This is a statement of the plain truth. It will not be pretty to some. But I have been assailed, as all Americans have, since January 22, 1973, with the ugliest truths imaginable: innocent, helpless intrauterine babies ripped and gashed into pieces, butchered, torn limb from limb, and even eaten as a health food. (In China aborted babies are openly sold on the streets as exotic health food, and routinely eaten in stew.) What truths could be worse than this? If humanity is to assail my senses in this manner, then it seems only reasonable that humanity ought to be prepared to face me in a standoff of grisly and horrible truths exposed. I don't think mine are nearly as grisly and horrible. Let the reader be the judge.

If abortion providers are so well protected by the government as to seem virtually impregnable in their offices, then it would be the exact same thing to focus on any person who supports and justifies the abominable practice of butchering innocent, helpless intrauterine babies. The government cannot personally fortify and protect every individual who is causing abortion on demand to exist. And in fact, those who support and thereby cause this abominable practice are equally as guilty as the ones who commit the physical acts of butchery. And so, Army of God soldiers committing acts of heroism against the abortion providers themselves, by removing them from their occupation of butchery, by executing them, is not the only necessary way to get at the root of the abominable tree. It is unjust and even unconstitutional only to get at the abortion providers doing the actual dirty work of butchering intrauterine babies, but not the conspirators. It simply is not righteous or just to punish only the people wielding the knives.

In a conspiracy to commit crimes against humanity, ALL participants are equally guilty, and punishing one punishes all. Stopping any of them stops all of them. Thus, anybody walking down the street, or living next door, who is a known supporter of the abomination, is the exact same person as the so-called doctor or nurse who commits the actual acts of human baby butchery, dismemberment, or strangulation. See what I mean? This knowledge considerably broadens the horizons of the Army of God soldier, does it not? And yet, it is nothing but the unvarnished truth.

The only way that evil-intentioned laws (that deliberately violate constitutional rights of citizens) can be effectively combated is for citizens, in large numbers, to simply disobey them, disregard them, show contempt for them, and even to break them. This may sound radical and scary to some people; but it, too, is simply the plain truth. To correct an unjust, immoral, unrighteous and unconstitutional law by obeying it and acting AS IF it is just and constitutional is insanity. How can a law be corrected by obeying it and acting as if it is just and proper? How can folks continue bowing down to an oppressor, and expect to teach the oppressor to learn the predicament of the oppressed?

Were Black folks able to do it this way? They tried for centuries to improve their lot by obeying the White Massa'. But it did not improve their lot. Black people would still be slaves today if such as John Brown hadn't broken the law of the land by committing murder in order to abolish the law of slavery in the United States. Today, John Brown and his ragtag little band of "criminals" who opposed slavery by breaking the law that ordered, caused and institutionalized slavery is looked upon by history as heroes, and Mr. Brown was probably more effective in ending slavery in America than Abraham Lincoln was. Abraham Lincoln rode on the coattails of Mr. Brown and his genre.

Rosa Parks, at an elderly age, had to violate the law in order to sit on a public bus anywhere she pleased, instead of on the back of the bus only, where the law of the land demanded and required that she, as a Black woman, sit, because the law unconstitutionally discriminated against Rosa and her particular racial persuasion. Martin Luther King, Jr. had to violate the law in order to sit down in a public restaurant and eat whatever food he ordered. He was thrown in jail several times for violating that and similar laws.

Today there are streets all over America that proudly bear the name "Rosa Parks." A national holiday has been named in the honor of Martin Luther King, Jr. with every town in America having streets that bear his name. Americans honor lawbreakers, ex post facto, when the cause is just. At the moment the law was broken, however, the lawbreakers were criticized and condemned. History is replete with such examples. By no means do these three stand alone as isolated instances. I have known of hundreds and can name many of them from memory. I am one such individual myself. I deliberately break laws, as any free individual should, to show my contempt when they are created for no other purpose than flying in the face of absolute constitutional rights, such as those contained in the fifth and fourteenth amendments, with emphasis on the due process and equal protection clauses. (See footnote below)

The very fact of American existence, engendered by the Colonial Revolution, was an act of law breaking. Whether it be a nation of individuals, or one person standing alone, if one does not break unjust laws one is doomed to be enslaved by them, and any real concept of freedom for the individual will always be only a vain hope, forever beyond reach, never actually attainable. People who bow down to unjust and unrighteous laws are slaves, plain and simple.

Are you a slave, dear reader? If so, get off your knees and stand up with us. The air is cool and clear up here. Face Massa' head on. Kick his butt. Don't let him continue to murder and eat your babies simply because he is degenerate, immoral, unjust, unrighteous, and knows no other way. Teach him another way. Teach him by example. Kick him in the groin. Knock him down. Take back what was yours to begin with. Put the shoe on the other foot. Let ol' Massa' know what his foot feels like when it is sticking in your butt, standing on your neck, stomping you in the face. If you don't do this, Massa' has no way of comprehending how your pain feels, because Massa' is degenerate, immoral, unjust, unrighteous, and knows no other way. He will just keep kicking you in the butt, standing on your neck, stomping you in the face from now on. He doesn't know any better. The only thing Massa' understands is a fist, either his or yours. Whose will rule you? Will you continue to let him pummel you and your babies?

Disobey Massa's unjust laws, and both God and man will smile on you for it. God will smile now--it may take man a little longer, as it usually does, but he'll eventually smile, also. Might even name a street or two after you.

Give it your best shot, break an unjust law. Let's stop abortion on demand now.

The above is a hard truth to swallow when one's intentions are toward promoting and maintaining peace and lawfulness. Many Americans will be aghast at the mere suggestion of Truth #3, because they are not aware that factual history bears it out in unerring detail: ONLY THROUGH CRIMINAL ACTIVITY CAN UNJUST AND UNREASONABLE LAWS BE EFFECTIVELY ALTERED OR ABOLISHED. Ain't it a shame? It has never been done any other way in recorded human history. If one is able and willing to wait around for several hundred or thousands of years for normal political evolution to do the job, something better than naked government oppression may evolve by accident--but it never has before, not a single time. A thorough knowledge of actual history reveals that chance is against it by astronomical odds.

Unjust laws and government practices are changed for the better or abolished, when at all, ONLY by breaking laws and through direct confrontation and open challenge, which sometime requires greater violence than the oppressor can generate. Well known examples that exemplify the truth of this are our own Colonial Revolution in 1776, then the Civil War of 1861 to end slavery, then the Black Revolution of the Sixties and continuing to the present time. The Black Revolution had to happen simply so Black folks could sit anywhere they chose on public buses and eat in any public restaurant they desired. What instance in history has anybody every won freedom from injustice through slavish obedience to the oppressor? Is there one example? I have not found one. History is filled with examples where freedom from oppression was won through the use of counter-force and counter-violence against the oppressor. It has never happened through obedience, and it never will.

Lesser known examples than the above, but possibly even more important than all of America's revolutions combined, have been the day to day and moment by moment struggles in the trenches (the streets of America) against the most insidious forms of government oppression of all: Police and Judges vs. The Bill of Rights of Citizens'. Consider that fully 99.99999% of all unjust and unreasonable laws and government practices in America have been altered for the better and abolished entirely by lawbreakers, i.e., criminals of every stripe, while serving time in prisons and jails. None of it was done by law abiding citizens, none by so-called pundits writing "fiery" editorials, none by slavish bootlicking, none through ex parte court and legislative activity. Not a single case of constitutional rights enforcement has been done by any of these, but by criminals only, to the last instance. If not for lawbreakers of every stripe there would not be a single ounce of freedom in America. Oppression would be absolute and total.

For example, every citizen in America enjoys the 4^th Amendment Constitutional right to be free from unreasonable and unlawful government (police) plundering and looting (euphemistically called "searching and seizing") of citizens' houses, personal property and effects. This important right exists as a reality, not because the Constitution of the United States (which is the supreme law of the land) is the guarantor, though the constitution definitely codifies it as an absolute right. To be sure, this 4^th Amendment right was guaranteed to every American in 1791 when the bill of rights was codified in the U.S. Constitution as amendments, more than 208 years ago (calculated from 1999.)

However, it is a historical fact based upon court records that it was not until 1961, in the case of Mapp vs. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), that a U.S. Supreme Court finally, reluctantly, determined to strike down the inferior laws, administrative enactments, and common police practices that had, for 170 years, directly conflicted with, and effectively supplanted (so as to make null and void) this important constitutional right of every citizen.

Previous to Mapp, no American citizen actually effectively possessed the 4^th amendment constitutional right against unreasonable and unlawful government plundering and looting ("searching and seizing") of their houses, personal property and effects. This was so even though the U.S. Constitution had recognized and guaranteed this vital right every American citizen 170 years before Mapp came along.

Did Mapp's belated enforcement of the 4^th Amendment right in 1961 come about as a result of slavish obedience and servile acquiescence to the unjust and unreasonable inferior laws, administrative enactments and police (and court) practices that had been systematically violating and abrogating this constitutional right of every citizen for 170 years? Don't even think it. Enforcement of this vital right of citizens came about as a direct and proximate result of 170 years of lawbreaking. It came about through the sole agency of lawbreaking; by confronting the courts and police and challenging unconstitutional laws after having broken laws in which the government had relentlessly violated the 4^th amendment right in order to use the unlawful constitutional violation as leverage in the prosecution of the accused.

Unjust and unreasonable laws, indeed, never improve through obedience to them. It is impossible for this to happen. It cannot be done. It has never been done in history. There is not a single example of this. If anybody can give me only one example where slavish obedience caused the government to back off and stop violating citizens' rights, I'd like to know of one. I don't ask for thousands, hundreds, or tens, no, not even fives of such instances. Just a single one will make me happy. Can anybody in the world give me one instance? Mr. Historian?

Several cases that came about during the early Sixties, among them Escobedo vs. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 (1964), ended the horrific reign of the "rubber hose" in police interrogation rooms across America. Previous to Escobedo and the others, when police wanted and needed a confession from an accused person who refused to confess, they sometime beat the confession out of the man in the "rubber hose room." Sometime police made up the confession themselves, out of whole cloth, and simply bashed on the accused until he signed his name to it. Then they took the "confession" thus obtained to a court of law, where judges universally allowed it to be submitted as proof of guilt. In striking down the "confession" obtained by pistol whipping it out of the defendant, the U.S. Supreme Court acknowledged here and there in the decisions that this abominable police practice had been going on throughout the history of the United States. The Court acknowledged that all the courts of the land quite often knew when and how coerced confessions were obtained to prosecute defendants. But, as everybody "in the know" was aware, courts of the land had simply been turning their heads the other way in favor of obtaining convictions by whatever means were necessary. This was happening to accused citizens quite often, despite a whole wide range of constitutional rights that resoundingly prohibited and condemned this very species of government and police practices in America.

Who was in America to enforce the rights? Police? Courts? Pundits? Legislatures? Slavishly obedient citizens? Ah, no, none of these singly or in concert. It was the lawbreaker. A sad fact, isn't it? Sort of scary. Does it sort of make you want to put your head under the cover and quake just a little bit about the "things that go bump in the night?"

The "rubber hose room" in police interrogations had, all along, been the harsh reality in America previous to the cases during the Sixties that struck it down and abolished it. This was so even though each American possessed, among others, the 5^th, 6^th, 8^th, and 14^th Amendment constitutional rights to a whole wide array of individual constitutional protections from this very thing, which each person had possessed for more than 170 years to that time. Previous to Escobedo and the cases cited in Escobedo, police and courts of law simply evaded observing and enforcing constitutional rights prohibiting trial by ordeal in which often the accused was not even allowed the assistance of counsel. All of this was on the tacit understanding among these government officials (police and courts) that physically beating a confession out of a citizen was the only way to obtain a conviction sometime, where the conviction was the all-important quantity, not the actual guilt of the accused. The U.S. Constitution could just be damned in the face of a law enforcement tenet where ends always justify means. And so the constitution was damned.

An even more astounding reality has always been that only the barest few Americans know this kind of U.S. history, and even fewer have lived and experienced it. Trial by ordeal, in pre-Escobedo days, was a well-kept secret in America, not even reported by the press when they knew. (The American press, for all its deliberate affectations and flim-flammery to the contrary, has not ever been interested in the whole truth--only what serves the monetary interests of the press, which often is a hodge-podge of half truths, deliberate distortions, and plain lies.)

But don't take my word only. Read Escobedo and follow the trail of cases that resulted in its holding. Learn about America's sordid government and police practices from the words of the U.S. Supreme Court itself. Read the cases and you will see why I say that the lawbreaker--the one who has always changed unjust laws for the better or abolished them--is the one, and only one, who confers and imparts, in actuality, the coveted constitutional rights that all citizens enjoy in America. You can thank a criminal, not the police and courts.

Can anybody tell me that ANY of the abominable police practices named in any of the cases cited were abolished finally be law abiding citizens bowing down to police and courts and venerating them? Were they changed through obedience and acquiescence to all the laws just and unjust? History says no, they were not. Read the history yourself, in the actual court decisions. They were changed through LAWBREAKING of more than 170 years duration. Indeed, all of the rights conferred in the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights were delayed in actual implementation for more than 170 years after they were codified and guarangeed as constitutional rights.

Every American citizen can thank lawbreakers of every stripe for each personal constitutional right they enjoy in actual reality. Every right was paid by the blood of lawbreakers to the very last one, not slaves to unthinking obedience and servile acquiescence.

Every citizen I know tells how repugnant is the concept of police battering down their doors and treating them as criminals. Well, the only thing standing between police and the citizen and that reality they find so abominable, is the lawbreaker. It is not the police that are protecting citizens' rights against this menace, not the judge, not the slave to unbending obedience to rules just or unjust, but it is the lawbreaker that constitutes the actual bulwark between government's normal way of total authoritarianism, and real individual freedoms.

Judges are not naturally nice people. Neither are policemen. As an institutional reality all of them believe that ends justify means. This is a unique institutional disease of the policeman and judge. In practical fact, the U.S. Constitution was established, and all of the rights granted to citizens as a bulwark between government and the governed. Constitutional rights were established as a barrier, or wall, to protect citizens from these very individuals. The bill of rights was not enacted to protect law abiding citizens from each other, or even from street thugs and such. The entire panoply of individual citizen's rights came into being in order to place a barrier, or protective wall, between the free citizen and government actions, and for no other reason. This is because history had made it so painfully apparent to the founders of the constitution that free citizens need to be protected from such as policemen and judges and lawmakers, who are so ambitious and power hungry as to seek and attain these offices in the first place. If judges and policemen were inherently and naturally good and nice people, no such barrier between them and free citizens would be necessary at all. One could just rely on their inherent goodness to carry the day.

Who, then, is the ultimate guardian and enforcer of all the important constitutional rights that law abiding citizens take for granted today? Is it the judge, the policeman, the lawmaker? Is it the servile citizen who would faint at the concept of breaking a law, and who bows down to all laws, regardless how unreasonable and unjust they may be on their face? Not on your life. It is none of these. They don't even come close. It is the lawbreaker.

Except for lawbreakers, constitutional rights, in practice and reality, would be only a vain and distant hope, not a concrete reality even to the degree they are today. This is because the courts and police are constantly eroding rights, forever violating them in the institutional government tenet that the end always justifies the means.

Whether one likes or detests it, the truth, borne on the wings of historical fact, is that all citizens in America owe all of their personal constitutional rights and freedoms to lawbreakers, not law enforcement, neither to slaves of unthinking obedience and servile acquiescence to unjust and unreasonable laws, administrative enactments and police practices. Since lawbreaking has been the ONLY thing in history that has ever prevailed to rectify unjust laws and government practices, how can anybody imagine that obedience can work in the most unjust law ever concocted--the frivolous butchery and extinction of living human babies?

To sum up, let me point out that by no means do I advocate general lawlessness. I advocate lawbreaking when it is necessary, when it is the only prudent, workable alternative to government forms of lawlessness such as Roe vs. Wade. It is a simple matter, really--the police are not protecting the babies. Either the citizens will take the law into their own hands (after all, the citizens ARE the law), or America will be destroyed along with the children. Take your pick.

FOOTNOTE: Amendment XIV - Citizenship rights not to be abridged. Ratified 7/9/1868.

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. (Emphasis added.)

 Return to SAVE THE BABIES!