Say Anything Blog

Naral is a one issue group.
For Naral, Roberts brief in the Bray case was
sleeping with the enemy.They will grant him no slack.

The defendants in the Bray case included violent anti-choice activists Randall Terry, founder of Operation Rescue; Michael Bray, who had been convicted for his involvement in 10 bombings at health centers in the 1980s; and Patrick Mahoney, a consultant to Operation Rescue.

. . . [Nancy Keenan said] I want to be very clear that we are not suggesting Mr. Roberts condones or supports clinic violence.
. But still his ideological view of the law compelled him to go out of his way to argue on behalf of someone like Michael Bray, who had already been convicted of a string of bombings.”

So, how exactly does NARAL ‘smear’ Roberts here, Rob?

By accurately pointing out he wrote a supportive brief on behalf of defendants Randall Terry of Operation Rescue and a felon convicted of bombing an abortion clinic?

By simply (and factually) linking Roberts to these embarrassing, violent extremists constitute a ‘smear’?

I do not see the smear either however I love pro-abortion anti-abortion part of the post. Gotta get the labels out...How about pro-choice, anti-choice or pro-killing, anti-killing.

How about pro-choice, anti-choice or pro-killing, anti-killing.

Because pro-abortion and anti-abortion are accurate.

By accurately pointing out he wrote a supportive brief on behalf of defendants Randall Terry of Operation Rescue and a felon convicted of bombing an abortion clinic?

Rudolph bombed the clinic referred to in the NARAL ad eight years after Roberts wrote his brief.

For your statement to be accurate, Roberts is either clairvoyant or has a time machine.

WOOF quotes:

But still his ideological view of the law compelled him to go out of his way to argue on behalf of someone like Michael Bray, who had already been convicted of a string of bombings.

Technically, he wasn’t convicted of “a string of bombing”, but rather of conspiracy and of unlawful possession of explosives.  Doesn’t make him a nice guy by any means, but it’s useful to get the facts right.

By accurately pointing out he wrote a supportive brief on behalf of defendants Randall Terry of Operation Rescue and a felon convicted of bombing an abortion clinic?

By your logic, it would be just as “accurate” to say that everyone who opposes the Patriot Act approves of the 9-11 Terror Attacks.

Just because one criticizes the law used to prosecute criminal behavior does not mean one condones the behavior.

that colored fella said, By accurately pointing out he wrote a supportive brief on behalf of defendants Randall Terry of Operation Rescue and a felon convicted of bombing an abortion clinic?

Another way (and more accurate in a lot of respects) of looking at it: Roberts wrote a supportive brief upholding the law.

By simply (and factually) linking Roberts to these embarrassing, violent extremists constitute a ’smear’?

When that “factually” linking omits the very reason for the brief, then it is a smear.

TCF got it right Sue Dohnim.

The defendants in the Bray case included violent anti-choice activists Randall Terry, founder of Operation Rescue; Michael Bray, who had been convicted for his involvement in 10 bombings at health centers in the 1980s;

http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/about/newsroom/pressrelease/20050808_roberts_ad.cfm

NARAL lied and “that colored fella” repeated the lie and never questioned that it was a lie.

The lie is that Roberts wrote a brief supporting a convicted abortion clinic bomber.

Roberts wrote his brief in 1990.

The bombing occurred in 1998.

Do not argue logic with “that colored fella.” He is immune to logic, as is amply demonstrated by his mindless parrotting of NARAL lies.

The bombing that the ad showed was Eric Robert Rudolph’s 1998 bombing of an Alabama clinic. The woman shown in the ad was also from that same bombing. Roberts had nothing to do with defending Rudolph.

The Bray mentioned in Bray v. Alexandria Women’s Health Clinic et al. is not Michael Bray but Jayne Bray. As a matter of fact, the words “Michael” and “bombing” appear nowhere in Roberts’ brief or in the case decision itself.

defendants in the Bray case included violent anti-choice activists Randall Terry, founder of Operation Rescue; Michael Bray, who had been convicted for his involvement in 10 bombings at health centers in the 1980s

This is disgusting. It’s akin to saying the ACLU supports Nazism, because they defended the rights of neo-Nazis to march in Skokie.

Why the hell are they even bothering with a television ad?  The American public voiced their support for John Roberts when they voted to keep George W. Bush as President.  They don’t get to change their minds.  It’s a moot point.

The American public voiced their support for John Roberts when they voted to keep George W. Bush as President. They don’t get to change their minds.

Wanna run that by me again? By voting for a president you support everything that president can do in the future?

I think Roberts is a fine guy, but by reductio ad absurdum, you could say 60% of Americans supported Watergate (after all, they voted for Nixon, they voiced their support of his practices and policies).

Factcheck.org has an analysis of the Naral add (thx to CaptainsQuartersBlog.com for the pointer).  Pretty devastating rebuttal of contents of the ad.

The bomber Roberts wrote the brief for was Bray, not Rudolph.  The connection is there because Bray is part of the Army of God and Rudolph mailed letters signed The Army of God.  The ad is correct, but I see the confusion by showing a bombing by Rudolph and pointing out that Roberts supported bomber Bray.  We didn’t intend to do a confusing ad, but there is only so much information you can convey in 30 seconds.

FactCheck.Org reports Roberts called clinic bombers criminals who should be prosecuted fully.  Talk about a false ad!  Pull up the supporting document.  Roberts forwarded a memo written by Richard Hauser saing PRESIDENT REGAN called them criminals!  By the way, FactCheck.Org has agreed to post a letter written by NARAL backing up their claims.

Visit OperationRescue.org and notice how thrilled they are that Roberts has been appointed.  Isn’t that cause for concern?  Scheidler is also overjoyed that his case may be heard by Roberts.  Doesn’t it make you wonder why these types of people are so pleased with Roberts?

A Supreme Court Justice has a tremendous amount of power.  If the ad my wife did caused someone to be placed under the microscope before giving him that kind of power, I don’t have a problem sleeping at night.

For more information, see the news section of http://www.emilylyons.com.

Jeff Lyons

Today’s New York Times has a particularly scathing rebuttal of the Naral ad. This is part of the closer:

A conservative group, Progress for America, said it would spend $300,000 to run ads, beginning Thursday, on the same stations on which the Naral ad is appearing. “How low can these frustrated liberals sink?” its advertisement asks.

Exactly the effect I expected:  When you make obvious lies and distortions you leave yourself extremely exposed.  In this case, Naral has played into the conservative coalitions’ hands, and they will be able to bat around Naral and the “frustrated liberal movement” (aka “the Party of No") by extension for quite a little while…

Jeff says:

FactCheck.Org reports Roberts called clinic bombers criminals who should be prosecuted fully. Talk about a false ad! Pull up the supporting document. Roberts forwarded a memo written by Richard Hauser saing PRESIDENT REGAN called them criminals! By the way, FactCheck.Org has agreed to post a letter written by NARAL backing up their claims.

Jeff Lyons:

We didn’t intend to do a confusing ad,

1.  It’s pretty hard to write off using footage 7 years into the future from the amicus briefs you are referring to as “confusing”.

2.  I also don’t think including Emily Lions, who was wounded in the 1998 bombing to be “confusing” when attacking a 1991 White House position.

3 . Featuring the verbiage from the first amicus brief is not “confusing”, when a the second amicus brief filed several months later contains a clarification that the “the administration was not trying to defend the demonstrators’ conduct but rather to ‘defend the proper interpretation’ of the statute.” (via the nytimes article). 

“Misleading” is the proper adjective to use in conjunction with this ad.  “Stupid” is another because all you have managed to do is inoculate Roberts from any potential future credible charges of being anti-abortion.  And, as I mentioned, given the conservative community some easy target practice, as the expense of your liberal colleagues.

The 1991 brief was for Bray and Emily was bombined in 1998 by Rudolph.  No argument there.  The ad was correct in that Roberts did a brief in favor of Bray.  My position is that organizations like The Army of God and to a lessor extent Operation Rescue foster people like Rudolph, and Roberts did nothing to slow them down.  Rudolph’s letters are posted on the Army of God’s website.  Bray has been the oposing side of TV shows saying Emily got what she deserved.  There is a connection.  The fact that Operation Rescue and AOG weren’t delt with in 1991 is part of why my wife is hurt, though this one sentence is just my personal opinion.

The clinic where Emily worked had an injunction that saved protestor Mensor Chadwick’s life the day of the bombing.  My problem with Roberts is that he wrote a brief he didn’t have to write that was against these types of life-saving injunctions.  I am all for free speech, as long as they don’t turn violent.  If Roberts had said 42 USC 1985 doesn’t fit but we need to do something to stop the violence, Emily would not have done the ad.

I know that Roberts doesn’t pick who supports him, but I am still very concerned that Shiedler and Operation Rescue are thrilled with him.  That makes me raise an eyebrow and want to dig deeper.  I hope it does for others as well.

Like I said in the last post, we may have caused Roberts to be in the public eye prior to being given a lot of power.  I encourage people to go read the documents and form their own opinions.  If I got people involved, then I offer no appologies.

On the subject of Roberts, has anyone noticed that Ann Coulter absolutely despises the man?

Thank you, Jeff, for taking the time to respond here.

My position is that organizations like The Army of God and to a lessor extent Operation Rescue foster people like Rudolph, and Roberts did nothing to slow them down. Rudolph’s letters are posted on the Army of God’s website. Bray has been the oposing side of TV shows saying Emily got what she deserved. There is a connection. The fact that Operation Rescue and AOG weren’t delt with in 1991 is part of why my wife is hurt, though this one sentence is just my personal opinion.

Except that it was not Roberts’ responsiblity to “slow them down” or do anything like that.  His job was to correctly apply existing law to the matter at hand.  He did that.  The Ku Klux Klan act, the way it was written, does not apply to abortion clinic protesters.  Congress had to pass a new law directly addressing that issue.  Despite my fierce opposition to abortions, I think it was a neccessary thing.  These protesters have no right to engage in violence or to use thuggery to obstruct the operation of a clinic.

The connection you’re trying to draw here is that Roberts, in some way, supports the bombing of abortion clinics and/or violence by abortion protesters.  I think that’s silly.  Somebody already mentioned that its akin to saying that the ACLU supports Nazism because they support the Nazis’ right to free speech.

I don’t want abortion clinics bombed either, but we don’t solve problems like that by giving judges license to apply laws incorrectly.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

’The Daily Show’ host Jon Stewart says:

So John Roberts supports abortion clinic bombings. In much the same way that if you bought the Michael Jackson Thriller ablum in 1982, you support child molestation.

LOL!

Rob,

It’s plausible to conclude Roberts does not endorse the violence of Operation Rescue, by simply authoring this brief.

Yet, you’ve failed to deny that NARAL making such the connection here, is what you meant by a ‘smear’.

[...] I posted previously about this ad here. That post also received some comments from Jeff Lyons, the husband of Emily Lyons who appears in the commercial itself. [...]

Jeff Lyons:

I know that Roberts doesn’t pick who supports him, but I am still very concerned that Shiedler and Operation Rescue are thrilled with him. That makes me raise an eyebrow and want to dig deeper. I hope it does for others as well.

Has it occurred to you that since Roberts’ personal position on abortion is pro-life, most pro-lifers will support him and most pro-choicers will oppose him?

A murderer will support an anti-capital punishment Governor (no matter which political party either belongs to) with the hope that he won’t face the death penalty.  I don’t think that Governor will change anything due to the murderer’s support.

We didn’t intend to do a confusing ad, but there is only so much information you can convey in 30 seconds.

From the ad…

American can’t afford a justice whose ideology leads him to excuse violence against other Americans.

I don’t think there was any confusion about what the NARAL ad was attempting to portray.

I’m a lawyer, and we lawyers sometimes write “Amicus” briefs, which are also known as “Friend of the Court” briefs.  They are not written on behalf of a party, such as Mr. Bray, but for the benefit of the court in the court’s application of the laws invoked by the parties.  Serious misconception on Mr and Mrs Lyons’ part here.

Serious misconception on Mr and Mrs Lyons’ part here.

Oh there’s no misconception.  They know EXACTLY what they’re saying and why it is a lie and a smear tactic.  Don’t be fooled by politeness: they know precisely what they’re saying and why it is in opposition to the truth.

I knew what an Amicus brief was.  It can be found on Emily’s website, http://www.emilylyons.com.  If Roberts had been appointed as Bray’s lawyer in some of his criminal cases and this was the result of him having to defend Bray’s actions, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.  As far as I know, Roberts did not have to write a brief saying that closing down clinics to stop abortions did not discriminate against women.  While I disagree with his position in the brief (saying that women are not discriminated against even though only women have abortions,) I would have been ok if he said that 42 USC 1985 wasn’t the correct law, but violent protests should be stopped and here’s the correct federal law to use.  I would have still disagreed with his position on 42 USC 1985, but I could have lived with the disagreement if he had suggested a way to halt the violence.  To be fair, I believe he did say that there were state remidies.  However, a clinic has enough out-of-state clients to be considered federal and Operation Rescue was attacking clinics in more than one state.
He came to the rescue of Operation Rescue even though they were not his client.  Just my humble opinion, but that makes it worse.
In any event, the facts are out there and people are looking at them from both sides.  Like I have said in my previous notes, people are taking a good look at someone we are about to give tremendous power to.  If waking people up was the outcome of all of this, then I have no regrets.

Jeff Lyons: 

If waking people up was the outcome of all of this, then I have no regrets.

The fact is you should have some regrets. You played very loose with the facts and you have burned NARAL as a result as well as the entire “stop-Roberts” campaign. As I pointed out, you have essentially inoculated Robert’s from any future charges regarding siding with the anti-abortion crowd.  It is a sad day for you when even the NY Times isn’t siding with you. The more moderate WaPo has this to say:

NARAL is certainly within its rights to disagree with the position the government took in the case. But the impression it creates with this ad is not an argument but a smear-- a smear that will do less to discredit Judge Roberts than it will the organization that created it.

And that is the take home message from this sorry story, as far as I’m concerned.  The White House was not excusing the violence against women, it was simply defending the original scope of the 1871 law.  Period.  Conflating that with excusing violence against women:

American can’t afford a justice whose ideology leads him to excuse violence against other Americans.

You’ve hurt your professional reputations with your unfair characterizations, as well as that of NARAL and the liberal cause in general.  This should be nothing to be cheering about. AND DO YOU NOTICE WHAT PEOPLE ARE TALKING ABOUT?  The problems with your ad, and not Robert’s record.  This is what you wanted???

If you are hoping that “discussions” can lead to a judicial nominee who will use his position on the bench to further the liberal political agenda, you really need to wake up.  It’s not going to happen in the current political atmosphere.

So, Mr. Lyons, what do you suppose--accepting your premise as true--that the Judge took sides with a bomber--would be this man’s motivation?  Why do you think Judge Roberts would do such a thing?  Do you think him insane, immoral, delusional?  How does this square with the facts of his professional life--even Democrat lawyers with whom he has practiced--and his being held in high esteem?

Making this argument is absurd, and clearly the delusions are held by others.  A shame.

You played very loose with the facts and you have burned NARAL as a result

So, Mr. Lyons, what do you suppose–accepting your premise as true–that the Judge took sides with a bomber–would be this man’s motivation? Why do you think Judge Roberts would do such a thing?

I think he is against abortion to the point to where he and his wife have a hard time opposing anything that shuts a clinic down.  If Operation Rescue had closed down an airport, I doubt that he would have written the brief.  What I think someone else had for a motivation or what someone else would do in a different situation is just a guess, but you asked.

The premise is true - read the brief on http://www.emilylyons.com in the news section.  You might also check out the document on factcheck.org that was quoted as saying Roberts wrote a memo stating that bombers are criminals.  You will find that Roberts forwarded a memo written by someone else stating President Regan’s position.

It’s admirable to support one’s wife, but not at the expense of some reasonable standard of discourse and fairness.

You appear to be in the minority of the responsible leaders in the pro-abortion --why do you think Pres. Clinton’s solicitor general Walter Dellinger and Sen. Specter are so misguided?  What have they missed, as lawyers with years of practice, that you have not?  Perhaps you might be mistaken, or mislead, and they are correct.

If respected people on my side of the argument had such severe critiques of my position, and they were experts in the law, I might take a second look at my position, were I really serious or reasonable.

Jeff:

You make it sound like I wrote the ad. NARAL called and asked if they could use Emily in an ad they were doing. I am not backing down on the fact that we agreed, but you make it sound like I run NARAL.

As you point out, you do have your own platform to speak from and it still contains distortions of Robert’s and his record. As long as you continue with the meme that “Robert’s is pro-violence against women” simply because he was involved in the writing of White House amicus briefs, you are continuing to damage NARAL and your own cause.

The premise is true

Mr. Roberts began his second argument by saying the administration was not trying to defend the demonstrators’ conduct but rather to “defend the proper interpretation” of the statute.

Jeff writes:

You will find that Roberts forwarded a memo written by someone else stating President Regan’s position.

I responded to this already. But when you are so obviously engaged in smears and distortions, it gets to be a bit silly to complain that unintentional errors get made in the process of fisking the NARAL ad.

I am very sorry about the tragic bombing of the abortion clinic your wife worked at, and deplore the mentality of any person who would resort to such an act.  But the proper laws were in place at the time of this bombing, and they didn’t prevent the tragedy from happening. The only thing that can stop this from happening again in the future is not further laws but rather ground-up changes in people’s thinkings.  That requires reasoned discourse and education, not more federal mandates and certainly not misleading or untruthful ads.

Jeff:

We did what we thought best at the time.

I am going on vacation. Have fun pointing out the error of my sinful ways while I am gone.

[...] Anyway, at least they’re not accusing Roberts of supporting abortion clinic bombings this time around. [...]

I am a Christian and I believe Eric Rudolph is not a terrorist, but an anti-terrorist fighter. Those who have killed babykilling abortionists have done so to protect the innocent. People use force everyday to protect the innocent and no one has a problem with it, except when it comes to protecting unborn human beings, then they go ballistic. It’s very simple, the unborn deserve the same protection as the born. Born people are protected with force quite often.  Force that you would be glad if it was to protect your children against a murderer. Force that you yourself might use to protect your own children from being murdered. The unborn deserve the same protection.

Mr. Spitz,

Though you claim to be a Christian, you advocate actions that are certainly not in accord with the teachings of Christ.  Christ taught that justice comes from God and we are to put our faith in him.  Yet you put your faith into murderers and take vengeance for yourself.  Is your faith so weak that you do not trust God to take care of matters Himself?  Is it that you are saved by grace, but others are not?  What sin is greater than another?  Shall we also bomb adulterers and homosexuals?  What about liars and theives, certainly their sin needs to be expiated.

Mr. Spitz, you do not speak for me or my faith.  I can not know the condition of your soul, but your anger and hate indicate that you do not truly understand the nature of God and Jesus.  I pray that the Holy Spirit opens your eyes, that you begin to truly study the Bible, and that you rethink your actions and words.  Only the love of Christ will change this world and His love does not come through pipe bombs and sniper rifles.

If you believe my comments are not in accord with the Scripture you should be able to back that up. Would you not have the Allied forces kill Nazis to rescue Jews being put in ovens because according to you, killing is wrong. You apply this to protecting the innocent babies from being murdered by abortion. Do you apply this same standard to killing Nazis to protect Jews being put in ovens? Should they have not been killed because to kill them would make the Allied Forces no better than they were? I know you cannot defend your position. There is no defense for not protecting innocent people from being murdered, but you will change to issue to something besides what it is, defending children from being murdered by babykilling abortionists.

How many “baby-killing abortionists” have you killed, and if the answer is zero (as it will be), why? There is no defense for not protecting innocent people from being murdered, as a ‘wise’ man once told me.

How many children have you protected from being molested? How many children have you protected from being raped? If none, why not?

I don’t know how.

You do, however, know how to prevent abortions. Use Mapquest to get the address to the closest “women’s center”, and then use Google to find out how to build a pipe bomb (Isn’t the internet wonderful?). If you actually believe abortion is murder, you have an obligation to do so. Will you?

You say you support Eric Rudolph’s actions. Well, imitiation is the sincerest form of flattery.

I’ll watch for your name in the news.

I am a Christian and I believe Eric Rudolph is not a terrorist, but an anti-terrorist fighter.

Sorry!  Terrorism, by definition, is the use of tactics designed to instill terror.  Clearly, abortion clinic bombings instill terror in the people that work there and the people that use the service.  I emphasised “service” because it’s not a practice that I condone, except in certain cases.  However, at this time, the process is legal.

Do you think that terror is a functional means to a political end?  If you do then you need to rethink your position.  I don’t agree with abortion, but blowing up an abortion clinic doesn’t rally me to your cause.  Just the opposite!  I am appalled at these murderous bastards and that they use the name of Christ to justify their actions.  Christ turned his cheek when struck to allow the other to be struck.  Why?  So he could be used as a martyr.  His suffering fomented strength in his followers.  The torture of him cemented dissent in the people.  Blowing up people and buildings, and instilling terror with not bring people to your cause.

Those who have killed babykilling abortionists have done so to protect the innocent.

You can’t protect every baby in the womb by blowing up a building or killing a few doctors.

People use force everyday to protect the innocent and no one has a problem with it, except when it comes to protecting unborn human beings, then they go ballistic.

The problem is that too many of the general public thinks of the fetus as unfeeling and undeveloped enough to count as a human life.  I don’t see any but the most ardent leftists going ballistic about the “right to abortion.”

It’s very simple, the unborn deserve the same protection as the born.

Then file a lawsuit, change the laws, act peacefully to achieve this, worthy, goal.

If you believe my comments are not in accord with the Scripture you should be able to back that up.

You back it up.  Christ would not have killed the doctor performing the abortion.  Christ would not have killed the mother of the aborted baby.  Christ would not have blown up the facility.  Christ would not condone terrorising people.  Where is the scripture that says otherwise?

Would you not have the Allied forces kill Nazis to rescue Jews being put in ovens because according to you, killing is wrong.

Hardly.  If you have to kill millions to save many more millions, then you do.  A cancer must be rooted. 

You apply this to protecting the innocent babies from being murdered by abortion.

I do not disagree that abortion is murder… but the difference is the current rule of law.  Change the law!

Do you apply this same standard to killing Nazis to protect Jews being put in ovens?

You try to justify killing abortion clinic workers and patrons by using an analogy to the NAZIs… Get a grip man.  Hitler wanted to cleanse the world of all but the Ariana race.  Use Stalin, or Pol Pot for your analogy… it’s more accurate.

There is no defense for not protecting innocent people from being murdered, but you will change to issue to something besides what it is, defending children from being murdered by babykilling abortionists.

An armed revolt will not aid your cause in this country.  We peacefully debate daily.  Get the populace to agree with you and change the laws… but do it with civility or risk losing your cause.

How many children have you protected from being molested? How many children have you protected from being raped? If none, why not? Are you willing to apply the same standard to yourself as you want to accuse me? I knew you would not face the truth that unborn children deserve to be protected and you are content for them to continue to be murdered. Just how does it feel to support the murder of unborn children?

hee hee!!  Very funny Dave!

Christ would not have killed the doctor performing the abortion. Christ would not have killed the mother of the aborted baby. Christ would not have blown up the facility. Christ would not condone terrorising people.

Jesus Christ, son of God and noted pro-life activist, killed two and critically wounded seven others when He opened fire in the waiting room of a Huntsville abortion clinic Tuesday.

Security guards at the Women’s Medical Clinic of Huntsville were able to disarm the Messiah before He could reload His weapon, a secondhand Glock 9mm pistol that authorities said He purchased legally at a Jackson, MS, sporting-goods store. “Abortion is a sin,” said Christ as He was led away in handcuffs. “It is an abomination in the eyes of Me.” Witnesses said the attack, which took the lives of Dr. Nelson Woodring, 51, and clinic nurse Danielle Costa, 29, came from “out of nowhere.”

“He walked up to the admissions desk and asked if He could see Dr. Woodring,” receptionist Iris Reid said. “The next thing I knew, He was shouting Biblical verses and opening fire on everything moving.”

If you believe my comments are not in accord with the Scripture you should be able to back that up.

I did.  Follow the links in my original comment.  Now, would you please find New Testament support for your position?  I await for your enlightenment.

Would you not have the Allied forces kill Nazis to rescue Jews being put in ovens because according to you, killing is wrong.

I never said that killing is wrong.  Murder is wrong according to both Old and New Testaments.

You apply this to protecting the innocent babies from being murdered by abortion. Do you apply this same standard to killing Nazis to protect Jews being put in ovens? Should they have not been killed because to kill them would make the Allied Forces no better than they were?

So, now you assume a moral equivilancy argument that I did not make.

I know you cannot defend your position. There is no defense for not protecting innocent people from being murdered, but you will change to issue to something besides what it is, defending children from being murdered by babykilling abortionists.

Then please explain to me why Christian churches are not arming all of their followers and sending out to visit divinely inspired justice upon all the murderous regimes throughout the world.  Christian missionaries in China should be using grenades and AK-47s to attack government forces when they crack down on churches and political dissent instead of distributing bibles in Cantonese and Mandarin.  Why isn’t there a real Army of God, armed to the teeth and attacking anyone who kills innocent people?

Try defending your position, with scripture before you attack mine.  You have yet to cite one quotation of Jesus or one epistle of Peter, Paul, John, et al that should convince me as a Christian to join you.

I tried to be nice, hoping that you would read what I had to say and converse about this using God’s word, but I doubt that you are familiar with it.  Oh, you might know one or two verses, well out of context, that seem to back up your position, but you can not defend murder using Jesus’s name.  Only the Father of Lies and those in his thrall would dare to twist God’s word to discredit Him.  You are not defending God or His people with your actions or words, because God does not need your defense.  Any god who needs human endeavor to assert his soveignty is not a god worth worshipping.  I worship the one, true God who neither needs nor requires my help, but only desires my obedience and love.  The idol you worship is blood thirsty and powerless.  It needs humans to perform its evil work and pervert justice.  Without people like you, it would have no power in this world.

[...] “We believe in a culture of personal freedom and personal responsibility. As an advocacy organization, it is our job to let the American people know that John Roberts’s record demonstrates hostility toward these core values,” said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America. “This ad showing a disturbing part of Roberts’ record is even more important since the White House decided to withhold critical information about Roberts from the public.” Rob, at Say Anything, says: Of course, NARAL couldn’t be more misleading about this issue. Visible in the ad is a document from the court case in question showing that it is Bray v. Alexandria Women’s Health Clinic, which was a case filed by pro-abortion advocates to stop anti-abortion activists from blocking the entrance to abortion clinics. In that case Roberts filed a brief contending that the law being used as a basis for the case filed by the pro-abortion activists (the Ku Klux Klan act of 1871) couldn’t be applied to anti-abortion protesters. And the Supreme Court agreed with him. [...]

I read somewhere that the only thing required for darkness to prevail is for good people to do nothing.

I dont think it said anything about opening fire with automatic weapons in order to do something; resorting to violence to end or change a law is not alway the first option ( or hopefully not even the last option)