because he believes those things. It is because he believes and teaches those things and poses as a Christian.

Posted by: Bethany at April 9, 2009 10:35 AM


(Those teachings are the opposite of Christianity.)

Posted by: Bethany at April 9, 2009 10:36 AM


Bethany, I am so shocked by what you said about Pastor Enyart. I don't take part in this web-site, much, but I was under the impression that you were one of the "good guys".

Where did you get that list of Enyart's beliefs. You have really blown it, on this one.

Going public with so many lies. I did not expect that from you. Where did you get your information? You should talk to Enyart, personally, on this.

Posted by: mballentine at April 9, 2009 10:42 AM


Mballentine, define "open theist".

Bob teaches open theism, doesn't he?

What are the basic beliefs of an open theist? Google it.

By the way, Bob Enyart has read this thread and he can defend himself if I have presented inaccurate information (and I don't think I have).

Posted by: Bethany at April 9, 2009 10:46 AM


Also, google "Moral government theology".

Posted by: Bethany at April 9, 2009 10:48 AM


(Those teachings are the opposite of Christianity.)
Posted by: Bethany at April 9, 2009 10:36 AM

From what little I know, there are lots of different interpretations of what Christianity means. Maybe it's too broad a term. Some Christians have gay clergy, and perform gay marriage ceremonies. Others, obviously, don't. Some Christians think salvation comes from faith, others believe it comes from deeds. Some, apparently, don't want to Baptise babies....

Some Christians are pro life, others pro choice.

I think the most you can say about this Pastor is that he has different views on Christianity than you do.

Posted by: Hal at April 9, 2009 10:50 AM


Hal...I understand that there are people who call themselves Christians and do not follow the Bible's teachings. But that's kind of the point, isn't it? I could call myself a Muslim, but that wouldn't make me one.

Posted by: Bethany at April 9, 2009 10:53 AM


No, Hal, I think he is a cult leader, not a pastor.
A pastor is not a dictator.

Posted by: Bethany at April 9, 2009 10:56 AM



Hal...I understand that there are people who call themselves Christians and do not follow the Bible's teachings. But that's kind of the point, isn't it? I could call myself a Muslim, but that wouldn't make me one.
Posted by: Bethany at April 9, 2009 10:53 AM

If you have the right to look at it in that way, don't others have a right to read the Bible and conclude that you are not following its teachings?

As for him being a "cult leader," I have no opinion. I never heard of the guy until yesterday, and no nothing of his organization.

Posted by: Hal at April 9, 2009 11:02 AM


Hal, doctrines have to be held up to scripture. If someone teaches something that is counter to scripture, they are said to be heretical.

I could say "Jesus didn't die for our sins, we still have to follow OT law in order to be saved."

That wouldn't be a scriptural statement and if I led people to believe it to be the truth, I would be a false teacher.

Posted by: Lauren at April 9, 2009 11:04 AM


Hal, yes everyone has the right to read the bible and reach his own conclusion, however you can't just make something up.

I can't say "well, I read the bible and I believe Jesus was born to Sarah!"

That is about what we're talking about here, if Enyart really believes some of what Bethany posted.

Posted by: Lauren at April 9, 2009 11:07 AM


Hal, have you ever seen his American Criminal Code? I'll post it here if you're ever interested- it's kind of amazing.


Posted by: Bethany at April 9, 2009 11:07 AM


Thanks Lauren.

Posted by: Bethany at April 9, 2009 11:08 AM


Hal, what Lauren said at 11:07. That is exactly what I'm talking about.

Posted by: Bethany at April 9, 2009 11:10 AM


Bethany, I haven't seen it. I'd like to read it. I'll bet you in advance that I will disagree with 99% of it.

Thanks for your responses. I understand you can't just make stuff up and claim to be relying on the Bible, but as I understand it, there is plenty of room to have different interpretations from what's in there. Maybe not "Jesus was born of Sarah," but maybe other things. I probably shouldn't even have butted in. I've never read the book.

Posted by: Hal at April 9, 2009 11:14 AM


That's okay, Hal. We understand where you're coming from on this. Hey, if you ever do open it up and read though, you might be pleasantly surprised. :)

Bethany, I haven't seen it. I'd like to read it. I'll bet you in advance that I will disagree with 99% of it.

Now there's a safe bet! lol

Here it is ...enjoy!


The Constitution of America

A constitutional monarchy governs America. This government shall perform only its two just functions, protecting the God-given rights of every person within its jurisdiction and providing the infrastructure helpful in defending those rights.

The Monarchy

As ruler and defender of America, the King is the supreme judge in the land. The armed forces serve at his command, as do all subdivisions of government. The King will uphold this Constitution and protect America’s sovereignty.

The Judiciary

Judges publicly resolve disputes, determine the guilt or innocence of the accused, sentence convicts, and direct punishment. The Monarch appoints up to ten men as judges who each appoint ten men as judges beneath them, who each appoint ten men as judges beneath them, and so on corresponding to America’s population until a judge presides over one hundred households in his neighborhood. These Judges of One Hundred appoint two judges under them each over fifty households. These Judges of Fifty appoint judges under them each over ten households.

A judge may observe and advise another during trial, may promote cases to his superior including all cases directly affecting a higher jurisdiction, and may escalate cases of his subordinates.

A judge serves at his own will, and that of his superiors or the Monarch. The King can appoint or dismiss any judge. Judges shall enforce America’s Criminal Code and her Code of Use. Defendants have no right to appeal. A judge may be accused of negligence and then tried by one of his superiors. Judges serve when needed and receive no payment. America prohibits juries.

A judge at his discretion holds in custody the credibly accused, especially one considered at risk of flight. A likely sentence of lengthy indentured servitude, significant corporal, or capital punishment mandates incarceration until the rendering of a verdict. Reasonable evidence from two or three witnesses suffices for conviction, whether from eyewitnesses, physical, or strong circumstantial evidence.

Armed Forces

The King commands the military only to protect America her persons, land, and resources and also, at his discretion, to defend her allies. Military officials serve at his will. America staffs all her military with non-conscripted personnel and her combat and field support troops with adult males.

Regional Authorities

The Monarch appoints officials over regions, states, counties, and municipalities. To these subordinates he delegates authority only to appoint and manage subordinates, to thwart, apprehend, and investigate suspected criminals, to protect people and property in time of natural disaster, to manage infrastructure, and to designate real estate zoning according to America’s Code of Use.

Responsibilities of Subjects

Each person within America’s jurisdiction has the responsibility to obey her Constitution, Criminal Code, and Code of Use.

Rights of Subjects

Each person, including visiting foreigners, has God-given rights that this Government exists to protect, including the right to:

Life and Liberty
Speech that does not promote crime

Buy, own and use property
Due process of law

Corporally punish his children
Buy, own, and carry firearms

Protect the innocent
Fail


No person has a right to food, water, clothing, shelter, energy, healthcare, or education. The Government must not give or subsidize such resources to any person, nor can America compel charitable giving.

America’s Criminal Code

The Monarch shall obey America’s Criminal Code incorporated by reference herein, and enforce it upon all persons within his jurisdiction. A person who violates Americans from abroad will not be beyond America’s desire and attempt to bring him to justice, so as with a person here who violates others abroad.

America’s Code of Use

The King shall enforce America’s Code of Use upon everyone acting within her boundaries. America’s usage code, incorporated by reference herein, contains America’s Real Estate Zoning Code and America’s Use of Infrastructure.

Infrastructure

The King has authority to provide and maintain land, water, air, and space transportation infrastructure, but may never thereby derive revenue nor charge any usage fee. The government can utilize private firms to build and maintain transportation infrastructure. And the King may privatize infrastructure excepting that for land or water transportation. He has authority to regulate, without fee, the use of radio frequencies and water resources, and he also may manage parks and forests; and he may purchase and sell property, and for vital government needs and infrastructure, the King may purchase real property at triple its value from unwilling sellers.

The Treasury

The King has authority to levy only one tax, an increase tax, with a maximum rate of five percent of income. The King shall not employ tax collectors. A subject remits taxes at least monthly, unless he generates income less frequently, in which case he remits any taxes due at least annually. Thieves convicted of tax evasion will be flogged and pay to the King double restitution of the tax owed. When the Monarch estimates the Treasury surplus sufficient to fund the government for seven years he shall reduce the tax rate to one percent of income for that year. The King may invest the surplus, only in ventures consistent with the principles of this Constitution, but must refund the same percentage of his annual salary as any percentage loss of the principle invested.

The King may disburse revenue only, as specifically enumerated herein, for the protection of rights and for infrastructure, and never to support any form of welfare, socialism, communism, or public education. He cannot bring the Treasury into indebtedness. Greater spending than provided for by the authorized tax, as perhaps needed in time of war, must be funded by freewill offerings. The King compensates himself annually with the maximum of one thousand times the income of America’s average taxpayer from the previous year.

The King grants an exemption from paying tax for the year to any person who has engraved or molded the Constitution of America on a structure enduringly open to public view. He extends similar tax relief a second and final time to one who, having so published this Constitution, in a subsequent year durably engraves America’s Criminal Code onto a lasting structure in public view.

Succession Process

The Monarch’s eldest son shall succeed him.

Upon inauguration of this Constitution, or, if the King meets his death and has no successor, America will hold a lottery to select the King. The Queen, or if none, the deceased King’s eldest daughter, or if none, America’s chief military officer, will oversee the national lottery. The overseer will draw lots to select one of the States of America, then a county, then a town or like geographic area, then a neighborhood or subdivision, then a block, then a family, then within that family a man of any age, whom the overseer crowns King.

America will remain without a King for at most seven days until the completion of the lottery. The military, judges and regional authorities will continue to protect America during the interregnum remaining loyal to their existing officials and to the lottery overseer. The military must enforce a King’s command posthumously to prosecute and, if convicted, execute a prince suspected of murdering his father.

Within the military and for every level of government this Constitution prohibits democracy.

Treaties

America shall not enter into a foreign treaty. She shall honor existing treaties inherited from our predecessor governments. She shall release herself from any treaty broken by a partner or requiring her to take unjust action.Further, America shall seek release from treaty obligations from faithful partners.

Amendment Process

America does not permit amendments to its Constitution proper [P], nor to its Criminal Code.

The Monarch alone can amend only America’s Code of Use. Usage amendments must be germane to the code and consistent with the principles of this Constitution and America’s Criminal Code. These amendments take effect one year following the day of their promulgation. The Monarch may repeal amendments to restore any previous provision. One month after a repeal judges begin enforcing the exposed provision. Any action in defiance of this Constitution, including an illegal amendment such as one that increases taxes, gives all subjects the responsibility to engage in peaceful civil disobedience against the offense. However the King, as absolute judge, his decisions final even if unjust, can prevail in court against innocents. The King dwells above the jurisdiction of any court in the land. If the Monarch violates this Constitution through wrongful amendments or otherwise, while no American court has standing to prosecute him, he awaits the Judgment Day of God.

Dedication

America hereby dedicates herself to God the Father, Jesus Christ His Son, and the Holy Spirit. This Constitution emerges from the principles of justice and governance found within the pages of the Holy Bible and will be superseded by Christ at His return. May God bless our King. Long live the King!

Posted by: Bethany at April 9, 2009 11:18 AM


Hal, there are some legitimate doctrinal disagreements. Some verses are vauge or have to be taken with other verses. I'm not going to say "Everyone who doesn't agree with my bibilical interpretation is going to hell!"

However, there are some things that aren't negotiable. Saying that we can atone for ourselves with our own perfection crosses the line. Perhaps this is not what he really believes, and I'm open to hearing his rebuttal.

Posted by: Lauren at April 9, 2009 11:21 AM


Bethany, I've tried to come to you, as a brother to a sister. You're right. Bob Enyart can come on and defend himself. My concern is the lies, you are spreading about him.

You say Bob doesn't believe Jesus paid for our sins. LIE

Talk to him, before continuing on this road. Obviously, he's not posting, now. Bethany, please hold your fire, until you talk to Pastor Enyart.

Posted by: mballentine at April 9, 2009 11:24 AM


Bethany, wow.

Posted by: Lauren at April 9, 2009 11:25 AM


Bethany, I was wrong. I disagree with 100% of that.

Did you get it from The Onion?

Posted by: Hal at April 9, 2009 11:26 AM


Hal, lol... I wish I could say yes, but it was written by Bob Enyart himself.

I wish I could stay longer and chat, and also wish that Bob Enyart would get here and post a rebuttal so we could all see what he has to say about all this.. but I have to go to town so I will be back sometime later.

Mbellantine, I'll have to respond to your post when I get back.

Posted by: Bethany at April 9, 2009 11:30 AM


Jill Stanek wrote..."I know your theology, Bob. You're the leader of a cult. I've got a good mind to ban both you and Will. You're dangerous."

How childish. You're banned because I don't like what you say. Jill, call Bob's show and we'll all tune in for your Bible lesson.

Jill would rather worship at the alter of man's laws, man's judges, and man's politicians to solve the crime of murder in the womb. God commanded us to not murder, and as usual man screws it up.

Jill, you have resorted to supporting a liar who is a Mormon who is destined for hell.

Why can't Jill refute the lies of Romney?

Lights, camera, action...follow the money.

Posted by: GODISNOWHERE at April 9, 2009 12:18 PM


I don't expect a person calling him/herself "Godisnowhere" to understand, but here goes. I have a responsibility and I don't want Enyart or his followers to get any more of a platform here.

Posted by: Jill Stanek at April 9, 2009 12:35 PM


Bethany wrote..."I don't automatically believe what Bob Enyart says just because he throws verses at us and claims to be morally superior to us."

Bethany, if you will stop emoting and listen to what YOU are saying.

Do you automatically believe what the Bible says, just because God throws verses at you?

Please quote exactly where Bob Enyart misquoted the Bible, or claimed to be morally superior to you.

We're all waiting...

Posted by: GODISNOWHERE at April 9, 2009 12:44 PM


Principled pro-lifers:

I really recommend that we just leave this alone and move on. Pearls before swine certainly applies here, and all the good we could do here is so minimized by their mocking and insensitivity that we could accomplish 20 times more by finding other blogs or fora where they'll listen.

The people here are willfully, aggressively ignorant. I think we've mined all the people here who will listen to reason. The rest wouldn't trust what we say if it was told to them by Jesus Himself. They intend to follow man's reasoning, God's spoken and written word be damned (you'll notice WE quote scripture to support our positions, they don't, and yet Jill and Bethany accuse us of being "dangerous" non-Christian heretics).

Bob can defend himself here, but really what good would it do? These things are just being used as an excuse not to listen to him, but they didn't listen to anything he said before.

Bethany, for the record, your list of things Bob supposedly believes is about 10% correct and scripturally supported (read the story of Jonah at Ninevah to see if God ever prophesied and predicted something would happen that didn't -- he stayed His hand because He is just), about 30 or 40% are truths taken WAY out of context, and more than half of those charges are either lies or complete mischaracterizations. In fact, Bob teaches the opposite of what's charged in many of those casses. You're drawing from disreputable sites that don't mind lying to discredit someone, and now you've transmitted that character to Jill's blog (with her encouragement). You're assuming, without hard evidence, that every charge is true, and repeating the charges as if they are. And yet, you're ALSO assuming, without hard evidence, that everything said about Romney is FALSE (lol!), and acting as if we're wrong to hold him accountable. Indeed. Double standards abound!

I've wasted countless man hours here, putting our case before these posters in careful logic, and it just isn't doing any good. I lay it out in explicit detail why certain pro-life laws actually authorize abortion, and YCW says, "Yeah, well, we'll word it this way then, and then it won't mean that" without understanding that ANY regulation legitimizes and authorizes the thing it's regulating. They're NOT listening.

Let's please stop wasting our time here. We're the only reason Jill gets more than a few responses on any post anyway -- all her other threads have 30 or 40 posts. Her site has become a backwater, because people who don't want to listen to the echo chamber have found other places to look for truth.

Good Bye

Posted by: Bob Kyffin at April 9, 2009 12:51 PM


My position is consistent. As I have stated in many previous posts...I love Jill Stanek. I have learned from Jill Stanek and her mission. I pray for Jill Stanek. I'm troubled by compromise.

This desire to compromise can only come from the willingness to yield. How can a "pro-lifer" ever compromise that it's OK to kill some babies so that others "might" not be killed?

It's simple. If it's OK to compromise, then the sidewalk counselor can just pick one out of the many homicidal women walking into the abortion mill, and if she chooses to save her baby, the sidewalk counselor's work is done for that day.

Posted by: GODISNOWHERE at April 9, 2009 1:04 PM


Jill Stanek said - "I don't expect a person calling him/herself "Godisnowhere" to understand"

Jill, a Christian should read it as GOD IS NOW HERE and the atheist should see it as GOD IS NOWHERE. Just a play on words.

Posted by: Will D at April 9, 2009 1:06 PM

A devastating reply.

Rorschach would be proud. Even I fell for it. Which reveals how the constant bombardment of a secular society changes the perceptions of words.

Posted by: yllas at April 9, 2009 1:33 PM


No, not a slip. "Nowhere" is a word and it isn't abnormal to see it that way.

Posted by: Jill Stanek at April 9, 2009 1:41 PM


But, it's telling....

Posted by: Kent Chambers at April 9, 2009 1:49 PM


Really, Kent? And just what do you believe it tells you?

Posted by: Kel at April 9, 2009 2:03 PM


You didn't address the real meat of my post--that two laws taken together could make all abortion illegal, so why not vote for half of it? If two laws were before a legislature, one of which said "abortion is illegal in the first trimester" and one of which said "abortion is illegal in the second and third trimesters," by your logic, one should vote against both of them because neither will protect all children.

If abortion returns to the states, abortion will be presumed legal unless there is a law against it (in which case the laws which protect some children will continue to protect them).

I do not understand why you are against laws that protect some children. I think that in the case of rape and incest, killing the baby is an awful, sinful crime, and none of the laws you speak of necessitate killing them.

The only laws that are really requiring that children be killed are those that allow therapeutic but not reproductive cloning. These are truly evil laws that permit the creation of a cloned human being, but require that human being to be killed.

I was trying to give your case a fair hearing; I did listen. But then, instead of answering my objections, you attacked me. I don't think it is okay to kill any babies. I don't support killing any babies. But you have made it seem like I do, and I resent that.

Posted by: YCW at April 9, 2009 3:23 PM


Bob K: ""Abortion shall be prohibited unless the parent of a minor child grants permission..." is the VERY SAME as saying "Abortion is allowed (legal) if the parent of a minor child grants permission." Remember, this MUST be so, or else you would be breaking the law just driving to work, because there's certainly no law saying you "may" or "shall" drive at any speed. It's presumed you can drive because there is a regulation saying how fast is too fast, and it's presumed that abortion is legal because there's a regulation prohibiting abortion "except...""

See this is where there is a lot of confusion. You are suggesting that an action is ONLY made legal by specifically legalizing it through law. You are suggesting that our legal system is an extreme "big brother" system that ONLY allows directly supported actions. Under your system, it would be ilegal for me to call my wife "sugar bunny" because there is (presumably) not law directly allowing this.

Obviously this is not the system that we use. In fact, it is exactly the opposite. By not specifically PROHIBITING an action, we are specifically allowing it to be legalized. In other words, if there is NO law restricting abortion in a state whatsoever, then in that state ALL abortion is legalized. In a state that specifically restricts a form of abortion, even if specifically allowing another form, there is a GREATER restriction.

Let me give you a scenario.

State X has no law regarding abortion. State Y has a law that prohibts all abortions other than abortions performed from 2-3 oclock at night at only one of 3 specified locations. If woman A can only have an abortion during the day, she would be completely able to complete this abortion in State X, but not at all able in State Y. Now imagine Roe V Wade gets overturned. Does State X now have MORE protection for the unborn by the overturning of Roe V Wade? No. The state still has no laws against abortion and thereby supports ALL forms. State Y still has the law that effectively only allows 6 abortions a day.

Now, of course, your objection would be that State X would now be free to create legislation that would void abortion. The problem is, so could State Y.

So again, I assert that the "incrementalist" approach does not FURTHER condone abortion as the absence of a law completely condones abortion. The "incrementalist" approach only limits the scope of abortion and therefore saves the lives of babies, if even only a handful. How can this be imoral?

Posted by: Oliver at April 9, 2009 3:33 PM



Bob K :"Naturally, I reject your argument about the terrorists though, because it's based on your assumption that we're just saving lives with these pro-life legislation, not that we're acutally authorizing abortion, as I hope I've proved with my detailed explanation."

Not that I need respond to this specifically, but hopefully I showed you that abortion is authorized by the ABSCENCE of law as much as the presence.

Bob K: "You're correct -- the law which I proposed to Bethany is a flawed analogy...."

Im glad you could amdit this. Your analogy cast serious doubts on you.

Bob K:""Oliver's Law prohibits abortion in all cases, except when the baby has reached the third trimester, when abortion is allowed." "


Bob K: "I'd ask you if you'd sign it, and save 95% of the babies, even though it does specifically allow 5% of babies to be killed. Naturally, as I've just explained, the law would be able to accomplish EXACTLY the same result if it only prohibited the 95% and no more, because that leaves the court with the PRESUMPTION that abortion is okay during the third trimester."

The pressumption is there without the law. The pressumption is not created, only preserved.

Bob K:"It's that VERY SAME PRESUMPTION that gave us Roe v. Wade, because the Supreme Court PRESUMED that Texas did not consider unborn babies to be Persons under the law, because if they were there would not be an exception in the law where an innocent Person could be killed. Texas did NOT have any law on the books explicitly authorizing (i.e. "shall.." or "may...") abortion. All they had was a prohibition with an exception: "Abortion shall be prohibited except..." And that exception -- that ill-founded attempt to "protect" babies -- has killed 50 million children to date."

Surely you do not believe that the ONLY reason Roe V Wade passed was because of his interpretation of the Texas law? You do understand that it doesnt work this way? Surely precedents are used to guide the court, but they are not the be all and end all. Using this logic, no civil right movement could advance period and wed both be sunk.

Bob: "So, what do you say, Oliver? Would you "save" 95% of the babies by signing "Oliver's Law"???"

In a heartbeat. I would write a dissent to the signing, explaining that the law does not go far enough, but that it is a step in the right direction, but I would sign that sucker without hesitation.

Posted by: Oliver at April 9, 2009 3:45 PM


Bob K: "Let's please stop wasting our time here. We're the only reason Jill gets more than a few responses on any post anyway -- all her other threads have 30 or 40 posts. Her site has become a backwater, because people who don't want to listen to the echo chamber have found other places to look for truth."

Only 30-40 posts? Is making complete sh*t up part of your "logic" Bob? Try actually holding your reasoning up to scrutiny instead of rambling insults and flawed analogies.

Posted by: Oliver at April 9, 2009 4:03 PM


Jill wrote..."No, not a slip. "Nowhere" is a word and it isn't abnormal to see it that way."

This is the game known as change the subject, or rules so they don't reflect on me.

My tag which is NOT "nowhere", rather GODISNOWHERE, has helped me reach more unsaved souls in debates simply by how it's read.

Continue dodging the real topic like this and you mike get a kink in your neck.

Posted by: GODISNOWHERE at April 9, 2009 5:38 PM


Please re-post the scripture verses from Will to Bethany that were hastily removed. I had hoped to reply after work. THX!

Have we resorted to canceling out the Word of God because you disagree with someone that won't support a lieing, pro-abort, Mormon?

The point is there's no debate unless there exists opposing viewpoints and arguments.

Posted by: GODISNOWHERE at April 9, 2009 5:44 PM


Lauren said, "Martha, please show me where Romney has done this since he became pro-life."

Posted by: Lauren at April 7, 2009 8:26 PM

Lauren please show us what is in error in the video.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 9, 2009 5:48 PM


Why is everyone criticizing ARTL? That seems to be the underlying moral code on this blog that you cannot criticize other pro-lifers except ARTL/CRTL. I have yet to see that there is error in anything that we have said.

Jill has started this blog with name calling,"The email goes on to narcisstically claim, "ARTL's... video... and its associated website AnnCoulterApology.com, document the growing rift between the right-wing pundit and popular Christian pro-family leaders."

In fact, the lnk between all in the video is ARTL, a group I gave up on as off the deep end last year when it picketed James Dobson at Focus on the Family." No actual facts though.

I sense fear on this blog, fear to do something different. God says do not fear.

I am sadly realizing that since the majority of people posting on this blog reject God, His Word and His authority. I pray your hearts will soften.


Posted by: Lolita at April 9, 2009 6:12 PM


Bethany, your list of Enyart "doctrines" is mostly a complete fiction and others are distorted from what he actually teaches. Why would you even post such a list without some verification that it is a valid one?

Bethany, "The Plot" is a 300 page book which can't be adequately summarized on a message board in a way that would be a faithful interpretation of the book. If you would like a copy, I'd be glad to send you one. Just e-mail your mailing address to ddevonb@aol.com.

Jill, You should be ashamed for accusing Bob of being a cult leader. You have no first hand knowledge of his teaching, but that doesn't stop you from slandering him. I will offer to send you a copy of "The Plot" as well if you like.
I will also include a DVD of Bob's presentation on open theism, so you can actually know what he's teaching. Going to a Google page claiming to be on open theism is not a way to know what a particular teacher is teaching. You should not be passing along unsubstantiated gossip... which God hates.

Posted by: Darrell B at April 9, 2009 6:17 PM


Oliver, foot in mouth, wrote..."Although Im glad he has done this, personally Im not that impressed."

And I remember an earlier post where you claimed you didn't care. Sooo, list your accomplishments and the number of babies you have saved, then we could examine the evidence of your claims.

Then Oliver wrote..."Hundreds and thousands of pro-lifers have done the same. What has he done that has had a lasting effect?"

Oh, really? Where's the list of hundreds of thousands? Now YOU are making stuff up. Sound familiar? Kind of like Romney, depending on which crowd he's whoring money or votes from.

Then Oliver wrote..."Has he helped to support legislation that would change our culture towards abortion?"

What does this mean? We are now legislating what people think and believe? And I thought indoctrination was up to the government run schools. Anyway Oliver, show me one pro-life law that has the legal standing to save the life of one unborn child.

Oliver continued..."Has he helped to further the moral discussion amongst the pro-choice side?"

What are the labels for? I'm Pro-Choice! I just choose life! Oliver, so easily fooled into the rhetoric that you are blinded to what terror the 4,000+ unborn children who were murdered today faced while you were busy typing here. Newsflash; child killers defend child killing.

And Oliver continued..."Protesting an abortion clinic is great, but it does not put him in any position to call someone else a failure."

Please refer to the post where Will D called someone else a failure.

You know not what you speak of Oliver. This begs the question, then why do you speak? If you want to be heard, stop typing and start dialing. I'm sure a Bible lesson live on Bob Enyart's call in radio talk show will reveal a lot about your beliefs.

Posted by: GODISNOWHERE at April 9, 2009 6:22 PM


No, not a slip. "Nowhere" is a word and it isn't abnormal to see it that way.

Posted by: Jill Stanek at April 9, 2009 1:41 PM

Now, here is a perfect example of how the Bible became useful to those Protestant Christian's who made abortion a Christian virtue.

It's all in howyouinterpetit.

Abortion is now a tradition of Christians with biblical interpretations leading the way.

Tis a shame. Somebody has troubled their house, and have inherited the Wind.


Posted by: yllas at April 9, 2009 7:47 PM


Oliver.

Who, when, and under what authority did abortion become a act acceptable to the Christian God? In fact, a "blessing" for Christians.


Was it not begun by a "cult"?, A cult preacher who assembled other cult preachers and spread the word of God(Bible), that abortion was omitted by God's Word(s), or accepted by God.

Posted by: yllas at April 9, 2009 7:56 PM


'just saying' wrote at the very onset of this thread, a BRILLIANT, RATIONAL, and INTELLECTUAL Christian response to the video about Coulter and Romney. One more time in quotes...

"They are trying to separate the wheat from the chaff, the legislators and pro-life leaders who are pro-personhood from those who only call themselves pro-life, but don't act it - or even worse, they use "pro-life" to advance their own agenda and to get elected but, forget "pro-life" once they start legislating."

It's sure good to know who you jump into bed with.

"The bold proclamation that all human beings are persons is necessary in order to advance this civil rights movement."

Remember, persons with dark skin were once considered only part human, and still evolving, by the U.S. Constitution. WRONG!!!!! That insanity was finally remedied. But, while some persons with dark skin were murdered for that, it does not equate to the 50,000,000+ babies of all skin pigmentation murdered in the U.S. for convenience.

"Anyone who cannot proclaim that the personhood of all human beings must be respected by our laws is not someone fit to be leading our movement."

Perhaps this is why there's no pro-life U.S. Supreme Court justices presently seated on the bench.

"Their voting records and support of candidates who lack pro-life conviction need to be challenged."

Duh! But, do you know of one politician that could teach your child right from wrong? At least as easily as God did? C'mon!

"Personhood must be demanded by the people and there is no reason that we should accept anything less."

Yep! A person is a person, no matter how small! If the fertilized egg, embryo, fetus, etc. in the womb is not human, then is it A) Alive B) Dead C)I don't know.

"These legislators represent us, and if they are not true to us, then they have failed us and should be replaced."

Well, when was the last time you checked in with your representatives? What's that, can't get ahold of them? Huh, can only send an email? Hmmm, you can send a fax if you don't have a computer? How's that, your elected rep is too busy voting NOT PRESENT?

"No need to alienate - just challenge them, educate them, then provide them the venue to support personhood. If they still don't... why are we calling them an ally?"

AMEN! HALLE freaking LUJAH! 'just saying' just gets it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: theonlything2fear at April 9, 2009 10:48 PM


Lolita, 6:12p, wrote: "I sense fear on this blog, fear to do something different. God says do not fear. I am sadly realizing that since the majority of people posting on this blog reject God, His Word and His authority. I pray your hearts will soften."

Lolita, this is where ARTL/CRTL goes. Disagree over strategy? Those not agreeing "reject God, His Word and His authority."

My point has always been that ARTL boldly claimed it would stop abortion in 12 years. That was 1.5 years ago. What has it accomplished int he 15% of the time it has used up? Answer that, please.

Is this ARTL's strategy: to slowly separate what it views to be wheat from chaff - 1 person at a time? You've taken on 3 - Coulter, Dobson, and Romney - in 1.5 years.

At this rate ARTL will expose 24 what it considers to be psuedo-pro-lifers in its 12 years. Again, is this your strategy? Or to be fair, do you think exposing big leaguers like Dobson will make others like him reevaluate and see your light? If so, where is the evidence that is working?

Lolita, ARTL/CRTL live in a glass house. You've swaggered on to the scene, knocking most others who have come before you, and said you have the solution to the problem. Yet you couldn't even get your act together to host a convention last fall, as you said you would, even giving it a name beforehand, "10 years until abortion ends," etc.

Right now your focus is knocking those others who have come before you, so I'm surmising this is your viewed solution to the problem. Otherwise you're wasting precious time you've given yourselves.

As you continue to do now.

Posted by: Jill Stanek at April 10, 2009 7:55 AM


Lolita, 6:12p, wrote: "I sense fear on this blog, fear to do something different. God says do not fear. I am sadly realizing that since the majority of people posting on this blog reject God, His Word and His authority. I pray your hearts will soften."

Lolita, this is where ARTL/CRTL goes. Disagree over strategy? Those not agreeing "reject God, His Word and His authority."

My point has always been that ARTL boldly claimed it would stop abortion in 12 years. That was 1.5 years ago. What has it accomplished int he 15% of the time it has used up? Answer that, please.

Is this ARTL's strategy: to slowly separate what it views to be wheat from chaff - 1 person at a time? You've taken on 3 - Coulter, Dobson, and Romney - in 1.5 years.

At this rate ARTL will expose 24 what it considers to be psuedo-pro-lifers in its 12 years. Again, is this your strategy? Or to be fair, do you think exposing big leaguers like Dobson will make others like him reevaluate and see your light? If so, where is the evidence that is working?

Lolita, ARTL/CRTL live in a glass house. You've swaggered on to the scene, knocking most others who have come before you, and said you have the solution to the problem. Yet you couldn't even get your act together to host a convention last fall, as you said you would, even giving it a name beforehand, "10 years until abortion ends," etc.

Right now your focus is knocking those others who have come before you, so I'm surmising this is your viewed solution to the problem. Otherwise you're wasting precious time you've given yourselves.

As you continue to do now.

Posted by: Jill Stanek at April 10, 2009 7:55 AM


And Lolita, your leader, Bob Enyart, is a cult leader. Face it. He believes adulterers should be stoned. He told me by his rules he should have been stoned. Yet he lives today by grace. On that point alone he makes no sense.

You and he and others in your group are perfectly willing to let some children die from abortion who could be saved NOW because you're waiting for the day when all children can be saved at the same time. You make no sense, particularly when your supposed strategy to save all children is so bizarre - going after Coulter, Dobson, and Romney?

Lolita, Bob, Will, Bob K., GODISNOWHERE, just save your wild arguments for your own blog, which you should take the time to create. I have run out of patience with your self-important, time-wasting, foolish arguing. You live in a theoretical world that really pisses me off, to be frank, having held a real live aborted baby who you say would be fine to kill while waiting for some perfect nirvana day in the future while involving yourselves in FREAKING PETTY arguing like I have some freudian problem by seeing "God is nowhere" rather than "God is now here" in "GODISNOWHERE." WHAT TIME WASTERS you are.

Posted by: Jill Stanek at April 10, 2009 8:14 AM


Darrell B , I have listened to parts of Bob's Open Theism seminars online on youtube, and have seen excerpts from the book, The Plot, and I can see for myself what he is saying is completely against God's Word.

He is teaching a false doctrine...he teaches that God is not all knowing and not all powerful.

He teaches that God's plan changes and that people have the power to change God's will.

That in itself is blasphemous and evil.

These are things that I saw from his own writings. The rest I found at an apologetics site.

Moral Government Theology and Open Theism...those are things that he is part of, correct? Correct me if I'm wrong. Those beliefs listed were the beliefs of those who subscribe to Moral Government Theology and Open Theism.

If Bob has a disagreement with ANY of those beliefs that I listed, I would like you to show me any of his writings that state the opposite.

That should not be hard to find. Find something where he says that we are purchased with Christ's blood. Find something where he says that God is omnipotent and knows the future. I have looked and can't find anything where he even preaches the gospel message.

Oh and for Bob Kyffin, here is a link to a place where you can find refutation for those verses you are trying to use to disprove the omnipotence of God:
http://www.carm.org/religious-movements/open-theism

Other than that, I'm done here.

Posted by: Bethany at April 10, 2009 8:48 AM


Does anyone on this blog, find it abhorrent that today's pro-life laws and politians, stand on the very foundation, abortion was built on? (Rape-Incest-Health of the Mother exceptions.)

Fifty years ago, pro-aborts said, we need to kill some, not most babies. Did this honor God?

Today, politicians say, we need to kill some, not most babies, and pro-lifers campaign and vote for them. Does this honor God?

Today, pro-lifers say we have to 'concede' some, to save most babies. They claim that's because of the place they're in. Do 'situational ethics' honor God?

Pro-life organizations help pass a "partial birth abortion ban' that has no authority to save one life. Judge Roy Moore called the ruling evil. Did this 'ban' honor God?

Christians are called to love their neighbor (like Laura Bush and 'Condi' Rice). If we don't warn them that abortion is murder, does this honor God?

Posted by: mballentine at April 10, 2009 9:19 AM


Bethany, still lying about Bob Enyart. Wow. Does J Stanek pay you for this?

Posted by: mballentine at April 10, 2009 9:27 AM


Oh wait, I almost forgot. For Bob Kyffin.

Biblical support for God's OMNIPOTENCE:

Matthew 19:26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

Genesis 17:1 And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the Lord appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.

Job 42:2 I know that thou canst do everything, and that no thought can be withholden from thee.

Jeremiah 32:17,27 Ah Lord God! behold, thou hast made the heaven and the earth by thy great power and stretched out arm, and there is nothing too hard for thee: Behold, I am the Lord, the God of all flesh: is there any thing too hard for me?

Luke 1:37 For with God nothing shall be impossible.

Revelation 19:6 And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.

Is. 14:24-27 Surely, as I have thought and planned, so shall it come to pass, and as I have purposed, so shall it stand

For the Lord of hosts has purposed, and who can annul it? And His hand is stretched out, and who can turn it back?

Eph. 1:11 In Him we also were made [God's] heritage (portion) and we obtained an inheritance; for we had been foreordained (chosen and appointed beforehand) in accordance with His purpose, Who works out everything in agreement with the counsel and design of His [own] will

For with God nothing is ever impossible and no word from God shall be without power or impossible of fulfillment. - Luke 1:37

Isaiah 40:25-26 "To whom then will you liken Me, Or to whom shall I be equal?" says the Holy One. 26 Lift up your eyes on high, And see who has created these things, Who brings out their host ("the starry host" NIV) by number; He calls them all by name, By the greatness of His might And the strength of His power; Not one is missing.

Proverbs 21:1 (NKJV) The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD, Like the rivers of water; He turns it wherever He wishes.

Oh and read Job 38.

As for God's OMNICIENCE:

Heb 4:13 c.f. 2 Ch 16:9 "Nothing in all creation is hidden from God's sight. Everything is uncovered and laid before the eyes of Him to whom we must give account."

Job 28:24 "for He views the ends of the earth and sees everything under the heavens"

Mt 10:29-30 "Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father. And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered."

Is 46:9-10 "for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done"

Psalm 139:17 and 18
"How precious to me are your thoughts, O God! How vast is the sum of them! Were I to count them, they would outnumber the grains of sand."

"All the days ordainded for me were written in your book before one of them came to be."

1 Jn 3:20 For God is greater than our hearts and he knows everything."


Some verses regarding God's OMNIPRESENCE:

Jer. 23:24 "Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall
not see him? saith the Lord. Do not I fill heaven and earth?"

Hebrews 4:13, "Neither is there
any creature that is not manifest in his sight; but all things are naked and opened
unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do."

Psalm 139:
1 O LORD, you have searched me
and you know me.

2 You know when I sit and when I rise;
you perceive my thoughts from afar.

3 You discern my going out and my lying down;
you are familiar with all my ways.

4 Before a word is on my tongue
you know it completely, O LORD.

5 You hem me in—behind and before;
you have laid your hand upon me.

6 Such knowledge is too wonderful for me,
too lofty for me to attain.

7 Where can I go from your Spirit?
Where can I flee from your presence?

8 If I go up to the heavens, you are there;
if I make my bed in the depths, [a] you are there.

9 If I rise on the wings of the dawn,
if I settle on the far side of the sea,

10 even there your hand will guide me,
your right hand will hold me fast.

11 If I say, "Surely the darkness will hide me
and the light become night around me,"

12 even the darkness will not be dark to you;
the night will shine like the day,
for darkness is as light to you.

Proverbs 15:3
The eyes of the LORD are in every place, beholding the evil and the good.

There's plenty more but these are just a sample of the evidence that God is all knowing, all powerful, and nothing is hidden from Him.

Posted by: Bethany at April 10, 2009 9:29 AM


Bethany, still lying about Bob Enyart. Wow. Does J Stanek pay you for this?

Show me ONE paragraph from Bob Enyart contradicting anything I said, mballentine, and I'll stand corrected.

Posted by: Bethany at April 10, 2009 9:31 AM


Bethany, show me one paragraph that says B Enyart does not believe Jesus paid for our sins. The burden of proof is on you.

I could say Bethany is a pro-abort plant. Then, by your rules say, 'disprove it.'

Proverbs 12:22
LYING LIPS ARE AN ABOMINATION TO THE LORD

Posted by: mballentine at April 10, 2009 10:13 AM


mballentine, all I originally did was post what an open theist and moral government theologian believes.

If Bob disagrees with open theism, how can he teach it? If he agrees with open theism, then you should have no problem with me posting what an open theist believes.

As for finding Bob saying that Jesus didn't pay for sins, that would be difficult because I can't seem to find anywhere that he even teaches about Jesus dying on the cross at all! I can see plenty of places where he teaches about Jesus teaching the law, however, and that only confirms what I already believe to be true.

Type "Bob Enyart Gospel message" in google and see if you can find him telling what the Gospel message is.
Type "Bob Enyart salvation", and see what comes up.
Type "Bob Enyart Christ's blood" and see what you find.
Type "Bob Enyart Jesus" and see what you find.

Bob Enyart, as far as I can tell, doesn't believe in the gospel of Jesus Christ- or if he does, he doesn't care enough about it to want to share it...at least not as much as he wants to share his ideals about keeping the law. You can find that stuff in a cinch.

Look, I would love for you to prove me wrong.

Prove me wrong by showing me ONE sermon he has posted where he preached the gospel message of Jesus Christ. like I said before, if you can do so, I will stand corrected.

Till then, an open theist is an open theist is an open theist. And that's not a lie.

Posted by: Bethany at April 10, 2009 10:41 AM


By the way, I think now I realize why you think I am lying about him, mballentine.

I was so shocked when I read that list that I misspoke and said "he teaches" instead of "he apparently teaches". I am sorry about that and I have corrected the first post about that list to make sure that it doesn't appear that way anymore. I apologize for the misunderstanding.

You are correct that I do not have firsthand knowledge of him teaching some of the things on that list, however, I assumed that an open theist would believe in Open Theist doctrine... and therefore if he is teaching Open Theism doctrine (which you know he does), then he also would be teaching what is on that list.

(Also, I have seen some of those things on the list being taught by him- and also confirmed by Bob Kyffin who tried to defend the belief that God is not omnipotent).

If someone is Catholic and teaches as a Catholic, wouldn't you assume that they believe Catholic doctrine? If someone is a Southern Baptist preacher, wouldn't you assume they would be teaching and preaching Southern Baptist doctrine?

Here is the apologetics site where I got some of my information about Bob Enyart (I also gained much from reading his own website), and also it contains the list of beliefs of someone who believes in Moral Government Theology:
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/e23.html

Posted by: Bethany at April 10, 2009 11:24 AM


mballentine, all I originally did was post what an open theist and moral government theologian believes.

No. You said,

"Bobby, I've been doing more reading on Bob Enyart and saw more about what he teaches. He apparently teaches that Jesus blood is not redemptive of our sins...."

Bethany, stop lying.

go to denverbiblechurch.org Statement of faith

Posted by: Anonymous at April 10, 2009 11:30 AM


Above anon was me

Posted by: mballentine at April 10, 2009 11:35 AM


I wish you could understand that I am not in any way lying. The entire time I have been here, I have been sincere. I could be wrong, but that doesn't mean I'm a liar or intentionally trying to deceive anyone. There is a difference.

I just read the statement of faith. That sounds good, and I have to say...if he truly believes that, then he may indeed believe in the Gospel.

And if that is so, I am sorry for making a judgement based on what the apologetics site said. I don't know why they would lie though. Maybe I will ask them where they got the information that Bob believes in Moral Government Theology. That might help clear things up a bit.

However, obviously, many of those things that were posted were true, as some of Bob's followers responded, defending those beliefs.

For instance, the idea that God can make mistakes and learn from them.
Or the idea that God will prophesy things that don't happen,

Those things Bob Kyffin tried to defend. What else from the list do you all believe?

The God that I believe in never changes, is all powerful, doesn't make mistakes, and is Holy.

Posted by: Bethany at April 10, 2009 1:21 PM


You're drawing from disreputable sites that don't mind lying to discredit someone, and now you've transmitted that character to Jill's blog (with her encouragement). You're assuming, without hard evidence, that every charge is true, and repeating the charges as if they are. And yet, you're ALSO assuming, without hard evidence, that everything said about Romney is FALSE (lol!), and acting as if we're wrong to hold him accountable. Indeed. Double standards abound!

Bob, you wrote that I assume that Romney is truthful about everything, and I never made any such implication.
Just wanted to clear that up.

Posted by: Bethany at April 10, 2009 1:27 PM