This letter ran in the Colorado Springs Gazette May 3, 2005.  Read the comments of others or post your own!  Back to KGOV.
See also, Dobson Abandons Pledge letter from Focus on the Family, and  the Focus article admitting to their own legal positivism.


Focus on the Strategy

Republican Judges are Pro-Choice
Dobson Criticizes His “Own” Judges

An Open Letter, with Love and Respect, to Dr. James Dobson:

In desperation, some members of Denver Bible Church had our own Justice Sundae in a peaceful protest at Senator Salazar’s Dairy Queen. The goal was to oppose his support for the killing of unborn children, but mostly to expose the result of your quarter-century strategy of getting judges who respect life by electing pro-life Republican presidents.

On your Justice Sunday, you were outraged by your own judges! Dr. Dobson, you listed the 11th Circuit decision against Terri Schiavo as an example that the judiciary is “out of control.” But all six of the justices nominated by our pro-life Republican presidents (Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II), voted against your position! All six (including William Pryor whom President Bush recess-appointed last year to avoid a Democratic filibuster), voted not to save Terri’s life and against our side. All six!

It is time to admit that your strategy has failed. Republicans nominated 58 percent of the federal judiciary [Ft. Collins’ Coloradoan.com April 28], which you rightly expose as firmly against family values. The Moral Majority/Christian Coalition/Focus on the Family 25-year strategy of getting anti-abortion judges through Republican victories has utterly failed; and now George W. Bush is keeping his word by living up to his very first campaign promise to ignore abortion when nominating judges. It was a Republican Supreme Court which legalized abortion, and a Republican-nominated judge even wrote Roe v. Wade. The current Supreme Court keeps abortion legal with seven of the nine sitting justices nominated by Republican presidents.

The judge who wrote the 9th Circuit ruling against the words “under God” in the Pledge was nominated by a Republican president. In 2002 a New York federal judge ruled that a convicted child sex offender could not be stopped from attracting children with balloons in a public park. That judge was nominated by George Bush Sr., and this compares to the current Republican U.S. Supreme Court which decided in favor of the child-porn industry against families and law enforcement, making it harder to prosecute those who sodomize children for profit. Will you please publicly expose that the vast majority of the justices nominated by our pro-life Republican presidents are pro-choice and refuse to uphold traditional biblical morality?

Our biggest successes are mostly hollow. We have spent most of a decade fighting to ban partial-birth abortion, which is tantamount to Germans banning Zyklon A only to have Zyklon B used in the extermination camps instead, while today’s abortionists simply use a different method on late-term babies and have not canceled a single abortion as a result. And the “pro-life” justices on the U.S. Supreme Court have never declared an unborn child’s fundamental right to life, but rather criticize Roe only because abortion should not be a judicial but a legislative issue; this very position undermines the safety of children as though any subdivision of government could have the right to decriminalize murder. The judges that we pretend are conservative actually are only committed to process, not to Christian values, so that when Clarence Thomas dissented from overturning the Texas sodomy law that mercifully opposed harmful behavior, we touted him as supporting Christian values, yet he wrote that if he were a state legislator he would vote to overturn the “silly” law [see SupremeCourtUS.gov or see excerpt below].

Dr. Dobson, respectfully, you are outraged by your own judges. Those in the womb when Reagan campaigned for president have now graduated from college, and the de facto Focus political strategy has packed the Federal judiciary with pro-choice Republican judges. You must come to terms with this failed strategy. You carry a heavy weight as America’s evangelical leader in the war against injustice, especially heavy if you lead by compromise; whereas Christ’s burden is light. We recommend the strategy you declared a decade ago but have since abandoned. Back then you repeatedly pledged, as stated on your program in March of 1995, “I am committed never again to cast a vote for a politician who would kill one innocent baby.”

Our leaders have been reduced to plotting battles in which every victory is a retreat. Yet your previous strategy permits no defeat. Do right and risk the consequences. The battle is not only in America, but worldwide 45 million babies [guttmacher.org] die annually. Elevating campaign savvy above righteousness guarantees only failure. Truth is not politically naive. For decades we have done evil that good may come, only to affirm Romans 3:8. Faithfulness to God is our best hope of outlawing abortion and protecting family values. Our failed political strategy makes America increasingly unsafe for children. Sadly, George W. Bush is proud of the pro-choice judges he packed the Texas Supreme Court with, and has put on the federal judiciary.

Without Christian leaders upholding your old pledge, Republican presidents simply use us conservative Christians; and the compromise tremendously weakens our side. You noticed that during the battle for Terri Schindler most religious conservatives in the media stated, “this all could have been avoided if Terri had left a written directive.” With those words, the pro-life community crossed the line to support assisted suicide, starving to death people who are not dying, as long as there is a Living Will. Our pro-life leaders have become weak after a quarter-century of compromise, never compromising on Republican-party politics, but on Thou Shalt Not Murder, all in vain hope of thereby making progress toward victory.

Federally, Republican-nominated judges issue most of the anti- Christian rulings in America. We have to stop focusing on code words that are a recipe for surrender, such as demanding strict constructionists, judicial philosophy, original intent, and constitutionalists (by which justices upheld Article I in the Dred Scott ruling that black people were property, and the Nuremberg trials brought convictions). Such terminology is another part of the failed strategy which obscures our true demand, for judges who fear God and oppose the killing of the innocent.

Thus, the issue is not the Democratic filibuster, but the failed Christian political strategy that has packed the federal judiciary with pro-choice Republican judges. Please, Dr. Dobson, take up your pledge again, and provide the leadership we desperately need.

In Christ, -Pastor Bob Enyart
(Call in at 800-8Enyart or give your comments at our web forum!  Also, take a look at our DVD called Focus on the Strategy regarding Christian Political Strategy?  It's dynamic!)

Focus on the Family is headquartered in Colorado Springs and so this letter ran in their newspaper, The Gazette, on May 3, 2005.  Read the comments of others or post your own!  You can email this letter by copying the above text or by downloading the actual ad as formatted in PDF by the Gazette.

Also, read the related Focus on the Family CitizenLink article with their interview with Bob published a week before this open letter appeared in print.  Go directly to the article or go to Family.org and search for "Enyart."

Romans 3:8
And why not say, "Let us do evil that good may come"?; as we are slanderously reported and as some affirm that we say. Their condemnation is just.

Regarding Justice Pryor
William Pryor was absent from the Terri vote on March 25 (as reported), but he did vote with the majority against Terri and against the pro-life community two days earlier, on March 23rd:
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
(Opinion March 23, 2005)
Before EDMONDSON, Chief Judge, TJOFLAT, ANDERSON, BIRCH, DUBINA, BLACK, CARNES, BARKETT, HULL, MARCUS, WILSON, and PRYOR, Circuit Judges
ORDER: …the Suggestion of Rehearing En Banc is DENIED.
…
TJOFLAT, Circuit Judge, dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc…
WILSON, Circuit Judge, dissenting: I dissent from the denial of rehearing en banc

Regarding "Under God" Ruled Unconstitutional
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Opinion by Judge Goodwin,
...
"In conclusion, we hold that (1) the 1954 Act adding the words "under God" to the Pledge, and (2) EGUSD’s policy and practice of teacher-led recitation of the Pledge, with the added words included, violate the Establishment Clause."

Republican President Nixon nominated Alfred T. Goodwin to the 9th Circuit according to the Federal Judicial Center.

Regarding Bush Sr. Judge Ruling for Child Molester
Judge: County can't ban park pedophile from giving kids balloons
By Larry Neumeister Associated Press Dec, 26, 2002
NEW YORK -- A judge, taking away a tool Westchester County had used to keep a convicted sex offender from giving balloon sculptures to children, said the county cannot ban performances aimed at soliciting donations in public parks.
U.S. District Judge John Martin said the convict, Richard Hobbs, receives First Amendment protection from being kept out of Rye's Playland Amusement Park, a public space he described as the nation's only government owned and operated amusement park

Coming: Bush Nomination Link.

Regarding Justice Thomas
Cite as: 539 U. S. ____ (2003) 1
THOMAS, J., dissenting
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
JOHN GEDDES LAWRENCE AND TYRON GARNER,
PETITIONERS v. TEXAS
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS, FOURTEENTH DISTRICT
[June 26, 2003]
JUSTICE THOMAS, dissenting.
"I join JUSTICE SCALIA’s dissenting opinion. I write separately to note that the law before the Court today “is. . . uncommonly silly.” Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479, 527 (1965) (Stewart, J., dissenting). If I were a member of the Texas Legislature, I would vote to repeal it."

Regarding James Dobson's Pledge to Unborn Children
? From LifeSite.net:
Moral Obligations of Voters and Politicians
Statements by Religious Leaders
“I am committed never again to cast a vote for a politician who would kill one innocent baby… Some would ask, ‘Shouldn't we vote for the lesser of two evils when the choice is between pro-abortion candidates?’ I believe not. To compromise on so fundamental an issue gives [them, i.e., 'pro-life' politicians and parties] no incentive to defend the pro-life position”. (Dr. James Dobson, Focus on the Family March, 1995)

…would you vote for a candidate who would support the killing of 5-year-old boys and girls whose parents no longer wanted them? Would it matter whether or not you agreed with that politician on economic matters or other issues? Would you get under a ‘big tent’ with a party that had this one teeny weeny flaw which they might call ‘pro-choice on child eradication’ within its platform? I pray not.” (Dr. James Dobson, Focus on the Family)

?  From LifePriority.net: Dr. James Dobson, President of Focus on the Family (at the Rally for Life in Washington, DC, 1990): "I want to give a pledge to you on a political level and I'm speaking for myself, not Focus on the Family, which is a nonpolitical organization. I can tell you that I have determined that for the rest of my life, however long God lets me live on this earth, I will never cast one vote for any man or woman who would kill one innocent baby."

? From Focus on the Family: Radio Program Transcript October 26, 1995 Broadcast title:
Upholding Conservative Moral Values”
JCD: You know, one of the more controversial things that I've said on the broadcast in the last two or three years, and many of our friends disagree with this and they're certainly entitled to their own perspective, but I have said that where you have an incredibly important moral issue like the killing of unborn children, the notion that we should take the lesser of two evils in order to gain in other ways, is a compromise that I personally can't lend my name to. When people have said that to me, I've asked this question: Suppose the year were 1860, and let's suppose both political candidates for the presidential office were strongly in favor of slavery. But let's suppose one of them was more fiscally conservative than the other. Would you give him your vote? Would you vote for a person who believed in the involuntary servitude of another human being, allowing them to be bought and sold like cattle, and depriving them of basic human rights because that candidate believed in smaller government and lower taxes? I couldn't do it, and it's on that level that I say, "I won't do it now."  Obtained via email reply to a phoned in request.

Regarding the Latest Code Words: Judicial Philosophy
President Bush, April 28, 2005: “I think people are opposing my nominees because they don’t like the judicial philosophy of the people I’ve nominated,” he said at a White House news conference.  -MSNBC.msn.com

Focus on the Family, April 25, 2005: "We're always open to contemplating new strategies, new ideas, new ways of doing things," she said, "but the truth here is that party affiliation isn't the problem. The problem is judicial philosophy."  CitizenLink at Family.org

And again, make sure you read the Dobson Abandons Pledge letter we received from Focus on the Family, and  the Focus article in which they bluntly admitted to their own legal positivism.

Listen to Bob Enyart Live on the web at KGOV.com or call in a 5 p.m. Eastern Time at 1-800-8Enyart and call to ask for a BEL catalog of materials!