The 7/19/12 Colorado Theater Shooting: An Open Letter to the Michigan Legislature...

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Michigan Legislature:

The mass shooting in a Colorado theater last night (7/19/12) vividly demonstrates what those  in the firearms carry community have been saying for years:  allowing businesses to be no-carry zones, either by legislation or by election on the part of the business owner, does nothing to enhance the safety of patrons.  The only people who are going to observe those signs and laws are law abiding citizens; lawbreakers have no regard for such things.  In fact, as can be seen clearly from this incident, the only thing these no-carry designations do is guarantee a higher victim count.

No fewer than ten (10) Supreme Court rulings have affirmed that personal protection is the obligation of the individual citizen - not the police.  The clearest opinion came in the SCOTUS ruling, City of Castle Rock, Colorado v Gonzales (I hope the irony of this is not lost):

"You, and only you, are responsible for your security and the security of your family and loved ones. That was the essence of a U.S. Supreme Court decision in the early 1980's when they ruled that the police do not have a duty to protect you as an individual, but to protect society as a whole. It is well-settled fact of American law that the police have no legal duty to protect any individual citizen from crime, even if the citizen has received death threats and the police have negligently failed to provide protection" (emphasis added).

In addition to the Supreme Court rulings, the universal drawdown of law enforcement across the country means that there are fewer officers available to respond to such situations, and that the response time needed to marshal the remaining officers will be correspondingly longer.  This makes the 2012 federal appeals court ruling in Woollard v Sheridan even more critical:

"As Judge Niemeyer points out, the Heller Court`s description of its holding as applying to the home, where the need "for defense of self, family, and property is most acute," suggests that the right also applies in some form "where that need is not `most acute.'" Id. at 468 (Niemeyer, J., concurring) (quoting Heller, 554 U.S. at 628). This reasoning is consistent with the Supreme Court`s historical understanding of the right to keep and bear arms as "an individual right protecting against both public and private violence." Heller, 554 U.S. at 594. In addition to self-defense, the right was also understood to allow for militia membership and hunting. See id. at 598. To secure these rights, the Second Amendment`s protections must extend beyond the home: neither hunting nor militia training is a household activity, and "self-defense has to take place wherever [a] person happens to be." Masciandaro, 638 F.3d at 468 (Niemeyer, J., concurring) (quoting Eugene Volokh, Implementing the Right to Keep and Bear Arms for Self-Defense: An Analytical Framework and a Research Agenda, 56 UCLA L. REV. 1443, 1515-18 (2009))" (emphasis added).

The following statement appeared on the web site of Union Local 2544 of The National Border patrol Council, Tucson, AZ, relating to recent DHS training regarding active shooter incidents:

"Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that any three of the above shootings (referring to Columbine, Virginia Tech, and the Giffords shooting - added) would have been stopped cold by an off-duty law enforcement officer or a law abiding citizen with a gun. The Fort Hood shooting would have been stopped cold by someone with a gun as well. The shooters in these situations depend on unarmed and scared victims. It gives them the power they seek. We could go on and on with examples of shootings that could have been stopped by someone with a firearm…. Calling 911 in these instances is obvious, but we all know that waiting on the arrival of uniformed law enforcement will ensure more people are killed, injured, or taken hostage" (emphasis added).

 Brendan Keefe, a reporter with WCPO in Ohio (formerly of WZZM in Kalamazoo), made the following observation in a 2008 report advocating for a "single officer response" approach to active shooter incidents entitled, "When Seconds Count: Stopping Active Killers":

"Based on the Virginia Tech data, experts determined the first officer on scene should make entry immediately with an aggressive attack on the shooter. Every minute the officer waits for back-up, another three or more people could die." 

Since the average response time to 911 calls around the country is somewhere between 18-20 minutes, this means that significant numbers of people have already been killed or injured before an officer calling and waiting for backup has even arrived on the scene.

Gentlemen, the objective data demonstrate conclusively that so-called carry-free zones do nothing to promote our safety.  Additionally, they are a violation of our Second Amendment right to protect ourselves by carrying firearms, as has been established in at least ten SCOTUS  and additional federal appeals court rulings.  Further, there are no objective data available to demonstrate that Michigan CPL holders pose any sort of danger to the general public or that permitting them to carry in public spaces has led to the increase in shootings feared by opponents of concealed carry.

We have legislation currently pending in both houses of the legislature that would address these issues by allowing CPL holders to carry concealed in most places in Michigan.  This incident should serve to demonstrate why our state legislature needs to stop playing political games, remove burdensome requirements, and pass these bills as soon as possible.

Napolitano to the US Border Patrol - Run Away or Hide.....

The US Border Patrol, along with numerous other agencies associated with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), recently received updated training regarding an appropriate response to active shooter events.


To say that the new guidelines are shocking would be an understatement of gargantuan proportions.


It was at first assumed that the new guidelines addressed in the training would apply only to agencies such as FEMA.  You can imagine the shock felt by our Border Patrol officers when they discovered that it applied to them as well.


The following is taken directly from ISO-907 - Active Shooter: What You Can Do, the course summary issued by the DHS:

"Good practices for response include:

If you suspect a potential active shooter situation, you must quickly determine the most reasonable way to protect your own life. If there is an accessible escape path, attempt to evacuate the premises.

Always have an escape route and plan in mind even if you are just visiting. And, make sure to leave your belongings behind and keep your hands visible.

If evacuation is not possible, you should find a place to hide where the active shooter is less likely to find you. Block entry to your hiding place and lock the doors. Use heavy items to barricade yourself if possible. And, remember to remain quiet and silence your cell phone or pager.

As a last resort, and only when your life is in imminent danger, you should attempt to incapacitate the shooter by acting with physical aggression and throwing items at the active shooter. And, call 911 when it is safe to do so. (emphasis added)

If you are a manager or uniformed official, employees and customers are likely to follow your lead. So, it’s essential that you remain calm and take immediate action. The key is to be aware of your environment and any possible dangers.

However, if you do need to respond, remember: try to evacuate. If you cannot evacuate, then hide. As a last resort, take action.

Call 911 WHEN IT IS SAFE TO DO SO! How To Respond

Let’s review the key points from the video presentation. In an active shooter situation, you should quickly determine the most reasonable way to protect your own life. You should:

1. Evacuate: If there is an accessible escape path, attempt to evacuate the premises.

2. Hide out: If evacuation is not possible, find a place to hide where the active shooter is less likely to find you.

3. Take action: As a last resort, and only when your life is in imminent danger, attempt to disrupt and/or incapacitate the active shooter.

It is important for employees to be trained so that they can react if they are ever confronted with an active shooter situation. As these situations evolve quickly, quick decisions could mean the difference between life and death. If you are in harm’s way, you will need to decide rapidly what the safest course of action is based on the scenario that is unfolding before you."

They are specifically forbidden to use their government-issued firearms in self- or defense of others. 


Upon hearing that these directives applied to them, local 2544 of the National Border Patrol Council posted the following in response:

"Border Patrol Agents Taught to "Run Away" and "Hide" when Encountering a Shooter

07-03-12 Since this information was posted and after media scrutiny the agency has offered to revise and clarify this training. Despite claims to the contrary, the training was clearly mandated for all Border Patrol agents. We look forward to seeing the revised training. We see no reason agents would need this training in the first place, even with clarification. It is a complete waste of an agent's time.

06-20-12 In another nauseating series of "Virtual Learning Center" brainwashing courses that Border Patrol agents are forced to sit behind a computer for hours and endure, we are now taught in an "Active Shooter" course that if we encounter a shooter in a public place we are to "run away" and "hide". If we are cornered by such a shooter we are to (only as a last resort) become "aggressive" and "throw things" at him or her. We are then advised to "call law enforcement" and wait for their arrival (presumably, while more innocent victims are slaughtered). Shooting incidents cited in the course are Columbine, the Giffords shooting and the Virginia Tech shooting. 

These types of mandatory brainwashing courses and the idiocy that accompanies them are simply stunning when they are force-fed to law enforcement officers. Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that any three of the above shootings would have been stopped cold by an off-duty law enforcement officer or a law abiding citizen with a gun. The Fort Hood shooting would have been stopped cold by someone with a gun as well. The shooters in these situations depend on unarmed and scared victims. It gives them the power they seek. We could go on and on with examples of shootings that could have been stopped by someone with a firearm. One of the videos in this course actually shows a terrified female hiding behind a desk as an example of how to "hide" from some deranged shooter. Multiple quizzes throughout the course and a final test ensure repeatedly that we know that we only have three options when encountering some murderous thug in a public place. 1. Run away; 2. Hide; and 3. Only put up a fight as a last resort by acting aggressively and throwing things at the shooter. Not one mention anywhere of "if you are carrying a gun and you have the opportunity take the shooter out". Calling 911 in these instances is obvious, but we all know that waiting on the arrival of uniformed law enforcement will ensure more people are killed, injured, or taken hostage. Telling law enforcement officers that in all instances they are to run away and hide from some thug while innocent victims are butchered is simply inexcusable and pathetic.

It is always comforting to know that for those of us who carry a weapon when we are off-duty, if we should encounter such a situation, stop a shooter and save countless lives, we can look forward to being disciplined or fired by the Border Patrol because we should have run away to hide and then maybe thrown objects at the deranged killer instead of taking action and stopping him with a firearm. This, in addition to the scrutiny and second-guessing that will come from local authorities and the inevitable possibility of lawsuits and criminal conviction.

Welcome to the New Patrol."

 (http://www.local2544.org/)

So it is now official policy for federal officers in a number of agencies that they may no longer defend themselves.  If confronted with an active shooter situation, they are to either run away, hide, throw things at the aggressor, and hope that they will still be alive to meet other rescuing officers after calling 911.


If you find this as repulsive as I do, then you need to contact your legislators in Washington as well as in your own state legislature.  You see, this training applies not only to officers associated with the DHS, it may also apply to agencies in your own state with which the DHS has working agreements - superseding any guidelines they may already have in place to deal with such situations.  There is no time to lose; it is no exaggeration to say that lives have been placed in jeopardy by Secretary Napolitano with these new guidelines.  Links to your legislators' contact information can be found in the right pane.

The President Didn't "Inherit" Anything.....

Happy Birthday, 2012, USA!

May we return to the principles contained in this document that made us free.

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

New Hampshire: Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

Massachusetts: John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island: Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Connecticut: Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York: William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey: Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Pennsylvania: Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Delaware: Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Maryland: Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia: George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

North Carolina: William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina: Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

Georgia: Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

SCOTUS, Obamacare, and the Constitution....

I have been puzzling for some time about why Obamacare was not simply overturned on the basis that it violates Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution requiring that all revenue legislation originate in the House of Representatives.

I just figured out why.

Article 1, Section 7 says,

"All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills."

The House had originally passed its own version of the healthcare act, which was rejected by the Senate.  Instead, the Senate took H.R. 3590, a bill revising the Internal Revenue Code with regard to housing tax breaks for military personnel, gutted it, incorporated some of the aspects of the rejected House Bill, added loads of its own amendments (as permitted by Article 1, Sec. 7), and passed it.  Since the original revenue-related legislation originated and was passed in the House, Obamacare is a legal tax.  And since the Democrats knew that H.R. 3590 revised the Internal Tax Code, they also from the outset that this was a new series of taxes.

Just one more example of the lengths to which the Democrats went to force Obamacare on us - turning a tax break for military personnel into the single biggest package of new taxes (21 of them) in the history of the United States.

A Response to the “Evangelical Statement of Principles for Immigration Reform”...

More than 100 "evangelical" organizations have banded together to publicly call on the church to push for amnesty for more than eleven million illegals now living in the US.  Focus on the Family and the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberties Commission are just a couple such organizations.


As a fundamental, Bible-believing Christian who is also an ordained minister of the Word, I am well aware of the biblical teaching to love our neighbor, just as I am also aware of the teaching regarding showing mercy.

I am likewise aware of the clear teaching of Romans 13:1-5, 

"Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience."

The course of action for which you advocate is contrary to God's clear instructions that we obey the laws established by our authorities. The individuals for whom you advocate are those who have CHOSEN to disobey the laws of our country; now they demand that we set those laws aside and give them the entrance for which thousands of others stand in line and patiently wait as they navigate our immigration system.


Worse, this course of action violates the Bible's clear teaching that forgiveness first requires repentance. You would have us offer amnesty where no repentance, rather, defiance, has been shown. Our salvation first requires us to recognize our sins. It then requires us to repent of those sins. Finally, it requires us to receive God's forgiveness on HIS terms - not ours. As this applies to the current situation, illegals must first recognize that they have violated our laws, that they have stolen livelihoods from the families of the citizens whom they displaced. They must turn away (repent) from their illegal status and activities. Finally they must make application for citizenship in the manner specified by the laws of our country.


Will this have potentially adverse ramifications for the families of illegals? Obviously, the answer to that question is Yes. But therein lies the problem with sin; it affects not only the sinner, but many associated with the sinner as well. Likewise, because of the choices of parents, children may face undesirable consequences, as is true of any situation in which a lawbreaker has children. Or as is stated in the proverb found in Ezekiel 18:2, 

"...The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge." 

Yet, even in this passage there is hope for the children of illegals: 

"Yet you say, ‘Why should not the son suffer for the iniquity of the father?’ When the son has done what is just and right, and has been careful to observe all my statutes, he shall surely live. The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself" (Ezekiel 18:19-20). 

Many of the children of illegals are old enough to make application for citizenship on their own, or to acquire citizenship through serving in the armed forces of our country. If they do what is right, it is possible for them to legally obtain the citizenship they now DEMAND by way of amnesty.


God's love and mercy is offset by His justice. All three characteristics are integral to who God is, and to emphasize love and mercy to the exclusion of His justice is to misrepresent His character and teachings.


I implore you to reconsider the course of action to which you call others who name the name of Christ, and to recognize once again the explicit teaching of Romans 13. 

68th Anniversary of the D-day Landings.....

‎"6 June 1944. Under the command of General Eisenhower, Allied naval forces, supported by strong air forces, began landing Allied armies this morning on the northern coast of France."

To all who served and died on this longest, momentous day that led to final defeat of the Nazis, D-day, Thank you.

Selective Prosecution and the Michigan Marijuana Law....

An article appearing in the Grand Rapids Press on June 4 claims that the federal government is practicing "selective prosecution" against holders of Michigan Medical Marijuana cards.  This resulted in a number of postings by newly-minted supporters of States' Rights, arguing that the federal government has no business prosecuting these people in the first place, and calling on those of us who have long supported the precept of States' Rights to back their cause.  One individual went so far as to say that selective prosecution violates due process and the Equal Protection Clause, to which I replied:

No, it doesn't. Just as Michigan state laws include preeminence clauses that override local ordinances and laws, so do federal laws. Their prosecution of MM users is in line with those laws, and they aren't obligated to cut you ANY slack. 

 As I said before, this is what happens when you elect officials who interpret the Constitution as affording the fed the power to override the protections of States' Rights that were an integral part of the Bill of Rights any time it desires to do so. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments were included specifically to make these sorts of federal power grabs impossible, but the continued election of officials who choose to believe that the Commerce and "Necessary and Proper" clauses override those explicit protections has brought us to where we are today. 

 I almost have to laugh at all this. Many of you who are now angry with Obama because he isn't honoring his word about this voted for the man in the first place because he promised you all sorts of things that violate States' Rights - like Obamacare, for example. You can't pick and choose. You voted for officials who told you from the outset that their understanding of the Constitution gives them the right to do exactly what they are doing now. If you are going to be for States' Rights, then you have to be for States' Rights even when it doesn't necessarily benefit you. If you are going to vote for a man who believes that the Commerce and "Necessary and Proper" clauses give the federal government the right to override the explicit protections of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments at will, then you have no business complaining when that elected official actually does it. 

 You voted for him. Now it's up to you to see if you can change him. Good luck with that.

For the record, I don't believe in luck.  I felt it appropriate to wish them something I don't believe exists as they try to perform a task that I don't believe possible to achieve.  Both are fairy tales. 

Memorial Day 2012...

It isn't about steaks, fireworks, and road trips to vacation spots, its about MREs (or C Rats, as the case may have been), firefights, and convoys through insurgent-held territory to get support to your buddies. It's about joyful meetings at the door when family members came home from their deployments - or about the feeling of dread experienced when a non-descript government car pulled up to the house. Years in service at home and abroad.

We remember.

To all who served - or are still serving - Thank You.

Forces of Darkness....

Mayor George Heartwell of Grand Rapids, MI, made the following statement at a recent fundraiser:

"What's not to love about that?" said Heartwell, a former Planned Parenthood board chairman. "Yet every year the forces of darkness seek to deprive women" of the health care and reproductive education they get through Planned Parenthood.

"Ultraconservative political forces in league with ultraconservative religious forces have mounted a frontal assault against Planned Parenthood. This is a time like no other to rally behind Planned Parenthood. It's time for us to fill their treasury."

So pro-life supporters are now the "Forces of darkness"? 

"Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!" Isaiah 5:20. When fighting for life equates to darkness, we are truly on a downslide.