formerly, Abortion is Murder, and, before that, skyp
(stop killing young people)
May 2, 2014, Vol. 13 No. 2
PO Box 7424, Reading, PA 19603
Editor, John Dunkle
“Contraception” is Murder, a weak, pathetic response to baby murder, is sent out at least once a month. If the gestapo hasn’t jailed you yet for defending the innocent realistically, you either have to tell me you want it or go to the website. Emails are free but snail-mail is free only for PFCs, two grand for others.
Because I believe we should examine every legitimate means, including force, in our attempt to protect children from being tortured to death, I want to hear from people who’ve been forceful and from those who defend them. I’d also like to hear from those who oppose the prolife use of force and call it violence.
Prisoners For Christ:
1. Evans, Paul Ross 83230-180, FCI, PO Box 1500, El Reno, OK 73036
2. Griffin, Michael 310249, BRCF, 5914 Jeff Atles Rd., Milton, FL 32583-00000
3. Grady, Francis 11656-089, USP Allenwood, P.O. Box 3000, White Deer, PA 17887
4. Holt, Gregory 129616 Varner Supermax, PO Box 600, Grady, AR 71644-0600
5. Kopp, James 11761-055, USP Canaan, P.O. Box 300, Waymart, PA 18472
6. Roeder, Scott 65192 PO Box 2, Lansing, Kansas 66043
7. Rogers, Bobby Joe 21292-017, USP Beaumont, PO Box 26030, Beaumont, TX 77720
8. Rudolph, Eric 18282-058 US Pen. Max, Box 8500, Florence CO 81226-8500
9. Shannon, Rachelle 59755-065, FCI Waseca, Unit A, P.O. Box 1731, Waseca, MN 56093
10. Waagner, Clayton Lee 17258-039, USP, P.O. Box 1000, Lewisburg PA 17837
Jim Kopp asks me to post these excerpts from an address given by Russian Orthodox Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev:
Your holinesses and beatitudes, your eminences and graces, dear brothers and sisters, esteemed delegates of the assembly,
The World Council of Churches has a long and rich history. Set up after the Second World War, the Council responded to the expectations of Christians of various confessions who strove to meet, to get to know each other and to work together...
The World Council of Churches today remains a unique instrument of inter-Christian cooperation that has no analogy in the world. However, the question arises as to how effective this instrument is. We must note with some regret that, in spite of all of the efforts aimed at bringing Christians of various confessions closer to each other, within Christendom not only are the divisions of the past not disappearing, but new ones are arising.
The contemporary situation demands from us more decisive action, greater cohesion and more dynamism. And yet it also demands a re-orientation of the basic direction of our work, a change in priorities in our discussions and deeds. While we continue to discuss our differences in the comfortable atmosphere of conferences and theological dialogues, the question resounds ever more resolutely: Will Christian civilization survive at all?
In my address 1 would like to focus on two fundamental challenges which the Christian world today faces in varying degrees. The first is that of the militant secularism which is gathering strength in the so-called developed countries, primarily in Europe and America. The second is that of radical Islamism that poses a threat to the very existence of Christianity in a number of regions of the world, mainly in the Middle East, but also in some parts of Asia and Africa.
Militant secularism in Europe has a long history, going back to the period of the French Revolution. But it is only in the 20th century in the countries of the so-called socialist bloc that godlessness was elevated to the level of state ideology. As regards the so-called capitalist countries, they preserved to a significant degree the Christian traditions which shaped their cultural and moral identity.
Today these two worlds appear to have changed roles.
In the countries of the former Soviet Union, in particular in Russia, Ukraine, Belorussia and Moldavia, an unprecedented religious revival is underway. In the Russian Orthodox Church over the past 25 years there have been built or restored from ruins more than 25,000 churches. This means that a thousand churches a year have been opened, i.e., three churches a day. More than 50 theological institutes and 800 monasteries, each filled with monks and nuns, have been opened.
In Western European countries we can observe the steady decline of the numbers of parishioners, a crisis in vocations, and monasteries and churches being closed. The anti-Christian rhetoric of many politicians and statesmen becomes all the more open as they call for the total expulsion of religion from public life and the rejection of the basic moral norms common to all religious traditions.
The battle between the religious and secular worldview is raging today in academic auditoriums and on the pages of newspapers. And the subject of the conflict is far from being exhausted by the question of belief or lack of belief in God. Today this clash has entered a new dimension and touches upon the fundamental aspects of the everyday life of the human person.
One of the main directions of its activity today is the straightforward destruction of traditional notions of marriage and the family. This is witnessed by the new phenomenon of equating homosexual unions with marriage and allowing single-sex couples to adopt children. From the point of view of biblical teaching and traditional Christian moral values, this testifies to a profound spiritual crisis. The religious understanding of sin has been conclusively eroded in societies that until recently thought of themselves as Christian. Particularly alarming is the fact that we are dealing in this instance not only with a choice of ethics and worldview. Under the pretext of combating discrimination, a number of countries have introduced changes in family legislation. Over the past few years single-sex cohabitation has been legalized in a number of states in the USA, a number of Latin American countries and in New Zealand. This year homosexual unions have attained the legal status of "marriage" in England and Wales and in France.
We have to state clearly that those countries that have recognized in law homosexual unions as one of the forms of marriage are taking a serious step towards the destruction of the very concept of marriage and the family. And this is happening in a situation where in many historically Christian countries the traditional family is enduring a serious crisis: the number of divorces is growing, the birthrate is declining catastrophically, the culture of a family upbringing is degraded, not to mention the prevalence of sexual relations outside of marriage, the increase in the number of abortions and the increase of children brought up without parents, even if those parents are still alive.
Instead of encouraging by all means possible traditional family values and supporting childbirth not only materially but also spiritually, the justification of the legitimacy of "single-sex families" who bring up children has become the center of public attention. As a result, the traditional social roles are eroded and swapped around. The notion of parents, i.e., of the father and the mother, of what is male and what is female, is radically altered. The female mother is losing her time-honored role as guardian of the domestic hearth, while the male father is losing his role as educator of his children in being socially responsible. The family in its Christian understanding is falling apart to be replaced by such impersonal terms as "parent number one" and "parent number two."
All of this cannot but have the most disastrous consequences for the upbringing of children. Children who are brought up in families with "two fathers" or "two mothers" will already have views on social and ethical values different from their contemporaries from traditional families.
One of the direct consequences of the radical reinterpretation of the concept of marriage is the serious demographic crisis which will only grow if these approaches are adhered to. Those politicians who are pushing the countries of the civilized world into the demographic abyss are in essence pronouncing upon their peoples a death sentence.
What is to be the response of the Christian Churches? I believe deeply that this response can be none other than that which is based on Divine Revelation as handed down to us in the Bible. Scripture is the common foundation which unites all Christian confessions. We may have significant differences in the interpretation of Scripture, but we all possess the same Bible and its moral teaching is laid out quite unambiguously. Of course, we differ in the interpretation of certain biblical texts when they allow for a varied interpretation. Yet much in the Bible is stated quite unambiguously, namely that which proceeds from the mouth of God and retains its relevance for all subsequent ages. Among these divine sayings are many moral commandments, including those which concern family ethics.
In speaking out against all forms of discrimination, the Church nonetheless must vindicate the traditional Christian understanding of marriage as between a man and a woman, the most important mission of which is the birth and upbringing of children. It is precisely this understanding of marriage that we find on the pages of the Bible in the story of the first human family. This same understanding of marriage we also find in the Gospels and the apostolic epistles. The Bible does not know of any alternative forms of marriage...
Unfortunately, not all Christian Churches today find within themselves the courage and resolve to vindicate the biblical ideals by going against that which is fashionable and the prevalent secular outlook. Some Christian communities have long ago embarked on a revision of moral teaching aimed at making it more in step with modern tendencies.
It is often said that the differences in theological and ethical problems are linked to the division of Christians into conservatives and liberals. One cannot but agree with this when we see how in a number of Christian communities a headlong liberalization is occurring in religious ethics, as a rule under the influence of processes taking place in secular society. At the same time the witness of the Orthodox Churches should not be reduced to that of conservatism. The faith of the Ancient Church which we Orthodox confess is impossible to define from the standpoint of conservatism and liberalism. We confess Christ's truth which is immutable, for "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, and today, and for ever" (Heb. 3:8).
We are not speaking about conservatism but of fidelity to Divine Revelation which is contained in Scripture. And if the so-called liberal Christian Churches reject the traditional Christian understanding of moral norms, then this means that we are running up against a serious problem in our common Christian witness. Are we able to bear this witness if we are so deeply divided in questions of moral teaching, which are as important for salvation as dogma?
In this regard, I would like to speak about the Church's prophetic vocation. I recall the words of Fr. Alexander Schmemann who said that a prophet is far from being someone who foretells the future. In reminding us of the profound meaning of prophecy, Schmemann wrote: "The essence of prophecy is in the gift of proclaiming to people God's will, which is hidden from human sight but revealed to the spiritual vision of the prophet" (Schmemann, The Celebration of Faith, Vol. 1: I Believe..., p. 112).
We often speak of the prophetic voice of the Churches, yet does our voice actually differ much from the voice and rhetoric of the secular mass media and non-governmental organizations? Is not one of the most important tasks of the WCC to discern the will of God in the modern-day historical setting and proclaim it to the world? This message, of course, would be hard to swallow for the powerful of this world. However, in refusing to proclaim it, we betray our vocation and in the final run we betray Christ...
One of the important directions of the WCC's work is interreligious dialogue. I believe that we ought to pay more attention to the development of a deep and interested mutual interaction with traditional religions, especially with Islam.
Keep this ‘cause Jimbo takes off on it next issue.
War Party Oligarch
By Patrick J. Buchanan
Is the Republican Party's Middle East policy up for bid?
For four days ending Sunday, March 30, a quartet of presidential hopefuls trooped to Las Vegas to attend the annual gathering of the Republican Jewish Coalition.
Impresario: Sheldon Adelson, the Vegas-Macau casino mogul whose fortune is estimated at $39 billion — eighth richest man on the planet — and who dumped $92 million into the election of 2012.
Adelson kept Newt Gingrich alive with a $ 15 million infusion of ad money, gutting Romney, and then sank $30 million into Mitt's campaign.
This time Sheldon wants to buy himself a winner.
Ari Fleischer, press secretary to Bush 43, and a member of Adelson's RJC fiefdom, put it plain and simple: "The 'Sheldon Primary' is an important primary....Anybody running for the Republican nomination would want to have Sheldon at his side."
One such man is Jeb Bush, son and brother to presidents, who was the prize bull at Sheldon's cattle show. Daniel Ruth of The Tampa Bay Times speculates on Jeb's motive in showing up:
"Would you slink into Las Vegas to schmooze gambling mogul Sheldon Adelson who regards GOP presidential nominees as if they were trophy heads mounted in his den, if you had no interest in the White House? Bush is not going to Vegas to catch Meat Loaf's act at Planet Hollywood."
The 2016 presidential hopefuls "are falling at his feet," said a veteran Republican strategist of the 80-year-old oligarch. Each of those who came — Bush, Chris Christie, and Governors Scott Walker and John Kasich — apparently auditioned, one by one, before the godfather.
In 2016, says Adelson's top political adviser Andy Abboud, Sheldon's "bar for support is going to be much higher.. . . There's going to be a lot more scrutiny."
Guess that means no more Newts.
Victor Chaltiel, a major donor and Adelson friend who sits on the board of Las Vegas Sands, tells us Sheldon "doesn't want a crazy extremist to be the nominee." Adds Shawn Steel, a big California GOP money man, Sheldon is a "very rational guy."
Perhaps. But last fall at Yeshiva University, this "very rational guy" gave this response to a question from Rabbi Shmuley Boteach on whether he supports U.S. negotiations on Iran's nuclear program:
"No. What do you mean support negotiations? What are we going to negotiate about? What I would say is, 'Listen, you see that desert out there, I want to show you something'. ... You pick up your cell phone and you call somewhere in Nebraska and you say, 'OK let it go.'
"So, there's an atomic weapon, goes over ballistic missiles, the middle of the desert, that doesn't hurt a soul. Maybe a couple of rattlesnakes, and scorpions, or whatever.
"And then you say, 'See! The next one is in the middle of Tehran. So, we mean business. You want to be wiped out? Go ahead and take a tough position and continue with your nuclear development.
" 'You want to be peaceful. Just reverse it all, and we will guarantee that you can have a nuclear power plant for electricity purposes, energy purposes'."
Adelson's response was recorded by Philip Weiss of Mondoweiss web site who was at Yeshiva and filmed the interview. Weiss says the audience cheered Adelson's proposed nuclear strike on Iran and no one on the stage, not Wall Street Journal columnist Bret Stephens, peeped a word of dissent.
And this is a "very rational guy," who doesn't want "a crazy extremist to be the nominee"?
This is someone Republican presidential candidates must appease, if they don't want tens of millions in attack ads run against them?
This is someone the Republican presidential hopefuls must hearken to now?
Again, so it would seem.
During his talk before the few dozen members of the RJC, Gov. Chris Christie recounted his recent trip to Israel: "I took a helicopter ride from the occupied territories" and came "to understand the military risk that Israel faces every day."
Christie's effort at bonding boo-meranged. An angry Morton Klein of the Zionist Organization of America confronted Christie to demand that he explain just what he meant by "occupied territories."
For half a century, the United States has considered the West Bank occupied land where Israeli settlements are illegal under the Fourth Geneva Convention.
Whatever Christie's response, it did not satisfy the ZOA or Klein who declared: "Either [Christie] doesn't understand the issue, or he's hostile to Israel."
Whereupon Christie, in a private audience with Adelson, apologized.
A source close to Adelson told Politico that Christie made clear "that he misspoke when he referred to the 'occupied territories.' And he conveyed that he is an unwavering friend and committed supporter of Israel, and was sorry for any confusion that came across as a result of the misstatement."
The governor is a tough guy, but this sounds like groveling.
Is this what Republican presidential candidates must do now?
Kowtow to this fattest of fat cats who wants to buy himself an American war on Iran?
Is that what has become of the party of Reagan?
Christians and Jews face a dilemma: vote for a Republican who will try to eliminate Israel’s enemies, or vote for a Democrat who will try to eliminate legal abortion’s enemies.
Chief among the anti-lifers is Democrat Hillary Clinton, who would try to do both. An article about her in the April 17 New York Times says
“people who worked with her say, [she] would be instinctively less reluctant than Mr. Obama to commit the military to foreign conflicts.”
See Buchanan above. “Commit the military to foreign conflicts” means fighting the Israelis wars for them. It means obeying the bully boys who want “the gun” to solve every problem.
Here’s how fattest cat Israelophile Sheldon Adelson threatens his enemies, “The next one [exploding atomic weapon] is in the middle of Tehran. So, we mean business. You want to be wiped out? Go ahead and take a tough position . . .”
Notice that “the next one” comes from Nebraska.
The Untold Story of How El Salvador Passed a
Total Ban on Abortion
It took a national prayer campaign and a miraculous turning of hearts in politics.
It is totally illegal for a mother to abort her child in El Salvador, the smallest country in Central America. But the amazing story about how a country with a name meaning "savior" came to constitutionally protect its unborn children from conception-despite ongoing massive international pressure to the contrary-remains practically unknown.
"It was a miracle," said Julia Cardenal, president of Sí a la Vida of San Salvador, to attendees at Campaign Life Coalition's national pro-life conference last weekend in Toronto.
Cardenal related to about 200 attendees how underdeveloped countries like El Salvador depend on foreign aid to help improve the country. But she said that such aid usually comes with "reproductive rights" strings attached.
She remembers one cabinet minister saying after returning from a foreign assistance meeting in Europe: "All these people want to do is talk about abortion."
"If you go to the international conferences of the United Nations, it's incredible how in every treaty they want to put [in] abortion," she said.
In 1998, a massive pro-life effort resulted in El Salvador removing from its 1973 penal code exceptions that permitted abortion, including to save the mother's life, and in cases of rape and serious congenital disorder. Abortion was now illegal, but the victory was tenuous.
Pro-lifers feared foreign aid groups would too easily woo the country into signing onto a treaty that would override the penal code and effectively bring back abortion. They knew the only way to guarantee protection for the unborn was a constitutional amendment that no treaty could override.
Cardenal and her group began a national campaign for a constitutional amendment that would "defend the right to life from conception."
They passed the first hurdle when about half of the country's legislators voted for the amendment. But for the amendment to be enshrined in the constitution, it had to be ratified by a two-thirds majority in the next parliamentary period.
But then an election was called and a significant number of pro-life legislators lost their seats to socialists. Pro-lifers felt sure the amendment was doomed.
"We thought it was going to be impossible to get it, but we said we have to try. We have to do our best," said Cardenal.
Pro-lifers immediately ramped-up their efforts, calling for a national prayer campaign. The spiritual battle reached its height during the last three days of the legislative period for that year...
What happened next shocked everyone.
"When the time came for the vote, the first one who spoke was a socialist woman who said: 'I'm going to give my vote as a woman and as a medical doctor for the constitutional amendment."
"After that, there was no vote against it," said Cardenal to applause.
"We could not believe [it]. It was a miracle."
In the last issue I included part of an article about the dwindling number of auschwitzes in Montana. A reader said I should have included the whole article. Here’s the omitted begriming:
Taking a page from liberal activists concerned with "food deserts" in America s inner cities, it seems abortion rights absolutists are taking a rhetorical test drive with the arid metaphor for areas lacking many abortion clinics.
"There is a nearly 1,200-mile-wide desert of abortion providers stretching from the western boarder of Idaho to the eastern boarders of North and South Dakota," the Daily Beast’s Robin Marty whines in her April 14 story, "America’s Abortion-Free Zone Grows."
“Montana used to be an oasis in that abortion desert, with four clinics in four different cities offering both surgical and medication abortion options, but not anymore.”
Susan Cahill, a physician’s assistant, provided abortions in Montana for decades, through fire-bombings and lawsuits, but is now no longer practicing. After learning that the building that housed her clinic had been bought and her lease was not being renewed, Cahill moved to a new building this February. Three weeks later, that new clinic was broken into and vandalized beyond repair. (tbc)
For back issues of this newsletter go to skyp1.blogspot.com
To send money to the federal Prisoners, those with eight digits after their names, make out a postal money order to the Prisoner’s name and number. Then send it to Federal Bureau of Prisons, PO Box 474701, Des Moines, IA 50947-0001.
Ask the non-feds how they may receive money – check, money order, etc. It varies by state.
Receipt of this excellent missive notwithstanding, if you wish to be excluded from such blessings in the future, simply advise me.