Category Archives: US History

Weaponization of Government and Our Response

As I serve on the state board of West Virginians For Life, and as their treasurer, and also as the board alternate representing West Virginia on the National Right To Life Committee (NRLC), each quarter I am asked to compose a short article for the Life Matters newsletter. Below is my most recent submission for that publication. 

There are alarming reports of the weaponization of government against us, including law enforcement and our judicial system. While truly violent protestors had rioted, burned, vandalized, and stolen with apparently little to no arrests or convictions, it’s alarming to consider that the DOJ under the current administration has arrested pro-life people for visiting an abortion facility and praying and singing while there. Worst case scenario: if they were asked to leave and did not, then it is simple trespassing (not a felony), yet these pro-lifers were tried and convicted as being felons, facing years in prison unless a higher court intervenes. In deference to the court of Heaven, what should our response be? Let’s not give a carnal response of “do unto others as they have done to me.” Certainly we ought to exercise our votes to regain normalcy in government, but we also ought to pray for God’s help. In the Book of Acts, chapter 4, the apostles were arrested for simply preaching truth, and they were threatened repeatedly to stop. They declined to stop, and also prayed afterward for boldness. Consider Acts 4:23-32, especially vv. 29-31: “And now, Lord, behold their threatenings: and grant unto thy servants, that with all boldness they may speak thy word, by stretching forth thine hand to heal; and that signs and wonders may be done by the name of thy holy child Jesus. And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness.” Your donated time, talent, and treasure has perhaps never been more important!

Join us: wvforlife.org/membership
Better yet, step up to Rose Society Membership while you’re there!
Already a member? Give here: wvforlife.org/donate

The first pastor arrested, and what happened next…

Quote from Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman, Liberty Counsel:
 
Today I want to share additional details about the first pastor arrested this year for worship. The story is shocking, but also reveals that God can turn evil into good. Read on to learn exactly what happened to the first pastor in America jailed for opening his church. – Mat
 
Police helicopters circled above and marked cars lined the street in front of his home. The pastor grabbed only his driver’s license and a little cash for bail, before answering the door.
 
The pastor opened the door.
 
“ARE YOU PACKING?” the officer asked.
 
“Of course not,” the pastor replied. The police officers cuffed him like a common criminal. His wife watched as her husband was placed in the back of a squad car and driven to the county jail.
 
He was booked, fingerprinted, photographed for a mug shot, and placed in a cell while his wife waited in the lobby. After posting bail, he was released.
 
The Hillsborough County Sheriff made many false statements during a sensational press conference while the arrest was in progress. As a result, Pastor Rodney and The River at Tampa Bay Church received many death threats.
 
On the prior Thursday, March 26, the same Sheriff assured the pastor he could meet on Sunday. Florida had not banned worship, but the local county late Friday night issued new restrictions.
 
On Saturday night, the pastor had an uneasy feeling. He preached the morning service, yet the feeling grew. For the evening service, another preacher held the lectern, and Pastor Rodney attended from home.
 
It turns out the pastor’s unease was well founded, and likely a divine message from the Lord. The same Sheriff who gave the green light had planned an ambush, because of pressure over the weekend from the lesbian mayor.Deputies were sent to the evening service to arrest the pastor in front of the congregation.
 
When the deputies arrived and saw that Pastor Rodney was not there, they left. The next morning this shocking spectacle unfolded. The Pastor was booked on two misdemeanors.
 
Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Department’s written policy for handling misdemeanors is not to arrest, but to treat such citations like a traffic ticket. But Pastor Rodney was targeted to “send a message,” the Sheriff said. Within days of the arrest, the same Sheriff released over 100 convicted criminals. Tragically, one of them committed murder the next day!
 
Let me tell you a bit about The River at Tampa Bay Church.
 
Inside the church is a self-contained sustainable agriculture center. Tilapia fish and chickens fuel an aquaponic vegetable farm that feeds 900 needy inner-city families each week. The church has received several awards and commendations over the years, recognizing its long history of caring for the community. The River Church had even received a commendation from the Sheriff’s office, honoring the church for daring to go into the most dangerous parts of the city – places where even the police admit they do not go unless they have to go. The church has been credited for reducing crime in the inner city.
 
For a body of believers, “church” is more than music and a message. This church is active, and the people are encouraged through fellowship. For 24 years, this church has been the hands and feet of Christ in the community.
 
On March 30, 2020; Pastor Rodney was the first pastor in the nation to be arrested for exercising his Constitutional right to worship.
 
But this apparent tragedy gave courage to many more around the world, including some pastors we represent.
 
As a result of Liberty Counsel defending Pastor Rodney, two days later on April 1, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis declared attendance at churches and places of worship “essential activity.” He overrode every local restriction.
 
Following Christ’s example, Pastor Rodney prayed for the Sheriff. Several weeks later he called, seeking forgiveness. The Sheriff recently attended the church where the pastor publicly forgave him.
 
Because of the death threats, Pastor Rodney did not immediately re-open the church for in-person worship. The church met online until May 31, Pentecost Sunday, when it began outdoor services. Each evening, the church has held a four-hour revival for 91 consecutive days, counting today. The revival continues, as does indoor worship. The Stand, as Pastor Rodney calls it, has spawned many similar revival meetings across the country, even in cities town apart by riots. Last week, the church held an all-night prayer meeting for our nation.
 
But along with the rise of more brave pastors and strengthened resolve, so too came a renewed resolve among the tyrants. In the months that have passed since Pastor Rodney was arrested, other governors and local officials have launched their own illegal edicts against churches.
 
Pastors have been arrested – some with criminal charges. Churchgoers have been put on the equivalent of house arrest. And the City of Chicago has threatened to seize and destroy church buildings.
 
All because the brave pastors and their flocks chose to stand on the Constitution and the will of God in their lives.
 
Liberty Counsel is currently fighting for scores of churches against the illegal, unconstitutional restrictions placed against them by the Governors of California, Illinois, Kentucky, Virginia and Maine. We also represent about 2,000 pastors and churches in 44 states. We are deeply honored to stand alongside and represent these brave shepherds and believers.
 
We are fighting for the God given, unalienable and Constitutional RIGHT of religious freedom. Our fight for the church is the most important fight we wage. We are assured that the Gates of Hell will not prevail.
 
The church has never belonged to Caesar. The church belongs to God alone. Therefore, any surrender of the church to Caesar is nothing short of treason to the King of Kings.
 
We need your help like never before, to defend the faith in the earthly halls of justice. We anticipate this fight will have to go all the way to the Supreme Court. That’s why I am so honored that a challenge grant has been established to DOUBLE THE IMPACT OF YOUR DONATION. We never charge for our services, and these brave pastors need your help now. Please, make your best possible donation today.
 
Mat Staver,
Founder and Chairman
Liberty Counsel

Thank you to all West Virginians who are FOR LIFE

As pro-lifers, we each have our favored candidates. We can have vastly differing views about which pro-lifer is best for an office. Regardless, we ought to be careful not to burn bridges or destroy trust during a primary. The primary will pass and we’ll all still need to work together to make sure we succeed in the soon-coming general election. How do you define “success” in an election cycle? I urge you to not answer with “seeing my candidates elected,” but rather with “seeing pro-life candidates elected.” We aim to get pro-lifers into every office from “county dog-catcher” to U.S. President. I’ll admit that during the previous U.S. Presidential primary, my favored candidate was not selected, and I did not think much of the candidate who was selected. However, I now have to concede that I was mistaken in my forecast of how well he would do. President Donald J. Trump has become the most effective pro-life president since the US Supreme Court mandated abortion on demand for practically any reason through all nine months of pregnancy (back in 1973). If the candidate you favor didn’t get an official endorsement, please don’t shoot down our state’s only grassroots organization for pro-life action and success in West Virginia. Don’t withdraw. Stay in the fight. My sincerest, heartfelt gratitude to all West Virginians who are FOR LIFE. Our namesake really says who we all are: We are West Virginians For Life! Your pro-life support and vote are needed now more than ever.

Join us: wvforlife.org/membership

Better yet, step up to Rose Society Membership while you’re there!

Already a member? Give here: wvforlife.org/donate

WV and 50th Anniversary of the Moon Landing – July 20, 1969

Katherine Johnson

You may not know that a brilliant woman from the State of West Virginia, the genius Katherine Johnson, played a significant role in the NASA project that landed men on the moon (and brought them back home). Read more about her here.  Less than a month ago, a NASA facility in Fairmont, WV was renamed to honor her.

I was not yet two year’s old when the lunar landing occurred. So I was alive, but not yet old enough to have any “actual memories” of the  event myself. Just as with many of you, my memories were  cemented by video footage seen much later, along with articles, books, and movies. Today I wept as I watched this excellent, short documentary that Google is featuring as their current Google Doodle (click to watch):

Here’s the googledoodles description of it:

50 years ago, NASA’s Apollo 11 mission changed our world and ideas of what is possible by successfully landing humans on the surface of the moon⁠—and bringing them home safely⁠—for the first time in history. Today’s video Doodle celebrates this moment of human achievement by taking us through the journey to the moon and back, narrated by someone with firsthand knowledge of the epic event: former astronaut and Apollo 11 command module pilot Michael Collins.

For more info behind the Doodle, please visit: https://www.google.com/doodles/50th-anniversary-of-the-moon-landing

Response to critique of the pro-life movement in The Federalist

Yesterday a critique of the pro-life movement appeared on The Federalist site, authored under a pseudonym of Bill Kilgore. Regarding that pseudonym, the Federalist website says,

“Bill Kilgore is the pseudonym of a writer serving in the U.S. military. The author writes anonymously because conservative opinions are unpopular and harmful to one’s career in the military. He has also written for American Greatness. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of Defense or the U.S. government.”

So, the writer lacks the courage/fortitude to write under his own name for fear of reprisal and detriment to his military career.

Let that sink in for a moment: a writer not willing to suffer detriment to his career for owning up to his convictions / opinions, is criticizing people in the pro-life movement who have sacrificed time, talent, and treasure (done/given under their actual names), including some who have suffered serious detriment/persecution including attacks both physical and legal. The writer deems such people as supposedly not doing enough or not being serious enough about the pro-life cause!

The Federalist writer seems mistaken on several counts.

The writer seems to think we are not winning unless we are winning in every single state of the union. The facts on the ground are that just as there are intense divisions in America over issues such as Israel, abortion, and right v. left, those divides are seemingly always correlated along geopolitical lines in which a few areas lean left (usually concentrated urban areas or historically “liberal” areas), while practically everywhere else leans right. Certainly the pro-life movement is not winning in leftist New York State (which is dominated by leftist urban New York City) and other heavily leftist areas. We’re seeing the same kind of increasing division happening over pro-Israel support.

Both the issue of supporting Israel (and opposing anti-Semitism) and the issue of supporting life (and opposing abortion) used to be bi-partisan, but with support in the leftist side eroding faster and faster over time.

The Federalist writer dismisses all the places where the trend happening is the opposite of what’s going on in the most left-leaning areas. The writer also dismisses, or is ignorant of, or misreads, for example, much data indicating the younger generation is far more pro-life and far more engaged and more informed than prior generations. The writer also seems ignorant of all the legal holes that have been shot through Roe & Doe over the intervening years since 1973. Legally, the Roe of today is a not what it was in 1973.

The writer is also clearly inaccurate in lamenting that all the successful regulations passed are failing in the courts. Tennessee’s successful Amendment 1 was upheld in court, and pro-aborts don’t stand a chance of defeating West Virginia’s successful Amendment 1 in court. Also many other successes in West Virginia have not been challenged in court.

We knew the fallout would be great when we made enough progress that the abortionists began to realize they could eventually lose Roe & Doe. I always suspected that the fallout would include moves to insulate certain leftist states “in advance” of a suspected demise of Roe & Doe. I also saw indicators there would be disunity in the pro-life side in the face of the fallout.

The writer may simply be in un-thought-out mourning and panic over the recent losses in places such as New York, which are typical of the kind of fallout I suspected would happen. Or the writer may have an agenda. There are some today who say that no one is really pro-life unless they agree with certain views on how the pro-life movement ought to conduct itself, phrase its wording, and set its strategies.

The gritty reality is that our history vis-a-vis slavery / the Civil War indicates that as we move as a union toward a major resolution to the issue of abortion, America will likely become even more bitterly divided, probably along geopolitical lines, and, as scary as it may sound, may teeter on the brink of civil war in a division where some whole states go “pro-abort” and more whole states go “pro-life” (just like there were “slave states” and “free states” before the Civil War).

The issue is certainly careening toward the US Supreme Court—again—because, contrary to their wrong-headed view in 1973, Roe v. Wade & Doe v. Bolton did not settle the matter. There is a chance that no matter what the Supreme Court does in the future, a harsh divide and even civil war may become inevitable. I saw a lot of complaints in the article, but saw no real solutions suggested.

Become a member of West Virginians For Life:
https://wvforlife.org/membership

Donate to West Virginians For Life:
https://wvforlife.org/donate/

Sincerely,
Pastor Doug Joseph
(Yes, that’s my real name.)

The Evil We’re Facing Demands Full Engagement

Note: this was my WV For Life Treasurer’s Letter for February 2019.

2019-01-31 Virginia Gov Ralph Northam Defends Defending Infanticide - Only Talking About Infanticide of Disabled Babies
2019-01-31 Virginia Gov Ralph Northam Defends Defending Infanticide – Only Talking About Infanticide of Disabled Babies
#BornAliveAbortionSurvivorsProtectionAct
2019-01-31 National Right to Life Praises Sen. Sasse's Call for Action on Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act
2019-01-31 National Right to Life Praises Sen. Sasse’s Call for Action on Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act
#BornAliveAbortionSurvivorsProtectionAct

We’ve been warning* all who will listen for some time now that pro-abortion “ethicists” (so-called) have been openly teaching that morally there’s no difference between killing a baby in the womb and killing one that’s already born. (Some are even arguing for killing babies as old as 24 months!) The preborn baby has the same potential as the post-born baby, and the newborn on the knee has practically the same vulnerabilities as the baby in the womb. We know it’s morally wrong to murder either one. They claim it’s ethically “acceptable” to kill either one. Their lunatic lie will be shocking to the gullible public for a while, yet not a few pro-aborts are already fully numbed to the insanity of senselessly killing a baby who is born and breathing. Simpler pro-abort talking heads may have not yet mastered the talking points of the “ethicists.” I just watched national news video of one mindless pro-abort “robot” using the tired trope of “you-can’t-control-women’s-bodies” to justify Virginia Governor Ralph Northam’s recent sickening suggestion that a baby with a deformity, once already born, could be made “comfortable” while a “discussion” should be held [about whether to let the baby die as opposed to feeding and caring for her]. We know that a preborn baby’s body is not her mother’s body. Yet how mindless does an abortion supporter need to be to pretend that a baby already born is somehow to be seen as the mother’s “body”? This is the evil we are facing. Battle lines are forming. Join us in bringing facts to light, the truth of what’s right to a society being manipulated by absolute evil. Your pro-life actions, words, and donations are needed now more than ever.

Join WV For Life here: wvforlife.org/membership

Already a member? Give here: wvforlife.org/donate

*Listen to WVFL State Convention keynote speaker Wesley J. Smith, J.D. Recorded on October 21, 2017 at Horizons Church in Lost Creek, WV

Celebrations + Pro-Life Network Needs Bigger Megaphones!

Note: this was my WV For Life Treasurer’s Letter for November 2018.

Congratulations! Through determination, donations, and diligence, our State Constitution is officially amended to clarify: it contains no right to murder preborn babies! The costly, deadly, 25-year fiction formed by “Panepinto” is over! Across America, friends of West Virginians For Life join us in tears of joy, fist pumps, and excitement. In our rejoicing, some takeaways:

We’ve paved pathways of partnership resulting in a powerhouse of pro-life networking. Beyond National Right To Life and West Virginians for Life, we have pro-life legislators (Republicans and Democrats) in the GOP-led State Senate and House, Susan B. Anthony List, Students for Life of America, and the Family Policy Council of WV. This alliance knocked many thousands of doors, did rallies, calls, festivals, billboards, TV, radio, social media—you name it! Two of three key goals were realized. Kavanaugh: confirmed! Amendment One: ratified! The third goal was close: pro-life Patrick Morrisey was only 3.2% behind Joe Manchin, who has betrayed his pro-life values and constituency (even voting against A1). Morrisey won more counties (31 of 55). Primarily three populace counties (Monongalia, Cabell, and Kanawha) gave Manchin barely enough votes for reelection. Those counties are where to focus prayers, preparation, and persuasion to gain victory in future tight races. We sent Manchin a resolute warning.

A1’s margin of victory was narrowed by confusion: reports indicate pro-lifers entering ballot boxes without hearing a word about A1, and errantly voting no. Some struggled to comprehend the wording (which, due to legal necessity, had to ask for a positive response to negative statements), not to mention the unfortunate, unavoidable shift from “YES” (in promos) to “FOR” (on ballots). For all our networking, we needed bigger megaphones. WVFL’s treasury was emptied as a well-spent war chest. Pro-life donations are needed now more than ever.

Give here: wvforlife.org/donate

Unbelievable yet true…

No! The federal government has no power to restrict so-called “military grade” weapons.

The following is an excellent piece of writing regarding the federal government’s supposed power to impose “reasonable restraint” on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. This alleged power of limitation/restriction has now become a mantra of many. When I first saw the excerpt (below) today, it was unattributed. So, I went looking for the name of the author(s). It’s apparently excerpted from this book:

The Bill of Rights Does Not Grant You Any Constitutional Rights
By Robert Greenslade and Claude Ellsworth
Published in 2007 by Nitwit Press
https://amzn.to/2EsT8n5

Below is the excerpt, with which I could not agree more. Please see my additional comments below the excerpt.

Supporters of the Amendment claim they have a constitutional or Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Opponents counter that even if that were the case, the federal government was granted the general power to place restraints on the right. Both of these assertions are based on a misconception concerning the intent of the document known as the Bill of Rights.

When the Bill of Rights was submitted to the individual States for ratification, it was prefaced with a preamble. As stated in the preamble, the purpose of the Amendments was to prevent the federal government from “misconstruing or abusing its powers.” To accomplish this, “further declaratory and restrictive clauses” were being recommended. The Amendments, when adopted, did not create any so-called constitutional rights or grant the federal government any power over individual rights; they placed additional restraints and qualifications on the powers of the federal government concerning the rights enumerated in the Amendments.

If the Second Amendment is read through the preamble, we find it was incorporated into the Bill of Rights as a “declaratory and restrictive clause” to prevent the federal government from “misconstruing or abusing its power” to infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear arms.
Another way to understand the original intent of the Second Amendment is re-write it through the preamble:

“Because a well-regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the federal government is expressly denied the power to infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear Arms.”

The preamble and original intent of the Amendments has been suppressed by the institutions of government because it would expose their usurpation of power and perversion of Amendments contained in the Bill of Rights.

By advancing the myth that the Amendments grant the American people their individual rights, the federal government has been able to convert enumerated restraints and qualifications on its power into legislative, executive, judicial and administrative power over individual rights. The federal government claims it was granted the constitutional authority to determine the extent of the individual rights enumerated in the Amendments and/or impose “reasonable restraints” on those rights. This assertion is absurd. The federal government does not have the constitutional authority to ignore, circumvent, modify, negate or remove constitutional restraints placed on its power by the Amendments or convert them into a power over the individual right enumerated in the particular restraint.

A denial of power or an enumerated restraint on the exercise of power is not subject to interpretation or modification by the entity the restraint is being imposed upon. The restraints imposed by the Amendments, which were adopted 4 years after the Constitution was ratified, override the legislative, executive, judicial or administrative powers of the federal government. If this were not the case, then the restraints would be meaningless because the federal government could simply circumvent, modify or remove them. Why would the States have requested and adopted enumerated restraints on federal power, subsequent to their ratification of the Constitution, if the federal government possessed the authority to nullify them?

When the federal government infringes on one of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights it is not violating anyone’s constitutional rights; it is violating the additional restraint or qualification placed on its power by the particular Amendment where the right is enumerated. The distinction between rights and restraints is critical. [The right is not given by the Federal Government. Our rights are given by God and are inalienable. Therefore, they can’t be limited or taken away.]

As stated in the Declaration of Independence, the American people have unalienable rights that come from a higher source than government or a written document. By acknowledging that people have natural rights, which are bestowed by a creator, the Founders laid the foundation for the principle that government does not have the lawful authority to take away or infringe on those rights. This principle was incorporated into the preamble and structure of the Amendments to secure individual rights from government encroachment; that is why they were designed and imposed as restraints on the exercise of power.

If the individual rights of the people had been created by the Constitution or an amendment to the document, then they would cease to be unalienable because the right would depend on the existence of a document. If the document or a provision of the document disappeared, so would the right. The belief that individual rights were created by a written document has opened the door for the federal government to claim the power to define the extent of any right enumerated in an Amendment. This has transformed constitutional restraints placed on federal power into subjective determinations of individual rights by the institutions of government. By failing to understand the difference between amendments that create rights and amendments that impose restraints on government, the American people are watching their individual rights vanish as they are reduced to the status of privileges bestowed by government because the constitutional restraints placed on federal power are being replaced by government decree.

Opponents of the Second Amendment always try to diminish the right enumerated in the Amendment by asserting that rights are not absolute. This is just another straw man argument because the Amendment is about imposing a restraint of the powers of the federal government concerning a right: not granting a right or defining the extent of a right. In addition, a review of the Second Amendment shows that the restraint imposed by the Amendment does not contain any exceptions.

To all the gun grabbers… You got that?

The only things I would add now are:

Given that mass-murder of US civilians by US government agents has happened numerous times already, even with the right to bear arms, it’s clear that law-abiding civilians should have access to the best weapons available to anyone (military or civilian). The primary function of our right is the ability to defend against government gone bad (i.e. not just hunting or sport shooting).

For those so clueless about history that you doubt this fact, here are just a few examples.

In 1993, US Attorney General Janet Reno ordered a brutal assault by federal agents on a religious group’s complex in Waco, Texas. The attack ended a 51-day siege that had started when an earlier raid had led to the deaths of six (6) Branch Davidians and four (4) federal agents. The governmental assault caused a massive fire that led to the horrific deaths of almost all the victims. Many innocent people, including defenseless children, became collateral damage. 

The Waco fiasco was caused by an earlier government assault at Ruby Ridge, when in 1992, agents killed a boy who was hunting with his dog and a government sniper shot an unarmed woman. This assault led to not only the Waco disaster, but also the Oklahoma City bombing of a federal building.

Other instances include the siege at Wounded Knee in 1973, and the bombing of the headquarters of another religious group, the Philadelphia-based black nationalist MOVE group, in 1985.

Furthermore, historical evidence indicates that in the understanding of the framers of the Constitution, the term “militia” was not a force composed of people “other than civilians” but rather it referred to all able-bodied civilians. “The people” and the “militia” are one and the same. The civilians in general are the people who are to be armed and ready to serve as a militia if needed. To be an effective militia, they would, of course, need to have been able to “keep and bear” so-called “military grade” weapons.

HMMM

AR doesn’t stand for “Assault Rifle,” it stands for a brand, Armalite, and there’s nothing about an AR that distinguishes it for being unavailable, neither caliber, nor rate of fire, nor capacity, and any standard that would bar it would bar practically all guns, which is the real agenda of those who claim they “only want to ban AR’s.”