How We Failed Justin Moose or

How 40 Days For Life Fails Us


Neal Horsley

(Christian Gallery News Service, Nov. 7, 2010) Justin Moose is the latest person going to prison for attempting to terrorize abortion providers. Ms. Magazine, the ever vigilant watchdog of the abortion industry, describes Justin this way: "Justin Carl Moose pled guilty late last week to plotting to bomb a North Carolina abortion clinic. Moose was arrested in early September and charged with 'providing information related to the making, use, or manufacture of an explosive,' as stated in his plea agreement. He faces up to 20 years imprisonment and/or a $250,000 fine."

How did we fail Justin Moose? We failed to make certain that Justin knew there was an alternative to abolishing legalized abortion that did not require us to go to prison to make it happen, the alternative explained here. Justin only knew two ways to fight legalized abortion: the impotent, ineffective and ultimately self-serving way the pro-life movement has fought it for the last 37 years, or the way men like Paul Hill fought it until they were dead or in prison.

Justin Moose has to go to prison because he is a failure in the gene-conditioning program. He has to be removed from the body politic; otherwise he might infect other men around him and move them to do what their instincts tell them to do; namely, protect the women who are having babies. It is those instincts that have to be obliterated and replaced with new instincts that allow us to tolerate the slaughter of people if they are unwanted on this planet by the people in power.

Throughout recorded history, and assumedly throughout unrecorded history, a man and a woman have shared two roles once a child was conceived. The woman bore the baby, the man protected the woman while she bore the baby. Much of that behavior was instinctive, even if social conditioning played a role. It does not take much imagination to see that the multi-thousand year--at the least--duration of those two roles, along with the biological necessity of the woman's role in birth, imprinted some information on the genes of both the male and female, genetic information that rose to the position of instinct in our species.

Since 1973, in the United States of America, we have all been involved in having those gene impressions altered by social--specifically Federal Court--decree. We have been being gene-washed, which is probably the most efficient form of brain-washing since it prevents the brain from ever thinking anything and makes us all gene responsive rather than rational thought responsive. (Did you know that Bill Clinton and his ilk--don't forget to include the Bush's, those ever-present paragons of Christian culture--actually have conversations in private where they talk about things like brain-responsive as opposed to gene-responsive social conditioning programs? I can't prove it, but I betcha they do.)

Back to Justin Moose. Justin Moose became confused because, as my quote from Ms. magazine demonstrates, the women don't want to be protected: they want to kill their babies if they don't want to be pregnant. And therein lies Justin Moose's problem, therein lies why Justin Moose must go to prison, and therein lies how we failed Justin Moose.

We failed to help Justin Moose understand what is happening in a society that is teaching men they no longer have a duty to protect women if they are what they used to call "with child." In fact, if you listen to the government of the United States of America, the duty of a man has become the opposite: help the woman kill her child. In fulfillment of that "duty" male "escorts" station themselves outside every abortion clinic in the country to usher the women in to kill their babies.

Examine the latest pro-life movement abortion resistance and you'll see why Justin Moose acted like he had to take responsibility for protecting the unborn babies. Pro-lifers call it the 40 DAYS FOR LIFE. I call it the...

40 Days For Death

The title of this section is no typo. Even though I am focusing on a pro-life campaign called the 40 Days for Life, when you see what's actually happening, it will be easy to see why I call it the 40 Days for Death.

49 days for death

On November 1, 2010, updated the story above by telling us:

40 Days for Life Campaign Ends With 541 Babies Spared From Abortions

Let me make it clear that I am totally in favor of saving babies from being torn limb from limb. To save one from such barbaric butchery is a good thing. To save 541 is 541 times better than a good thing. I really believe the previous words, which is why I must say what follows.

The 40 Days for Life campaign is the latest proof that the pro-life movement is most hypocritical exercise in phony Christian ministry since antebellum American Christians in the South made it a priority to have laws passed allowing slaves to learn to read and write so they could hear the gospel and be saved slaves. (Actually the comparison is not a good one to legalized abortion because slaves in the South were not being murdered if their Christian masters showed themselves to be hypocrites who loved their neighbors as long as they stayed in their "place" in society; but I can't think of a better comparison. German Christians taking food or Bibles to the Jews in concentration camps would be a good comparison but I can't see that it ever happened.)

Back to 40 Days for Life. If, as the headline states, 541 babies were "spared from abortions" in 40 days, what will anyone who actually thinks about what is going on there learn about Christians and abortion in the United States of America the other 325 days of the year? If there is a winning strategy revealed in the 40 Days for Life tactic, why is the world not being barraged with the news that we've finally figured out a way to abolish legalized abortion? What is going on that people can trumpet the news of a successful tactic in the pro-life movement, then let it languish as if the work is done until every law allowing unborn babies to be butchered is overturned?

This is what we learn from 40 Days for Life: The pro-life movement in America works hard in 40 day increments. And does little or nothing for the rest of the days each year. 40 Days for Life is about salving the conscience of Christians, not about saving babies from slaughter.

If unborn babies are worth stopping people from killing them for 40 days, why wouldn't that same requirement carry over for the next 325 days?

Think about what I'm saying. If soldiers were being killed in Afghanistan, would the troops be on duty 40 days out of the year and on furlough the rest of the year, or what?

You know what. We would be doing in America what we're doing in Afghanistan if we thought there was really a war going on in this nation, a war where real people were being butchered, maimed and killed on a daily basis. There are people who think there is a war going on in this nation.

But in America, in the pro-life movement, we see people working in large numbers to stop babies from being butchered for 40 Days at a time. And then crowing like banty roosters about the lives they saved when they were working.

Is it possible for an observer to think we treat unborn babies like they are people in the same way we treat the soldiers in harm's way in Afghanistan as people?

Only pro-lifers would answer in the affirmative, and they would only answer in the affirmative because they have been trained, conditioned and converted to be double-minded Christians who have no duty to deal with the world in a reasonable, logical way.

The fundamental problem with 40 Days for Life and with the entire Christian pro-life movement is it misses the point. The point is not that one person's life is worth saving and must be saved if at all possible (that's obviously true but beside the point at this time in history), the point is it is against God's Law to murder anybody, anytime, anywhere. But the pro-life movement has NEVER tried to make that point. Only the few--you know their names--who have defied the pro-life movement and tried to find ways to make THE POINT have done anything but create confusion in this world.

For proof, look at the way Christian pro-lifers respond to the 40 Days for Life as if some kind of VICTORY was being won, rather than a terrible example of double-standard Christianity being applied right before our eyes. Look at what is actually happening and you will see that Christians have been trained to believe their view of the world can include the most gross inconsistencies imaginable as long as they can enjoy all the benefits of being affluent Christians in affluent America and still think themselves righteous Christians.

Rather than what they are actually doing (evidence of which is seen in the news articles shown earlier) were the leaders of 40 Days for Life to be responsible truth tellers, they would be standing on barricades outside abortion clinics telling the Christians of the world that unless people came and continued saving the babies the way they were saved for the last 40 Days, that everyone claiming to be a Christian was a liar, totally devoid of the Spirit of God and the very child of Satan instead of a child of God.

And the people saying that would be speaking the truth. The babies do deserve 365 Days of service as long as they are in imminent danger of being murdered. But the 40 Days for Life leaders won't stand up and speak the truth because they know that as soon as they started berating the Christians in the USA for standing by and tolerating the slaughter of the unborn, those leaders would lose their jobs. The Christians who support the 40 Days for Life would replace them with new leaders who would shut the fuck up.

And right there, you can see why. I violated a taboo when I allowed the word fuck to enter this article. And, just as the pro-life leaders would be prevented from accessing the minds of the Christians, so too will I be prevented from accessing the minds of the Christians because I violated a taboo, the taboo against saying the F word, throwing the F bomb, lighting the F fuse.

Exactly like it is taboo to say fuck, it is taboo in this nation to speak the truth about abortion. What truth? To say that what babies deserve for 40 Days at a time they deserve all the time; to say that if an unborn baby is a person, they require us to treat them as people, or, as Paul Hill said, "It's time we started treating unborn babies like they were slaves about to be killed."

Certainly any reasonable person will admit it is not only taboo to begin to treat unborn babies like they are people like you and me, it is against the law. The line between taboo and law is being erased in this nation and perhaps the world. And people like Paul Hill or Justin Moose or Scott Roeder, or the list goes on and on, who violate that taboo are violating more than taboo; they are violating the law.

The line between taboo and law has always been a tenuous one. For most of recorded history there was no line at all. Taboo was the definition of the law, and vice versa. But somewhere along the path of History, people began to see that law should have, ought to have, a reason to it that everyone could see. In fact the difference between taboo and law became defined in those terms. Whereas taboo didn't have to have a reason (a black cat crossing was bad luck because, well, it was taboo), law required a basis in reason for its existence. For this reason, the Founders of the USA declared a self-evident Truth in their attempt to be reasonable men in the eyes of the world. The Founders declared that all men are created equal because they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights. And that was to be the law. Taboo was to be left in the murky fog of history, never to rule again. Now taboo and law are becoming the same again. Instinct is being raised to the voice of law.

You really should read C. S. Lewis's small but powerful book The Abolition of Man. It puts our society in perspective. Writing from the perspective of the 2nd World War, Lewis could see all this coming because he could see that we were rapidly returning to a time when instinct would be the only basis for law and that time would erase the line that history had drawn between taboo and law.

What C.S. Lewis could not see is that Christians, instead of being deluded into tolerating the abolition of man, would lead it.

Interestingly enough, C.S. Lewis, even in 1944, saw that sexual licentiousness would lead the way to death.

We failed to make sure Justin Moose understood these things. So he has to go to prison without saving one little baby's life.

I'm trying. How about you?


Return to Horsley for Governor