Digger's Doings

Gorilla My Nightmares

     I've been following several discussion  forums on the Life Dynamics website that started out as dialogues on the whole Terry/Newman nonsense. The debates get pretty intense for a while until someone (usually either CP or one of the pro-aborts who frequents the site) levels accusations against faithman or one of the other pro-lifers on the site. I visited quite a few forums one day on a variety of topics and found the same pattern occuring in each of them - good discussion that disintegrates into personal attacks.

     One visitor to the Terry/Newman discussions has been a person whose screen name is New Guy and whose screen picture (everyone gets to choose a picture) is a gorilla. Although he denies it, I suspect the new guy/gorilla is actually Randall Terry. His posts, in which he offers to educate the rest of the people on the forum, always link to things written by Terry; primarily the OR Theft site.

     I challenged him to produce neutral sources to back up his claims and the idiot posts three articles from the secular media. How does this make him an idiot? Each article was, basically, a reprint of the press releases that first came out when RT announced his grand and not-so-glorious plans to take Newman to court.

     To be fair, there are other things that make RT an idiot. I've tried to address some of them in previous posts. New guy/Gorilla also visits this site because he has posted at least one 'anonymous' message that is almost identical in tone to some of the stuff he posts over at Life Dynamics.

     Since announcing his intentions to recover his "heritage" RT has (a) written and posted two-thirds of a projected trilogy of why everyone who doesn't side with him is wrong; (b) released a video to You Tube complaining about the lack of leadership in the pro-life movement; (c) consented to be interviewed by Playboy magazine in an effort to reach the number of abortion-bound women who read the magazine and persuade them not to abort and (d) conceived his ninth child. Okay, I'm not so sure about the last one but it's entirely possible.

     Newman, meanwhile, has been busy putting the heat on Tiller and those who work with him with yesterday's exposure of the two employees at the Wichita Clinic as the most recent example of his handiwork.

     Who, in your opinion, is actually living out the OR 'heritage'? Gorilla, I await your response.

Wrath of Terry

One of the many books clutched by Terry in a picture on his website is called "Wrath of Angels". I ordered a copy on-line after reading some pages and have had a hard time putting it down. It is perhaps the most comprehensive history of pro-life activism I've ever read. if you want to know something of how Operation Rescue came about, you may want to read it too.

After I finish, I will post some a summary of some of the most pertinent information as it relates to the lawsuit. This seems only fair since Terry cites the book as one piece of evidence that Newman "stole" his name and heritage.

One bit to whet your appettie: Long before his own marital woes, Terry had dealings with another national pro-life leader who left his wife and married another woman... 

I'd be remiss if I didn't say something...

Okay, so you're a nationally known 'pro-life' leader who wants to get his message out to women who might be considering abortion. Which major publication should run your interview to achieve this stated purpose?

a. People magazine

b. Women's Day

c. Popular Mechanics

d. Playboy

e. The National Catholic Register

Some of these options seem obviously incorrect to you? Well, guess which one is featuring an interview with Randall Terry in its July issue?

(To find the answer, go to Terry's Identity Theft wesbite and scroll to the bottom of the list past the first two books in the "Lord of the Names" trilogy.)

False Witness Analysis Part Three

On with the show...

     On page eight, Terry quotes a portion of Newman's e.mail in which he refers to Terry as a "former pro-life strategist" and "a man we all admired". Although Newman appears to be paying honor to Terry and his work, Terry looks right past what is written to the innuendo by saying that Newman's remarks were intended as a "slight".

     Calling Terry an "arrogant ass" is a slight. Suggesting he looks particularly 'well-fed' these days is a slight. Properly acknowledging that Terry contributed in a positive way to the pro-life activist movement is hardly a slight. Judaism encourages one to look upon even the words of an enemy in the best possible light. Granted, Terry hasn't gotten around to Judaism yet but it's still good advice.

     A key phrase on page eight is this: "his (Terry's) comeback after 15 years of being out of the pro-life movement" manages to demonstrate how to take a half-truth and phrase it to suit your own purposes. Although Terry would probably disagree, the fact is that he seriously curtailed his involvement with the 'rescue' movement in the early 1990s. In that regard, Newman is correct in saying Terry has been "out of the...movement". Although Newman would disagree, Terry has been involved in some forms of pro-life activism since the early 1990s for most of the time period from the early 1990s until today.

     A more honest phrase might have read "his 'comeback' after 15 years of being out of the pro-life rescue movement that he helped found". (I will be writing a separate piece later on after I have further researched the matter to demonstrate that, contrary to Terry's statements that "I and I alone" founded Operation Rescue", the movement would not have even gotten off the ground without the work of an awful lot of 'behind the scenes' people. Even the name "Operation Rescue" was not Terry's creation, but more on that later).

     Terry makes a statement that I would tend to agree with when he says he does not believe Newman wrote the Novemeber e.mail. I think someone else wrote it (probably Jeff White) and may have been sloppy in some of his copy by attributing certain things to Newman that actually occurred to him. This might explain some of the incongruencies that Terry skillfully points out and it may behoove Newman to come forward about it if, indeed, he did not write the text for the e,mail being dissected.

     I am not necessarily faulting Newman if he had someone else write the letter for him. He wouldn;t be the first person in the pro-life movement to use a ghost writer and won't be the last. However, his ghost writer was careless in some regards and Terry is rasing some legitimate questions about apparent contradictions in the letter.

     One example of this is on page ten where Terry points out that Newman cites two different times for creation of Operation Rescue in the e.mail and some of Newman's other writings. Terry, unlike Newman, is in a position to know when Operation Rescue came into being and who was involved at the beginning. However, as I will point out in a later post, Terry himself does not give an entirely accruate description of the events and people that brought about Operation Rescue.

     Truthfully though, Newman should have done his homework as to the origins of Operation Rescue. There are written histories out there that he could and should have consulted rather than making claims that can easily be refuted by the same written histories.

     On page eleven, Terry states that, for Newman "to assert that Mr. Foreman was the second leader of Operation Rescue is untrue". I have read the document over several times. At what point does Newman make this assertion?  

     As to Rev. Foreman being the "second leader of Operation Rescue"; well, that's not entirely untrue. Foreman did serve as the leader of Operation Rescue when Terry was in jail in Atlanta, albeit for a short period tnat ended with his 'dismissal' from the position and Terry's release from jail and resumption of his duties as leader of Operation Rescue.

     Starting at page eleven, Terry goes into a lengthy digression on statements made by Newman outside of the November e.mail. He rasies some legitimate timeline questions as to when Newman started to use the name "Operation Rescue" (as opposed to Operation Rescue West) and when he assumed leadership of Operation Rescue itself. Many of these questions might be better examined by looking at where Operation Rescue may have ended, where Operation Rescue National began and the degree to which the two organizations are distinct from one another. To paraphrase a line from Jaws, 'we're going to need a bigger blog' to sort all this out.

Stay tuned...

False Witness Analysis Part Two

     Apparently Steve Wetzel of MTTU liked my last post because he posted a link to it on his website.

     However, this means I need to hurry up and get through the rest of the Terry-festo analysis. Today's entry will focus on pages five through eight and might be shorter than the previous entry.

     Let's start with Terry's explanation of why he thinks it is okay to let the sarcasm fly while defending himself from the "attacks" of his enemies - a list of individuals that would put Nixon to shame: "In my treatise, Operation Rescue Identity Theft, I sought to leave a clear, convicing and unimpeachable history of the name Operation Rescue. I strove to write in a manner detached from heated passions and free of sarcasm, mockery or riducule.:

     Guess what Randall? You failed.

     He continues "I will give rein to wit and sarcasm. Hopefully, it wil make my response more entertaining and lighthearted for the reader" Considering that he is defending himself against accusations of deceit, adultery, financial mismanagement, fraud and having put on a little wegiht; is "wit and sarcasm" the way to go? Those of us who have read Terry's previous works and heard him talk know that the sarcasm will far outwiegh the wit and not be nearly as well done.

     He then gives us a taste of what is yet to come by making an implied joke about Newman's manhood (^wink, wink* Newman's got a small...you get the idea). Way to win grandmothers and nuns over to your position there Terry! 

     From there he begins to break down Newman's e.mail line by line. When he gets to the line where Newman says he is about to share some very heartbreaking news. Terry's response starts out by saying "Really Troy? Nothing?" followed by a litany of human tragedies meant to impress the reader with how au courant Terry is. He then says "wow...this must be really bad or you must be really shallow..." Terry wants us to get the impression that Newman is making a mountain out of a molehill or otherwise overreacting.

     Terry - the kettle called. He says "You're black too!". Despite the fact that the whole Terry/Newman disagreement is over a trademark, Terry has taken it upon himself to use the publicity he is stirring up to address every wrong, whether real or perceived, done to him. He has posted a website, written two lengthy diatribes (with a promised third to follow) against not only Newman but Jeff White and others and is holding press conferences in an effort to try this case in the media, 

     In response to Newman's claim, Terry states that he is not "suing" Troy Newman. I can understand Newman's confusion on this point what with having received all those legal documents with Terry vs. Newman written on them. Shame on  Newman for not having a more nuanced understanding of legal papers!

     On page seven, Terry starts to raise questions; some of which are legitimate. He starts out with one about Newman's claim that he (Newman) was named in a massive Janet Reno/F.A.C.E. lawsuit and goes on the assumption that Newman is talking about the big F.A.C.E. suit in which Terry was one of the  named parties. Since Newman is claiming to have been part of such a lawsuit, it is reasonable to ask if he was either a named defendednt in the abovementioned suit or if there was another Janet Reno/F.A.C.E. suit in which Newman was named. As Terry points out, documentation of a suit should be easy to provide. 

     Then Terry goes a little overboard: "The F.A.C.E. suit was never a threat. The pro-lifers won." Really, pony boy? If you;re referring to the massive N.O.W. v. Schiedler case and you didn't consider it a threat, why did you settle it out of court?

     "Moreover, even if they had lost, it would not have broken Troy or anyone else." Yet, according to some of the fundraising letters sent out on Terry's behalf and the repeated claims in the firrst diatribe, Terry "lost everything to the child-killers". Maybe Terry's spirit wasn't broken but his finances certainly were!

     Terry moves on to the claim that Planned Parenthood sued Newman. First he asks, as he did with the Reno suit, for evidence that Troy was sued by PP. Then he answers by saying that, back in San Diego, Newman was a defendent in a Planned Parenthood suit. He follows up this apparent contradiction by stating: "The deceitful implication here is that he (Newman) was in some massive lawsuit." That may be Terry's understanding of the subtext but the plain text of Newman's e.mail simply states he was "sued by Planned Parenthood". Newman said nothing to describe the size of the...lawsuit.

     Terry then gets back to raising other legitimate questions: Is Newman being sued by the IRS in conjunction with his pro-life work? A group of people who afford Newman legitimacy to the point of considering him a threat to "reproductive freedom", the Maggot Punks, report that he is currently under investigation by the IRS. Still, as Terry points out, neutral documentation of such a suit can be made available.

     Newman claims that he and Terry were arrested together. This may or may not be true. Both men went to Hawaii together and may have been arrested there. Again, easy to document if true

     Terry raise the issue of Newman's confession that he had never been arrested at an OR event. This may contradict Troys claim or it  may not. At the height of the movement, not every rescue was an OR-sponsored event. The Lambs of Christ held a series of rescues and many individuals also conducted small-scale events outside of OR. I speak from experience here having taken part in both kinds of rescues as well as OR-sanctioned events. It would be nice if  Newman would clarify his involvement in the rescue movement as a whole since he is claiming to have been arrested in his e.mail. Since Terry will, undoubtedly, ask for documentation of this, Newman should be able to provide it.

     I am saving the large portion in regards to what Terry did after the formation of Operation Rescue National for another blog post (or two!) since it really deserves a section of its own.

False Witness Analysis Part One

     I've been re-reading the latest RT diatribe False Witness and making notes again. I don't know that this is such a good idea seeing as I have to be at work in less than twelve hours. Therefore, I'm going to break things up by analyzing the piece in sections.

     Today's blog entry will focus on the first four pages and will include questions for both men. If either of them are readers of this blog, I hope they will respond.

     On page three, Terry explains that one of his purposes for writing is to "clear the air an rebbuild relationships within the pro-life movement". On the surface, this seems an admirable goal. Relationships, however, by their very nature, are best restored by one-on-one communication with the individual parties involved. The Scripture invitation is to "come, let us reason together". This first refers to the relationship between God and man but can be extended to apply to human relationships as well.

     Further down the page, Terry explains that he is also writing this for his four sons. It bothers me intensely that, when Terry talks about his offspring, he only says four children. He has eight; although four are adults now. Maybe the olther four would like their own questions about their father's integrity cleared up as well.

     Towards the end of the page, Terry explains that his "attackers" appear credible because, among other reasons, "some of them were professionally close to me for a short season". Why was this season so short? When it comes to repairing relationships, maybe he should start with these people with whom he once had at least a working relationship.

     On page four, Terry tells of "under a dozen man and women of any significance (emphasis mine)" who have supported Newman. If you read through the whole Terry-festo, you will begin to notice that Terry ranks people as being significant or among his "peers" or  not significant and not his peer. So much for the notion that humanity, by its sheer existence, has value (a key to understanding why we oppose abortion). In Terry's world, we are not equal in God's eyes. As Orwell noted in Animal Farm, some of us are more equal than others. It is a school of thought that underlies the pro-abortion movement. If some people are "more equal than others", what is to stop us from disregarding the "others" to the point of disposal?

     One of the complaints I have often heard from other rescuers is that, when Terry's version of OR held events, he and his leadership core would often bail out of jail or avoid arrest altogether leaving the less significant of us to stay behind. One of the organizations I rescued with had an informal motto of "no one gets left behind" We recognized the power of large numbers to keep the authorities from singling out certain people for more serious charges or abuse.

     Another common complaint is that Terry's OR rarely took abuse claims by pro-lifers against police and/or prison guards seriously. They did not fight on behalf of rescuers in West Hartford, Connecticut, Los Angeles, California or Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania where the abuse claims were probably as well-documented as any. In New York and New Jersey, rescuers won several suits against abusive police and prison guards in spite of a lack of support from national leadership.

     By portraying himself and those in his inner circle as being somehow superior to the average rescuer, Terry alienates the very readers he is trying to win over - those of us who can remember OR's "glory days" and, thanks to his tone, are now remembering the not-so-glorious ones.

     This brings me to the next point in the Terry-festo (I'll admit, it's kind of fun to use that term); the point Terry wants to drive home most of all - Newman is stealing MY name and heritage! First of all, Terry's heritage is not necessarily one a person would want to steal. Who in their right mind would want a heritage that includes compromise with the opposition, a messy divorce and estrangement from one's own children? Secondly, is Newman acting in such a way as to destroy the better parts of the OR heritage? Even Terry acknowledges the effectiveness of Newman's work in Wichita as do certain members of the secular media and, certainly, the opposition. I would contend that, whatever Newman's personal faults, the actions of OR under his leadership have stayed true to the original vison of OR established by its leadership core back in the late 1980s.

     I do not see similar fruits in Terry's more recent works. I don't know the last time Terry was actually at an abortion mill even to pray much less speak out  where the murders are taking place. There are any number of Catholic who go out to abortion mills regularly to pray the Rosary and I'm sure any of them would welcome a fellow Catholic who wished to join them in prayer.

     In the same sentence in which Terry admonishes Newman's supporters to consider what they would do were they in Terry's shoes. He claims that Newman has lied about him repeatedly. Newman's e.mail to which Terry is responding repeats a lot of the charges that have been leveled against Terry by people long before Newman brings them up. Newman may be repeating other people's lies, but is he the person who originated them? 

     This doesn't absolve Newman from responsibility. If he knows that the statements that have been made against Terry were false and repeated them anyway, he bears guilt for repeating them. If, at the time he wrote his e.mail, he believed that what he was saying about Terry was true, did Newman lie with intent? People who knew Terry well made these claims against him - his former pastor in regards to the dissolution of the marriage, his ex-wife in regards to Terry's financial integrity, his older children in regards to Terry's strained relationships with them - the list goes on.

     If Newman believed what were nothing but lies about Terry, he got those "lies" from people in unique positions to know the truth about certain matters.

     With the exception of some of his children, these people have been somewhat restrained in thier public statements. I'm sure any number of media outlets would pay Cindy Dean quitte well to "spill the beans" on what went wrong in the Terry marriage yet, to this day, she has not spoken publicly about it. Pastor Dan Little's letter was written pretty much in response to repeated questioning from many about Terry's situation as it involved his church. He has not made any more widely publcized statements about  Terry since the letter's release almost a decade ago.

Exhausting!

     For those of you who might not have checked the site recently, Randall Terry has updated his "Identity Theft" website with lengthy defenses by both him and others of his actions in regards to the name Operation Rescue. This "sequel" to the first 21-page diatribe weighs in at 39 pages and is an almost line-by-line refutation of a letter sent by Troy Newman last November in regards to the OR XX event in Philadelphia.

     Terry takes a caustic approach which he uses the Scriptures to justify. He hones in on every statement he finds in Newman's letter and, to his credit, raises some legitimate issues of contradictions in Newman's "timeline". However, he comes off as such an arrogant ass that he defeats his own purpose in trying to win people over to his point of view. Sad, really...he wants people (including his four children) to understand why Newman was wrong to trademark the OR name and why he himself is not guilty of the many accusations made against him.. Yet he paints a picture of himself as the sole reason why Operation Rescue enjoyed the success it did in it heyday and as superior to certain others who might also be engaged in pro-life work.

     In hte end, he concludes that the "Cannibals" who oppose him do so for one reason - because he got divorced. He expresses his digust with the way his marital woes were and are still the subject of much scrutiny and promises yet another sequel in which he will explain the circumstances behind the failure of his first marriage, his divorce and his second marriage the following year.

     Personally, I think this would be a huge mistake on his part. The first Mrs. Terry has, thus far, refused to comment on the end of their marriage from her perspective. A lengthy dissertation of their marriage from Randall's hand might provoke her to break her silence in the interest of "setting the record straight".

     Also, even though Terry refutes the notion that he engaged in any sort of "immoral conduct" with other women while still married to his first wife, all it would take is for one woman to come forward and say she have an encounter with him. Even if she just said something to the effect of "he made a pass at me", whether true or not, it would greatly damage his credibility.

     Are these risks he wants to take? Obviously, Terry has become a man obsessed with addressing all the wrongs laid at his feet. I say this because his writings are stemming from what was initially a desire to simply gain trademark access to the name "Operation Rescue". Rather than quietly letting the courts make their determination in this case, he has decided to try all those who oppose him for any reason whatsoever in the court of public opinion.

     While Newman and White are clearly in his crosshairs, please note that Flip Benham is singled out by one of Terry's defenders. Benham had best consider what he is saying on the OSA website because, if Newman and White go down, Flip (whom Terry once called 'Judas') will be quick to follow.

Flip and Other Four-Letter Words

The more I read on the OSA website, the more I am convinced that, of all the people involved in this whole lawsuit mess, Flip Benham has to be the most loathsome of them all. Flip has his own personal beef with Troiy Newman so he supports Randall Terry's efforts to "expose" Newman and Jeff White who, although not named in the lawsuit, is being tried in the court of public opinion.

HOWEVER, Flip has done everything but outright declare that he no longer considers Randall Terry a Christian brother.

He is happy to use Terry's lawsuit for his own ends and, at the same time, denounce him for his past sins.

How does Benham stand before God in church on Sundays? Everytime he signs one of his acerbic missives "In Christian Love", he mocks the very One whose love was and still is powerful enough to save not simply "America"  but all of us who so desperately need it.

It will be interesting to see what happens to Flip and his "ministry" as a result of all this.

Just for Laughs

     There are quite a few unintentionally funny aspects of the whole OR lawsuit mess - "enjoying noteriety", a call to repent of drinking beer and being Catholic and such. Count on the folks at MTTU to find something intentionally funny about the whole thing...all I can say is, go visit the site...

Let's Bite the Hand that Feeds Us

     It had to happen at some point. Flip Benham has chimed in; scorching the earth in his wake. He has posted a lengthy diatribe on his OR/OSA website as to why pretty much everyone in this trademark battle needs to repent (except, curiously enough, him).

     If you want to read a litany of smear and innuendo, by all means, go check out what he has to say about the "Sins of Operation Rescue". They are many. Two of the biggies, committed by Randall Terry himself are drinking beer and a "convenient" conversion to Catholicism. Apparently Flip has not considered the possibility that offending one of your larger support bases is not good for business.

     The simpler one first: Many Christian denominations allow members to partake of alcohol in moderation. The denomination I belong to takes such a stand and even serves real wine with communion (although they do also offer grape juice to those for whom alcohol provides a temptation to excess). If Benham doesn't want to drink beer, that is his choice and, if his personal testimony of abusing alcohol prior to his conversion is correct, a good choice for him to make.

     Personally, I think believers should avoid anything that they are inclined to do or use to sinful excess. For some, that means abstaining from alcohol. For others, that may mean cutting back on time spent at the gym or the movies or the shopping mall. We have alcohol-free congregations - why not excess credit-card free congregations?

     The second is far more serious: Does Benham seriously think that one can make a "convenient" conversion to Catholicism as an adult? I know adults who have converted. It's not something you just wake up and do one morning. There are classes to take, studying to do and conversations with clergy that need to take place. Unless Benham has personal knowledge that Terry got some sort of "fast lane" dispensation to be received into the Catholic Church, it is not likely that Terry's conversion was convenient. Even Terry acknowledges that, because of the divorce from his first wife (which has not yet been annulled), he is not able to receive Communion which is one of the hallmarks of Catholicism. Not terribly "convenient" if you ask me.

     So, does Benham think Terry needs to repent of his Catholicism? Has he sinned by joining the Catholic Church? Are all Catholics sinners in need of repentance then? If you're Catholic, you may want to reconsider making that donation to OR/OSA.

     At least one thing has been made clear in Benham's non-papal bull. He thinks Terry a sinner but doesn't mind that Terry is using his "gifts" to expose other sinners. Terry's motivations for filing the suit may be wrong but, hey, if his actions can be used to take down Newman and White, why not?

Scrutiny is a Beautiful Thing

Ah summertime! Time to rest, relax, read 21-page documents in greater detail...

     So I read through Randall Terry's 21-page explanation for why Troy Newman did him wrong. It's an interesting work that probably would have benefited from some grammatical editing (phrases such as "unearned noteriety" and "enjoy noteriety" would be hyysterically funny were they not being used in a document to argue for a legal cause of action).

     The document answers a good many questions but also raises some. I'll list mine here but would ask you, the reader, to peruse the document yourself and see if it helps you better understand the facts of the case.

     It is no secret that Terry can speak in such a way as to rally people to his cause. This is a gift that served him well in his Operation Rescue work. It does not always serve him well when he is trying to lay out a legal argument  for why he should be able to retrieve a trademark he says is rightly his.

     I think that, while Terry has a personal beef with several pro-life leaders over remarks they made both verbally and in writing during his divorce and remarriage, he should not try to settle that beef in the midst of arguing for his trademark. There are better times and venues for settling that matter (assuming it's even possible to do so). 

Now onto the questions:

       1. According to the www.operationrescuetheft.com website, Terry filed a  Business Certificate with the state of New York for the use of the name Operation Rescue in 1988. Yet, according to his personal defending document (described to distinguish it from his filed legal documentation), he did not apply for a trademark for the name until April of 2007. Why an almost twenty-year delay between the two actions? This could bolster Newman's argument, supported by the legal documents he filed to acquire the trademark that, at the time he filed, there was no other trademark for the name Operation Rescue and that the name, therefore, was not in use - at least not as a trademark.

       2. In several places in Terry's document, he clearly identifies Operation Rescue National as a "separate legal entity and organization" (pg. 2) and a "distinct and separate legal entity" (pg. 7). He descibes how he would attend Operation Rescue National events as the founder of Operation Rescue. So my questons would be: Who, if anyone, is the President of Operation Rescue? Who, if anyone, is the President of Operation Rescue National? What rights do these individuals have over the name and the organization? Can these presidents legally pass on their titles and organizations to others?

       3. Terry expressed "surprise" (pg. 8) that Keith Tucci had passed leadership of ORN to Flip Benham. He did not know prior to it happening that a transfer of leadership of ORN was in the works. This was not a case of one of the local affiliates such as Operation Rescue Atlanta or Operation Rescue Boston picking a new leader but the national organization doing so without informing Terry beforehand or seeking his input. How is this possible? Is Flip Benhan legitimately authorized to be the leader of ORN? Or was he put into place outside of Terry's authority? Considering the somewhat public acrimonious relationship between the two men, would Terry be inclined to remove Benham from leadership and, if so, would he have the legal authority to do it?

     The document makes several statements that, while inflammatory, may or may not have a ring of truth to them. They should be examined more closely:

     On page 16, Terry states that Newman, by his own admission, recognized that the name Operation Rescue could have both monetary and media benefits. According to Terry, it has, in fact, enabled Newman to raise "hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars". Terry then argues that this is all about money - filthy lucre! To an extent I will give him this argument. However, not all lucre is filthy. Terry has not argued that the money being raised is being used to Newman's personal benefit. So how is Newman using the money raised through his use of the Operation Rescue name? Is he using it in a way that is consistent with the mission of Operation Rescue? If so, would that be a "filthy" use of lucre?

     One of the statements that seems to offend many people (including both myself and one of the anonymous posters) is that Terry is "the only pro-life leader that has actually lost everything to the child-killers" (pg. 18). I would agree that, as the "founder" of OR, Terry has probably lost a lot more than most people.  But everything? He seems to be in good health. He has been able to travel and seek higher education for himself. He has a very nice roof over his head. He has a church family that seems to support him. He has a large family and, while some of those relationships are strained, did the child-killers strain them or did the people in the relationships themselves do so?

     How many other rescuers can say they are doing as well as Terry since ending their involvement in rescue? I know I can't. The rescuers I still see or hear from can't. If you are reading this and used to rescue, I would love to hear about how your life has been affected, for better or for worse (or some combination of both) by your involvement in rescue. I'm not suggesting that anyone regrets their involvement in rescue but most people realize that this involvement came with a cost - a cost they, for the most part, gladly and quietly bear.

Anonymously Yours

     I am going to take a wild guess that the second Anonymous poster and the first  one are not one and the same. In my first post, I mentioned that, while Randall Terry "founded" Operation Rescue, it was the sacrifices of many men and women that made it the movement it was - people who paid a price for their involvement as Randall did (although not as likely to the financial degree that he did). Had they not, would Operation Rescue have even gotten off the ground much less garnered the reputation that it did?

     I am reminded of the apostle Paul when he recited a long list of abuses he had suffered for the cause of Christ. Although he certainly might have had the "right" to ask not only people b ut also his Heavenly Father to restore "what the locusts had eaten" he took a different approach; one that many who rescued in the late 1980s and early 1990s have also taken. He considered his sufferings a small price to pay in light of Who he was serving.

     Paul also tried to discourage those who claimed to be "of Paul" or "of Apollos" or "of" anyone other than Christ. I would ask those who would like to draw lines in the sand to look beyond legacies and  money and anything else that might be gained by whoever ends up with the name Operation Rescue and consider the far more important Name that should be embraced by all of us.

I Feel Loved

My first comment...from an anonymous reader...

     I guess my first question for Anonymous would be - what's in a name? I can only judge Troy Newman's actions by what I've seen and read and, unless there's more to the story than I know, he's not disgracing the legacy of Operation Recue by his work. However, Anonymous insists that for Newman to build on the legacy, it has to be "sanctioned"

     This raises my second question: Is anyone currently "sanctioned" to use the name? It seems like the name was not being used for quite a while. Keith Tucci and Flip Benham both served as leaders of "Operation Rescue National" (which later was called "Operation Save America" and currently goes by the name "Operation Rescue/Operation Save America").

     When "Operation Rescue National" became "Operation Save America", the group's battles, while primarily against abortion also began to include organized responses to matters such as homosexual 'rights', the Ten Commandments controversy and child pornography - all issues that seemed consistent with an organization that, by its name, indicates an commitment to "save America" 

     What Newman appears to being doing in Wichita is much more narrowly focused and more consisttent with the original intent of Operation Rescue. Is there any reason he cannot be "sanctioned" for the work he is already doing?

     I think what I find most troublesome is that this has gotten as far as it has. Instead of finding a way to work things out between the two of them, Terry and Newman are now exposed to the glare of secular media scrutiny and relying on courts to make a determination about this matter. Terry has already taken a lot of time, money and effort that could be spent on more direct efforts on behalf of the children who are being aborted daily. Although Newman has kept a pretty low profile, he, too, is being forced to divert time, money and effort from his work to defend his position.

     Compromise requires a willingness on the part of both parties to give up some portion of what they want. I would ask both Terry and Newman to consider sitting down with a truly neutral mediator to work this out in a way that settles the matter once and for all.

     As to why Newman resigned from his church: why say "no comment" and then comment on it anyway? According to Terry's own words, he has already tried to resolve the matter biblically with Newman through his former church. I don't know why Newman resigned nor does anyone else other than Newman, his former pastor and probably a handful of others. It would be as wrong to ascribe negative motives to his decision as it would be to assume altruistic motives.  

     Thanks for writing, Anonymous! If you're in a position to do so, please encourage these two men to try to work out their differences privately with Christian humilty and a willingness to compromise for the sake of the babies. I fear these little ones have gotten lost in the middle of all of this.

The Unbearable Being of Light - comments on Randall Terry's lawsuit against Troy Newman for the name "Operation Rescue"

     Randall Terry, never one to avoid a chance to 'meet the press' has been creating some of his own lately by announcing his intention to sue Troy Newman of Wichita, Kansas for "fraudulent" use of the name Operation Rescue. According to Terry, Troy Newman has been raisng "hundreds of thousands and perhaps millions of dollars in the name of Operation Rescue". Terry claims Newman has no legal right to use the name Operation Rescue even though Newman applied for a trademark and obtained the right to use the name several years ago.

     Color me surprised - I didn't realize the name "Operation Rescue" was such a cash cow. As a former rescuer who went on to work in other child-centered activities, I didn't know the mere name could bring in such large amounts of money. I have watched what Troy Newman and his team have been doing in Wichita, Kansas with interest for some time now and have been impressed by the amount of energy and work that has gone into trying to put an end to abortion there.

     Their efforts have been a strong complement to the original vision of Operation Rescue though they have not chosen to engage in OR's signature tactic of sitting in front of the doors of Tiller's abortion clinic. For that matter, no one else, including OR's 'founder', Randall Terry, has used this tactic since the early 1990s

     (I use the word founder in quotations because Terry was certainly not the firrst to engage in peaceful sit-ins at abortion clinics although he can take a great deal of credit both for making it a more widespread practice and for getting more Protestants involved in pro-life activism).     

     Meanwhile Terry, while still committed to the abortion issue, has expanded his own vision to include battles against homosexual activism, judicial tyranny and radical Islam among other things. I'm not passing judgement on the rightness or wrongness of these issues but they do tend to take the focus off OR's original mission of saving babies. His "Society for Truth and Justicve" organization reflects this "big tent" commitment and gives him an outlet for his efforts.

     So why does Terry care if someone else uses the Operation Rescue name? It's not because Troy Newman is using the name in a way that brings disgrace to the original vision. Terry even acknowledges "Mr. Newman is to be applauded for pro-life efforts that are legitimately his to take credit for". Ah, there's the rub. Newman, as he sees it, is building on Terry's legacy and not his own.

     This is where I have to object. Yes, Terry 'founded' Operation Rescue but, had it not been for the sacrificial efforts of thousands of people committed to carrynig out the vision, the name "Operation Rescue" would not have the significance it has today. Terry is quick to remind us all of the many sacrifices he made on behalf of Operation Rescue and I think no one denies that he paid a heavy price for his leadership.  But he is not the only one who paid a price. Many of us who followed his example also paid a price - in arrests and jail time (which, for some women like myself, included sexual assault within the jails themselves), in loss of good health (including, in at least one case that I am personally aware of, mental health), in lost wages and job opportunities, in the breakup of marriages, in severed personal and church relationships and in countless other ways.

     We, however, don't have Alan Keyes writing letters to ask people to give us money to "restore waht the locusts have eaten". We don't have a cadre of lawyers at our disposal. Many of us are leading quiet lives. We are happy that we got to play some small role in saving the lives of children who are now of high school and college age but may still struggle sometimes with the consequences of our choice to take part in rescue.

     Choice is the optimal word here. Terry and everyone else chose to take part in Operation Rescue with some degree of understanding that our actions could result in negative consequences. To this day, Troy Newman is choosing to take part in activities that have cost him dearly. He does not present his supporters with a laundry list of the negative consequences of his choice (as Terry has done in his 21-page argument against Newman's use of "his" name). To Newman's credit, he has remained very quiet about this whole thing. Many have risen up to defend him but he. himself, is avoiding the media spotlight.

     I have been doing perhaps too much reading about both Terry and Newman to better understand this situation and it may be that I have looked at this all wrong. I consider myself open to correction on this issue and, as I continue to investigate, may find that I have completely misjudged the situation. If so, I will be the first to apologize for drawing hasty conclusions based on Terry's public documentation as provided on his new website (www.operationrescuetheft.com).

     More on this story as it progresses...