WASHINGTON – Dr. James Dobson, the extraordinarily meek Christian psychologist and perhaps the most well-known family counselor in America, called Tuesday for civil disobedience by operators of pro-life crisis pregnancy centers in response to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision upholding a California law that calls for them to promote abortion to woman they serve.
If California attempts to enforce this law then do not comply,” he said. “Make them put you in jail.”
The state law is called the “Reproductive FACT Act, and was signed by Gov. Jerry Brown Oct. 9, 2015, and reviewed and upheld Friday for constitutionality by the Ninth Circuit, widely regarded as the most “progressive” federal court of appeal in the country........
It's past time that citizens--Catholic, Protestant, and others who understand their Constitution, with its foundations in
Creator-endowed rights and liberty--speak out to defend against this outright assault from Clinton's campaign and her entire "progressive" movement whose
ideology makes
population control the centerprise of their coercive agenda.
Understanding the ideology, and all that it incorporates, sheds light on the grave threats to freedom for individuals.
Until now, there has been a strange silence on the subject of her absolute insistence on promoting "destroying" of human life in the womb. Does no one ask the question, "Why is abortion, even late-term, the most important item on the agenda of a woman who claims to speak for the children?"
On the underlying question moral question discussed here, nothing addresses it better than the simple logic of this quotation from Mother Teresa, who, at the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington, DC on February 3, 1994, as cited above, stated: "And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another?"
Mother Teresa's declaration may be the most powerful statement in 2016 from which to begin discussions of where a candidate stands on all the questions of life and liberty.
In America, our constitutional protections rest on the Founders' premise that each and all individuals are "endowed by their Creator" with the unalienable right to both life and the liberty to enjoy it, or, in their words, "the pursuit of happiness."
The sole reason these rights were deemed unalienable is that both are derived from the Creator--not from the mother or father, and not from government or judicial decision. What is "granted" by human decision also can, by implication, be withheld.
"The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time: the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them (life and liberty)," said Thomas Jefferson.
"The world is different now. . . and yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forefathers fought are still at issue around the globe--the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God." - John F. Kennedy, Inaugural Address
That understanding underlies every other consideration embodied in our Declaration of Independence and every protection of our Constitution. It is the very basis of our rights to life and liberty, of laws to protect them, and it distinguishes ours from other forms of government.
When we fail to acknowledge that foundation of our liberty, then we risk liberty itself for future generations, for where does the right to choose who lives and who does not really end?
That is why the question is of vital importance in each election. Already, we have deprived millions of their Creator-endowed rights to life and liberty, and our nation must be weaker for their loss. We need leaders who understand the implications and potential consequences of departing from our founding principles.
In recent decades, technological advances have enabled us to observe the characteristics and actions of God's tiniest creations in the womb. Unlike previous generations who could not see, we have no excuse for imagining that these are mere blobs of tissue labeled "fetuses." In their early weeks, we now can see that they are living babies who will continue on to possess life and liberty if we do not "destroy" both. Indeed, they are simply smaller versions of ourselves.
Questions on the economy, taxes, threats from terrorists, health care--all are considerations at this election time. One, however, may be basic to all others. Who will best protect the underlying premise of our Constitution--and the lives and liberties of millions yet unborn?
Promises are illusive and cheap. One fact is indisputable, however: Hillary Clinton is committed to the Far Left's, and that agenda is not compatible with our Constitution's premise.
Some time ago, my attention was drawn to a late-1800's essay which helps to explain the absolute, unbending positions "progressives" hold on what that writer called "population control" and its necessity to "socialism"--the essential position being that without such mechanisms, socialism cannot work in a society.
There is an oft-overlooked imperative for the Democrat Party's hard stand on abortion, as declared in the first paragraph of a late-1800's analysis of "The Impracticability of Socialism." In that paragraph, the writer's point seems to be that under Socialism, ordinary human population growth cannot be economically supported.
The following is quoted from the Liberty Fund Library "A Plea for Liberty: An Argument Against Socialism and Socialistic Legislation," edited by Thomas Mackay (1849 - 1912), Chapter 1, final paragraphs from Edward Stanley Robertson's essay, "The Impracticability of Socialism":Note the writer's emphasis that the "scheme of Socialism" requires what he calls "the power of restraining the increase in population"--long the essential and primary focus of the Democrat Party in the U. S.:
"I have suggested that the scheme of Socialism is wholly incomplete unless it includes a power of restraining the increase of population, which power is so unwelcome to Englishmen that the very mention of it seems to require an apology. I have showed that in France, where restraints on multiplication have been adopted into the popular code of morals, there is discontent on the one hand at the slow rate of increase, while on the other, there is still a 'proletariat,' and Socialism is still a power in politics.
I.44
"I have put the question, how Socialism would treat the residuum of the working class and of all classes—the class, not specially vicious, nor even necessarily idle, but below the average in power of will and in steadiness of purpose. I have intimated that such persons, if they belong to the upper or middle classes, are kept straight by the fear of falling out of class, and in the working class by positive fear of want. But since Socialism purposes to eliminate the fear of want, and since under Socialism the hierarchy of classes will either not exist at all or be wholly transformed, there remains for such persons no motive at all except physical coercion. Are we to imprison or flog all the 'ne'er-do-wells'?
I.45
"I began this paper by pointing out that there are inequalities and anomalies in the material world, some of which, like the obliquity of the ecliptic and the consequent inequality of the day's length, cannot be redressed at all. Others, like the caprices of sunshine and rainfall in different climates, can be mitigated, but must on the whole be endured. I am very far from asserting that the inequalities and anomalies of human society are strictly parallel with those of material nature. I fully admit that we are under an obligation to control nature so far as we can. But I think I have shown that the Socialist scheme cannot be relied upon to control nature, because it refuses to obey her. Socialism attempts to vanquish nature by a front attack. Individualism, on the contrary, is the recognition, in social politics, that nature has a beneficent as well as a malignant side. . . .
I.46
"Freedom is the most valuable of all human possessions, next after life itself. It is more valuable, in a manner, than even health. No human agency can secure health; but good laws, justly administered, can and do secure freedom. Freedom, indeed, is almost the only thing that law can secure. Law cannot secure equality, nor can it secure prosperity. In the direction of equality, all that law can do is to secure fair play, which is equality of rights but is not equality of conditions. In the direction of prosperity, all that law can do is to keep the road open. That is the Quintessence of Individualism, and it may fairly challenge comparison with that Quintessence of Socialism we have been discussing. Socialism, disguise it how we may, is the negation of Freedom. That it is so, and that it is also a scheme not capable of producing even material comfort in exchange for the abnegations of Freedom, I think the foregoing considerations amply prove." EDWARD STANLEY ROBERTSON
With Hillary, isn't this the choice we must make--a path to tyranny or a possible path back to freedom in America?
When it comes to abortion, God's word is clear!
Who does God hold most responsible for an abortion? Leviticus 20:1-5
I'm going to do this thought as if it were a letter to a young girl, a young girl who has had an abortion. It makes no difference what I call her, and it makes no difference how many abortions she has had, or even her age, she could be 16, 26 or even 60 or more. I'm going to call her Rachael.
Dear Rachael,
I know you have had an abortion and I know that you know that what you did is wrong. How you got pregnant is not relevant, what is relevant is that you allowed the life of the little baby in your womb to be ended.
Rachael, I also know that you think that Christ hates you for what you did and that He could never forgive you. Two things my little one, first Christ does not hate you and second He can't wait to forgive you, but, He is holy and as such must maintain His rules, and His rule is that you must respond to His persistent, through the Holy Ghost, call for you to ask to be forgiven. (Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any *man hear My voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with Me. * the Greek word translated man is "tis" it would be better translated "whomever" for it is not limited to man, but all of mankind, male and female, unlike the Hebrew "'iysh" word used in Leviticus 20:1-5 which means man, not mankind, not man and women but only man, for the Hebrew word for man is "adam".)
Rachael, as you will see, as we go through the most important prohibition of abortion, by God Almighty, it is the guy who got you pregnant that God commands to be killed for allowing you to abort his seed, it is not you God is furious with, it is the man whose sperm joined with your egg and became his seed. Now, why you ask does God hold the baby's father more responsible for the baby's death than you? It is because he is, in the original Hebrew, adam and you are 'ishshah.
> 1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying: 2 "Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones. 3 And I will set My face against that man, and will cut him off from among his people; because he hath given of his seed unto Molech, to defile My sanctuary, and to profane My holy name."
4 "And if the people of the land do any ways hide their eyes from the man, when he giveth of his seed unto Molech, and kill him not, 5 then I will set My face against that man, and against his family, and will cut him off, and all that go a whoring after him, to commit whoredom with Molech, from among their people." Leviticus 20:1-5 ACP/KJV
Now, let's look at some very key words.
Let us first look at what God has to say about abortion and the penalty for the father that allows his child in the womb to be slaughtered. Yes, the father of the baby, for it is, as you will see, the father God commands to be stoned to death for the abortion, the murder of his seed.
Verse one: " And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying;" Rachael, the speaker is God Almighty Himself, Moses is but the recording secretary, Rachael, this is not Moses speaking. It is God Almighty Himself speaking.
Verse two: "Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones." God tells Moses to relay to the People of God that none is to offer his seed to the devil. The word translated "seed" is, in the ancient Hebrew, zera`, pronounced zeh'-rah. It means, seed; figuratively, fruit, plant, sowing-time, posterity: child, fruitful, seed(-time), sowing- time. In other words seed means sperm both before and after fertilizing the women's egg. It also means the baby both before and after leaving the womb. So, in verse two and after the word seed means the baby from the instant of conception and for sperm before. At the end of verse two God dictates the punishment for men who allow the abortion of their seed, death by stoning. Verse three: "And I will set My face against that man, and will cut him off from among his people; because he hath given of his seed unto Molech, to defile My sanctuary, and to profane My holy name." In verse three the word Sanctuary is miqdash, pronounced mik-dawsh' or miqqdash in Exodus 15:17) {pronounced mik-ked-awsh'}; it is a consecrated thing or place, especially, a palace, sanctuary (whether of Jehovah or of idols) or asylum:--chapel, hallowed part, holy place, sanctuary. In other words anywhere where God is or dwells or visits is His sanctuary. God as the creator of the earth, the universe(s) the heavens, all things, owns everywhere and everything, so His sanctuary is everywhere, even the lake of fire to come and hell now are God's creation and therfore He rules over them as well. God does not allow abortion, which is the offering of the baby in the womb to satan as a little human blood sacrifice, no where in all of His creation.
Verse four and five: 4 "And if the people of the land do any ways hide their eyes from the man, when he giveth of his seed unto Molech, and kill him not: 5 Then I will set My face against that man, and against his family, and will cut him off, and all that go a whoring after him, to commit whoredom with Molech, from among their people." These two verses make it clear that God not only curses and condemns, to death, the man who allows his baby to be aborted, but the society that does not punish the man who allowed the baby he fathered to be aborted.
Yes Rachael, what you did is wrong, what you did was take your baby to a man or woman who is a high priest or priestess of the devil and you allowed that person to murder your baby, to offer little him or her to the devil as a little human blood sacrifice, and yes God is mad at you, but He is more than willing to forgive you. But, the man who fathered the baby, you had aborted, he is another story. Oh sure he can be saved, but God holds men to a much, much higher standard.
Now, Rachael, you must be wondering why God holds the man to a higher standard and declares a more sever punishment for the man who got you pregnant than you, you who brought the baby to be aborted. The answer my dear is simple, he is adam and you are 'ishshah. It goes back some 6,450 years, back to the time Adam and Eve sinned and got evicted from the Garden of Eden.
Unto the 'ishshah God said, "I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." Rachael, you will find that in verse 16 of Genesis chapter 3.
What God is saying is that from that time forward all 'ishshahs, all women, will have pain in childbirth, but additionally, God further said that a woman's desire would be to obey her husband and serve him. Now Rachael, like it or not, God has made women subservient to men, it is not arguable, it is a simple fact of life. As such, the man is held more responsible than the woman.
It is kind of like this, when you were a little girl, say four years old, and if your mom or dad told you to move a glass fish bowl that was to heavy for you to move and you dropped it and it broke, killing the fish and getting water and broken glass all over the floor, whose fault was it? Yours or your mom or dad who ordered you to move the fish bowl? It would of course be the fault of the parent that told you to do it. Why? Because in the Ten Commandments of God it says "Honor thy father and thy mother"
And just as God has commanded you to obey your mom and dad when you were little, so has He ordered you to obey your husband when you are married. "For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands: Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord:" 1 Peter 3:5&6
But, you say, "Pastor Bob, I was not married to the man (men) that got me pregnant to the baby(s) I aborted."
Rachael, in the laws of man you weren't, but in God's eyes you were. For you see, in God's eyes, a man and a woman are married when they have sexual intercourse, when they, in the words of the bible, "know" each other. That word "know" is translated from the Hebrew word "yada".
"And Adam {'adam} knew {yada`} Eve his wife {'ishshah}; and she conceived , and bare Cain."
So you see Rachael, yes you messed up, you messed up, you messed up big time when you killed that baby, but Rachael it is not the unpardonable sin and yes God is willing to forgive you. Email me if you want to know how to approach God for forgiveness, for forgiveness is what He sent His Son to earth for.
For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on Him (Jesus) should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through Him might be saved. He that believeth on Him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. John 3:16-18 ACP/KJV�
