A TRUE THREAT TO YOU!

Would you consider this sculpture entitled "The A Word" to be a true threat of bodily harm that could cause the sculptor to be sued and bankrupt or perhaps even arrested and put in prison by the federal government?  (The sculpture is by Terry Ray Flowers whose work can be found at www.boxartgospel.com .)

If you answered "yes" it shows you are keeping up with what the federal courts are doing as they go about redefining the meaning of "freedom of speech" and "freedom of the press" in the US Constitution. 

Based on a recent Supreme Court decision in the case called Planned Parenthood of Willamette County v. The American Coalition of Life Activists (ACLA), the sculptor can be sued for issuing a true threat if any abortionist or abortion business employee in the United States of America decides to believe they feel like they are being threatened when they look at that sculpture.  And not only can the sculptor be sued, the Supreme Court decision makes it more than likely the sculptor would be found guilty of issuing a true threat simply because the sculptor made the abortionist "feel" threatened.

All of these dire consequences occur because there is a new legal definition of "true threat" operating in the USA today that is the exact opposite of the previous legal definition of the word. 

Until now, according to every Supreme Court precedent, a true threat consisted of spoken or written words, the meaning of which a reasonable person would conclude carried the threat of imminent bodily harm to oneself or to another and the means to inflict it. Without those words of imminent bodily harm (I'm going to blow your brains out) and the means to implement them immediately (a gun in the hand of a person who was not kidding) the Supreme Court of the USA had ruled over and over again that no "true threat" could be seen to exist--especially when the words being spoken occurred within the context of super charged political arguments like the Vietnam War or the Civil Rights Movement.

But today, the Supreme Court of the United States of America has reversed every existing legal precedent and a new definition of "true threat" rules we the people.

Well actually it is not precisely correct to say the Supreme Court did this.  What the Supreme Court did was allow the Federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals  (it sits in California) to redefine the legal definition of true threat and then, when the case was brought before it, the Supreme Court, in its inimical legal way, simply shrugged and refused to consider the case.  The Ninth Circuit decision became the law of the land.

Not only did the Supreme Court's shrug create a new definition of "true threat" in the USA, when the Supreme Court of the USA gave the Ninth Circuit Court the power to overrule precedents established by the Supreme Court, a new Supreme Court West was effectively created.

Such events would normally be seen by the press to be a huge change no matter what ruler you're measuring by and the nation's press would have responded accordingly.  But have you noticed that all this happened over a week ago and hardly a peep has been heard about the events?  It is only today that I heard Pat Robertson acting like he had begun to realize what the Supreme Court is doing.  But, aside from a passing mention here and there from people like Robertson, the revolutionary Court proceedings have gone unexamined.

There is only one matter that has the power to create such bizarre judicial and journalistic shenanigans: the A word.  Like legalized chattel slavery before it, legalized abortion has become this generation's "peculiar institution" capable of overthrowing every principle and precedent that supposedly defines the United States of America as a land of liberty.  Legalized abortion has turned the nation into the home of tyrants and oppressors and psychopaths who use "federal court defined law" as the mask that hides their truly hideously disfigured countenance.

WHAT YOU CAN DO TO RESIST THIS TYRANNY

You can start by refusing to act like works of art should be treated like contraband drugs and avoided.  You can make it clear that you understand a true threat requires words threatening bodily harm and must be delivered by someone capable of inflicting that bodily harm.  Instead of acting like a quisling who allows yourself to be controlled by federal courts intent on destroying the Constitution of the USA, you can prove you will not be controlled by such outrageous redefinitions of the Constitution by actually supporting the artists who continue to create works of art designed to show the horrible truth about legalized abortion.

YOU CAN OWN A TRUE THREAT

For instance, you can buy this painting (or a print of it) and you can prove with your pocketbook that you will not be intimidated into allowing the federal courts to rewrite the meaning of the Constitution without a fight.  Read on to see how your willingness to own this painting is a way to resist the destruction of Constitutionally protected free speech.

  Click the Picture to Order!

This is a self-portrait painted by Clayton Lee Waagner, a man charged with sending hundreds of packages containing what turned out to be fake anthrax to Planned Parenthood and other abortion "businesses .  He did this at a time when packages that contained real anthrax were killing nine people in various parts of the USA.  Furthermore, Waagner found a way to use the mass media to issue a direct threat to start assassinating employees and others loosely affiliated with the abortion industry in the USA.

Now that's a true threat!  Even for those opposed to legalized abortion, it does not take much imagination to identify or even empathize with the kind of real terror Clayton Lee Waagner's actions must have created in the abortion industry.

To see how Waagner's self-portrait cystallizes the question of "true threat" communication when that communication does not carry specific words threatening imminent bodily harm, look closely at the image in his sunglasses.  Clay Waagner is clearly portraying himself looking at hazmat personnel either entering or leaving a location identified with a Planned Parenthood sign.  The hazmat personnel are dressed for disposal of biological weapons.

Any reasonable person can see that Clay Waagner is remembering the terrorist incident that he created. According to the Supreme Court decision under discussion here, Waagner's memory of that incident painted as the defining self-portrait of his life could be seen to be a true threat for purposes of law in the United States of America if there is any person in the abortion industry who feels "threatened" when they look at that painting.

But should we the people allow ourselves to be deluded into believing this painting is a true threat?

Of course not.  Clay Waagner cannot issue a true threat against abortionists or the abortion industry any more than John Brown could issue a true threat to legalized slavery after he was captured at Harper's Ferry.  Just as John Brown was removed from the ability to threaten slavery when the federal government took his life by hanging him, so too has Clay Waagner been removed as a threat when the federal government put him in a maximum security prison and effectively shrink wrapped him so tightly that he can never cause a true threat to the abortion industry for the rest of his natural life.

But if you listen to the federal courts, Clay Waagner could be seen to be issuing a true threat by merely painting the self-portrait you see here.  Why?  Because abortion in this nation exists in a context of violence and death.  According to the federal courts, it is that context of violence and death that should change the way we the people view a true threat.

ANY THING THAT HAPPENS IN A CONTEXT OF VIOLENCE CAN BE A THREAT

Since the court's ruling concerning the role that a context of violence plays in the legal definition of true threat has already destroyed the Constitution's protection of freedom of speech, every citizen must make the effort to understand exactly what the court has done.

Every person in this nation is aware that legalized abortion exists within a context of violence and death.  Literally hundreds of instances of violence and death directed against the abortion industry have created a violent and deadly context for abortion.  According to the Supreme Court West, this context of violence and death is a material fact that means any communication about the subject of abortion must be treated differently than other subjects.

What the Supreme Court has done is create two standards for communication in the USA.  If the context for the communication is not one of violence and death, then people can say anything legally as long as they do not use words that carry a meaning of imminent bodily harm to oneself or another.  But if the context of the communication is one of deadly violence, even if the communication does not contain words threatening imminent bodily harm, nothing can be communicated that might make another person feel fear.

Now that everyone of us lives in the context of the War On Terrorism, a context that is filled with violence and death, the consequences of such a court decision are enormous.

If this sounds unbelievable, see the Supreme Court West decision for yourself.  Her Lordship, Pamela Ann Rymer, writing the majority opinion that defined the legal meaning of "true threat" for all Americans, said, "...ACLA (American Coalition of Life Activists) made statements to intimidate the physicians, reasonably foreseeing that physicians would interpret the statements as a serious expression of ACLA's intent to harm them because they provided reproductive health services..."

Note please that Her Lordship clearly stated that the standard for defining "true threat" was the interpretation the "physicians" would attach to the communication submitted by the ACLA.  Not one word was said about whether the ACLA had actually used words that a dictionary would define as threatening imminent bodily harm.  That previously defining component of the definition of true threat was deleted in the new definition so that no matter what words you use, or no matter what images you communicate, if someone can "interpret" your communication as "a serious expression of...intent to harm..." then, whammo!, the law against issuing a "true threat" has been broken and the perp can be headed for the pokey. 

Let me repeat that to be sure you get it: According the the Supreme Court of the United States of America all it takes to issue a true threat is communicate anything that refers to A CONTEXT OF VIOLENCE AND DEATH and can be "interpreted" by anybody as a serious expression of intent to harm.  Such a communication can be reasonably defined, based on the Supreme Court decision, as an illegal threat to do bodily harm.

What's wrong with that definition?

ANYBODY can interpret ANYTHING any way they want to.  The human brain is capable of a literally infinite arrangement in interpreting objective reality.  By removing the requirement that words threatening imminent bodily harm be present, there is literally nothing to prevent any person from interpreting any communication as a "serious intent to do bodily harm."

To show how this new definition of "true threat" works out in the real world, take for example the one thing I have done in my life that resulted in hundreds of millions of people hearing about my work.  I inserted a command into a computer program that configures what a person sees on their computer screen when they go to a web page.  The command looked like this: <strike></strike>.  Between those two computer commands, I inserted the name of an abortionist who had been killed the day prior to my action.  His name was Barnett Slepian.  This is what the result looked like:

I entered those computer progamming commands on a Web Site called The Nuremberg Files. 

Her Lordship, Pamela Ann Rymer, had this to say about my action, "the posting about those physicians on that part of the "Nuremberg Files" where lines were drawn through the names of doctors who provided abortion services and who had been killed or wounded..." "...would likely be interpreted as a serious threat of death or bodily harm by a doctor in the reproductive health services..."

The reason true threats can be created by sculptors and writers and painters, none of whom say one WORD that indicates they would ever personally commit bodily harm to any other person involved in the abortion context, is because, according to the Supreme Court, such artists could "reasonably foresee" that people involved in the abortion context would feel threatened by the messages the artists and writers were communicating.

The main problem with the court's reasoning is they forget there are situations where people should feel threatened.

ABORTIONISTS SHOULD "FEEL" THREATENED:...AND THEY ARE NOT THE ONLY ONES

Why should abortionists feel threatened?  Because they are killing human beings, they are aborting people, people created in the image of God, people who were conceived by the God of the Bible to live on earth at a certain place and a certain time.  From my point of view, and based on everything I have learned about the God talked about in the Holy Scriptures called the Old and New Testaments, people who make a living killing human beings who do not deserve to die, whether such killers are the Mafia or legally sanctioned concentration camp guards, or abortionists, are in grave and imminent danger of God pouring out more than the most horrible physical, spiritual, emotional, and eternal terrors and horrors the mind of man can imagine.

In such a situation, people who do such horrible things to other people should feel like they are in such a situation.   I know enough about people to understand that people cannot know they are in such a situation until and unless they first feel that situation.  So everything I have been doing ever since I started trying to alert people about what I feel and know about legalized abortion has been my attempt to help people feel and know what I feel and know.

When I issued the fateful computer command that played a part in "true threat" being redefined in law, I believed every abortionist in the United States of America SHOULD feel threatened!  In fact, my drawing the line through the names of the dead abortionists was my attempt to make the abortionists feel threatened.  But I never did anything that would communicate they should feel threatened because of anything I would do to them!  I believed they should feel threatened because of what inevitably happened to people who make a living killing human beings who do not deserve to die.  My God will send them to hell!

Think about what I just said and you will gain some insight into what might motivate any communicator who is trying to speak truthful content into a context where violence and death are the dominant defining characteristics.  By definition, people are actually dying in such a context.  It is possible in such a context that a communicator might actually see something about the cause of the context of violence and death that absolutely would require the communicator to speak out in no uncertain terms doing everything in his power to get people's attention.

Take for example, the person who first realizes that a building is actually on fire.  FIRE! they should yell.  I did not say they might yell FIRE; I said they should yell FIRE!

Now obviously, it is a very dangerous thing to yell FIRE in a place where people are congregated.  To yell falsely should be a crime.  But in the presence of fire, every person in the United States of America should be trained to know they can rear back and bellow at the top of their lungs and people--at least those who survive--will finally come pat them on the back and say thank you.

But the Supreme Court of the United States of America is conditioning the American people, using the full power of the law, to keep their mouths shut in the present context of violence and death created by legalized abortion. 

Why is the Supreme Court doing this?

The answer is obvious to anyone with eyes that see.  The Supreme Court of the United States of America has created, has birthed, its very own context of violence and death by its decree in Roe v. Wade.  When the Supreme Court legalized the slaughter of unborn babies in 1973 the court ordained by God to prevent tyranny legalized child sacrifice in the United States of America.  Not only that, but an industry employing tens of thousands of American citizens was created, each of whom sees "their" industry as a literal way of life.  Ever since that fateful day in 1973, like a mother protecting the evil spawn of Satan, the Supreme Court, and all its allied lower Courts, has over and over again proven it will destroy every vestige of Constitutional Bill of Rights to keep its evil spawn alive.

The Supreme Court and all its evil minion courts should feel threatened too.  Like the legalized baby butchers called abortionists, the magistrates of the federal courts of this nation are under judgment of the God of Abraham.  For them, Judgment Day is near.

And it is not only abortionists and federal court judges that are under judgment.  Every citizen in this nation stands in danger of Judgment.

WE THE PEOPLE SHOULD FEEL THREATENED: THE CONSTITUTION IS DESTROYED

As abortionists were killed and abortion clinics were bombed and burned, the press and courts worked to suppress the violence directed against the abortion industry by convincing every American citizen to speak out against the violence directed against the abortion industry.

And to further the goal of defending its "peculiar institution" the courts, aided and abetted by the national press, effectively destroyed the Constitution of the United States of America.

Today the Constitution exists in name only.  As the case of Planned Parenthood v. ACLA proves, the true source of law here in the USA is the federal courts

But abroad, there is another source of law unleashed on this world--the American military machine, the mightiest instrument of violent social control in the history of the world.  Unless we the people rise up and restore the Constitution, it is only a matter of time before the military will be the source of law here as well as abroad.  And the federal courts will realize they have created a monster, the beast foretold in Holy Scripture. 

YOU WILL DECIDE WHAT HAPPENS NEXT

What the courts and press do not talk about is the fact that there are tens of millions of American citizens who claim to believe that the violence in the abortion context is not confined only to the assassination of abortionists or the bombings of abortion "clinics" but that the violence extends to what happens to the unborn babies in those abortion "clinics".  These tens of millions of Americans, many of whom claim to serve the Lord Jesus Christ, are on the public record contending that they are certain a baby is being killed every time an abortion occurs in this nation.  Those tens of millions of Americans either implicitly or explicitly define a context of violence with their words about the fate of the unborn babies.

If we are to put the context of abortion in an accurate perspective, it must be noted that there are two separate contexts of violence contained in the matter of legalized abortion.  One context of violence--the violence done to the employers and employees and property of the abortion industry--is the focus of the protection of the federal and state courts of the USA; the other context of violence--the torn and dismembered unborn babies--is literally ignored by the federal and state courts.

I am accused of issuing a true threat when I speak the hard truth about abortion and abortionists but the real goal is to silence me so that everyone is able to ignore the babies being butchered.  That is why Her Lordship Pamela Ann Rymer decreed that I issued a "true threat" in my publication called "The Nuremberg Files" even though there is not a person on earth in the last thirty five years--with the exception of my three children when I threatened to beat their fannies when they were young--who has ever heard me threaten to inflict imminent bodily harm on anyone at any time.

So here we stand in a time and a place where an American writer--me--who believes with every fiber of his being that he is speaking the truth in love in an attempt to pull a people back from a looming abyss of violence and death can be ruled outlaw for doing nothing more than drawing a line through a person's name after they were killed.

And do you see what comes of such "law?"  Even in this article where I have done my best to bear true witness not only to my own actions but to the actual context in which we live, in order to bear that true witness I had to actually repeat what the Supreme Court called the "true threat" again.  I have broken Her Lordship's law so that all must decide whether to punish me or not.  There!  I did it again!  I broke the law!  The "true threat" has been thrown down like a gauntlet before His and Her Lordships who have decreed that we the people can abort with impunity the decisions made by the True and Living God.

Am I showing contempt of Court?

No, it is the Courts of this nation that are showing contempt!  They show contempt for the Constitution of the United States of America; they show contempt for the lives of people created by God in His likeness and in His image; they show contempt for God The Creator Himself.

Am I showing contempt?

No, I am showing the truth.  And the truth is this: God Damns the Supreme Court of the United States of America and all its minions.

Such tyranny must be resisted.  You can resist by simply ordering a print of Clay Waagner's self-portrait and hanging it on your wall so that everyone you know can hear about the tyranny you are resisting.  Please help us today!

Return to Christian Gallery News Service