Tuesday, June 09, 2009

Abortion is Murder, July, 2009, 7-3

Formerly Stop the Killing of Young People (skyp) and soon, perhaps, Stop Killing Preemies

July, 2009, Vol. 7, No. 3
PO Box 7424, Reading, PA 19603
Phone – cell -- 610-809-3388, machine -- 610-396-0332
Email – johndunk@ptd.net
Web – skyp1.blogspot.com
Circulation – 33`
John Dunkle, Editor

Abortion is Murder, a weak, pathetic response to baby murder, is sent out at least once a month. If the gestapo hasn’t jailed you for defending the innocent realistically, you either have to tell me you want it or go to the website. Faxes and emails are free but snail-mail is free only for POC’s, $100 for others.
Because I believe we should use every legitimate means, including force, in our attempt to protect those being tortured to death, I want to hear from people who’ve been forceful. I’d also like to hear from those who disagree with me.

Prisoners of Christ:
1. Evans, Paul Ross 83230-180, USP McCreary, P.O. Box 3000, Pine Knot, KY 42635
2. Gibbons, Linda - Vanier WDC, 655 Martin St., P.O. Box 1040, Milton, ON, Canada L9T 5E6
3. Griffin, Michael 310249, Okaloosa Correctional Institution, Crestview FL 32539-6708 9/11
4. Howard, Peter Andrew 57760-097, FCI, Box 900, Safford, AZ 85546
5. Jordi, Stephen 70309-004, FCI P.O. Box 33, Terre Haute IN 47802 6/30
6. Knight, Peter CRN 158589, Port Philip Prison, P.O. Box 376, Laverton, Victoria, Australia (new)
7. Kopp, James 11761-055, USP Canaan, 3057 Easton Tpk., Waymart, PA 18472 (new)
8. McMenemy, David Robert 08168-030, FCI Elkton, P.O. Box 10, Lisbon, OH 44432
9. Richardson, Alonzo Lee 12898-021, PO Box 474701, Des Moines, IA 50947
10. Roeder, Scott, Sedgwick County Jail, 141 West Elm, Wichita KS 67203
11. Rudolph, Eric 18282-058 US Pen. Max, Box 8500, Florence CO 81226-8500
12. Shannon, Rachelle 59755-065, FCI Dublin Unit A, 5701 8th St., Camp Parks, Dublin CA 94568 3/31
13. Smart, Leland 07321-040, CAO 801, College Rd., S.E., Grand Rapids, MI 49503
14. Waagner, Clayton Lee 17258-039, United States Penitentiary, P.O. Box 1000, Lewisburg PA 17837 8/25
15. Weiler Jr., Robert F. 39385-037,FCC-PET (SHU), P.O. Box 100, Petersburg, VA 23804 (new)
16. Whitaker, Vincent , FCI, Box 699, Estill SC 29918

The Lord has asked people to make sacrifices related to opposing abortion which all but a handful have had too weak a heart to make. And they’ve looked for any pretense they could conjure up to claim that the sacrifice wasn’t required. They even deluded themselves, as people often do, into “believing” the pretense was real. When they get what they’ll get, they’ll fully deserve it. Peter Knight

Paul Ross Evans’ story continues:

Abortion and homosexual practices tend to reduce the size of the population. It is not difficult to see how the enemy can benefit from drastically reducing the number of subjects under their control. Their two aims — first, to strategically disassemble any set of values that would deem their New American Socialist Empire to be evil, and second, to reduce the size of the population — complement each other in many ways. The mergings of how they work together are endless, as are the enemies of Christianity and of its future.
As I began to contemplate taking action, I had a lot of free time on my hands. During the days, I searched for employment, cleaned house, washed dishes, cleaned laundry, groomed the yard expertly ... and read a great deal. I visited our local public library frequently, spending days there, reading, checking out books, and accessing the Internet. At home I browsed the Internet as well.
During this period of intense research I was driven by a great inquisitiveness. I encountered numerous organizations which either directly threatened the future of Christendom, or violently killed innocent children. I grouped these various organizations into categories, and began to realistically contemplate targeting one or several of them with terrorism.
I began to be consumed with an overwhelming motivation to attack specific entities with mail bombs. Through the use of mail bombs, I desired to accomplish several objectives:
1. to generate media attention toward Christianity's dissatisfaction with the offending parties
2. to display Christianity's initiative to fight for the lives of the innocent
3. to coerce the government of the United States to renounce its present agenda — as unveiled as it is — in abandoning Christianity as its predominant moral influence
4. to confound the agents and employees of the United States government
5. to kill those targeted
Determined to keep any collateral damage to a bare minimum, I chose my targets scrupulously. As I compiled a list of potential targets, I focused only on those having addresses such that minimum numbers of non-targeted individuals, especially children, would be anywhere nearby. Targets who stood out from the rest and seemed to beg for retribution were those who generated disgrace toward the morally upright, and those who operated with flamboyance, arrogance, and smugness.
At the time, I possessed very little knowledge concerning the improvised construction of explosives, improvised incendiary powder mixes, and various triggering mechanisms (especially for mail bomb devices). I did, however, have a basic knowledge of chemistry, and had even created some small explosive devices in my mischievous late teen years.
I also had little or no money, and lacked the resources necessary to obtain high-explosive materials. I became partial to the disconnection of mail bombs, in that, I felt that I could operate for long periods of time, gain some ground, and generally aggravate adversaries, all the while avoiding detection. I also desired to confound and irritate federal agents for a prolonged period of time.
I made several purchases at local hardware and retail grocery stores. I ferociously researched the Internet, and experimented with various items. I began to comprehend and fashion a basic design for an essential loop switch anti-tamper mail bomb detonation system. My design was rudimentary, but efficient.
From there, I threw myself into a crash course to learn many different chemical recipes for improvised incendiary powder mixes, their ingredient ratios, and how to purchase or otherwise obtain the materials needed to construct them. I was continually drawn toward using potassium-based oxidizers, which could be mixed with different fuels. Then, at this point, I began to research secondary propellants and how gas and liquid propellants and explosives would perform with incendiary pipe bombs of a large scale.
I figured that it would be best to experiment on live targets. My "figuring" concerning this was not merely an educated guess. The United States government will use any means necessary to get their man in these cases ... using not only legal means, but also those that are illegal under their own laws.
If the bombs failed to detonate — whether I killed, maimed, frightened, or if the bomb did not detonate or merely "smoked" a great deal — it was extremely evident to me that the United States government would jail me for decades. Their present liberal-based laws cater to these types of offenses, and the media machine would convict me long before I would be brought to trial. This can clearly be seen from the length of my present sentence, even though no one was killed by any of my explosive devices. The current "finality" of my present incarceration is in itself a statement by the United States government that any disturbance of the venues it protects will not be tolerated by it in any shape or form.
So I created a device, my first. As I mentioned before, when I was young I had created some explosive devices, most of which were used to destroy mailboxes. But this was the first time that I had designed an explosive device for the purpose of killing a human being — for any reason, much less to further moral, religious, or political views. I purchased a plain cardboard box and loaded it down with my first design.
Many thoughts swam through my mind that day, but the conviction to act out against The Enemy was overpowering. The truth of the matter is that I loved this work. My times of bomb making were to me times when I felt that I was doing what I had been born to do — to be a thorn in the side of the Evil One. I felt that something had to be done to slow the progressive decay of this country, and its leniency in dealing with the occult, pornographers, and abortion on demand.
My first target was the First Church of Satan in San Francisco, California. Initially, I debated sending the device to Radio City Music Hall. But after more research (being from the South, I didn't know much about New York) I discovered that events were held at Radio City Music Hall commonly, and that it was often frequented by children and other people that I did not wish to target. So I chose another P. O. Box in San Francisco, in the hope that the recipient would take the package back into "the belly of the beast," an office building housing only Satanists.
I wrote the address as it was listed on the "Church" 's website, a P. O. Box, and addressed it "care of Blanche Barton," a member of Anton LaVey's immediate family. As a return address, I wrote "The Temple of Set," which is the name of yet another Satanist organization operating in the United States.
I wired the initial charge, set to detonate upon opening through my loop switch detonator, and as a safety precaution I left a customary "safe/arm" component in order to make the bomb "dead" until moments before I sealed the box and mailed it.

Dear Friends, I have a new address: Rachelle Shannon 59755-065, FCI Waseca Unit A, P.O. Box 1731, Waseca MN 56093.
Dublin packed me out with the first group that left there for here. They took me to Travis AFB Friday, March 13, but instead of putting me on the plane with everyone else, they took me from the van to a bus going back to Dublin. I cried almost all the way back. Now I think it's good that I didn't come with the first group, because I would have probably just gone to work at UNICOR, sewing, without really thinking about it. Now I'm planning to do VT courses in horticulture and “greenhouse specialist,” which sound so much more interesting! Each course is 9 months to 2 years long. I may miss the UNICOR pay eventually, but it doesn't take as much money to live on here.
When I got back to Dublin, it took 4 days to get my property back, and I missed about a week of work.
They also packed me out with the second group that left Dublin April 10. That time they didn't take me out of Dublin. I got my property back that same day, got my bed back again, and missed another week of work. Also they didn't let me take as much of my personal property. I was told I was not going to get to go, and that there was nothing I could do about it but get a lawyer. So I got commissary again and prepared to stay. I started wondering if I was wrong in thinking it was God's will for me to go to MN. I didn't think so, and remembered when I was trying to go to Dublin and it took long, that it was a matter of God's timing.
It turned out to be good that I missed that trip! Some of them got here a week and a half after we did! The others who left OK City sooner were on a plane that broke down. They got stuck in a terrible place in Chicago. A bus picked them up, but it broke down too. They got here April 17, but were kept in the SHU over the weekend. They got out Mon. and we got here the next day.
Dublin had me on the call-out to pack out again April 17. My case manager said she could not designate me back to Dublin. The Lt. said I wasn't going though. I talked to the warden at breakfast the 17th. He said the marshals in OK City wouldn't take me until they had room to keep me in "the bucket" (hole). [Probably some pro-abort there trying to cause problems for me]
The warden said I was really going though, and that it was a special trip not going through OK City. I told him I'd been through OK City at least six times with no problems. He said he didn't understand it or agree with it, and that I was going from a low security facility to another low security facility.
When they packed me out Fri. the 17th, officers said the special trip was being made just for me. At first I thought they were joking, but they weren't. Wow. I decided Dublin treated me better than I had ever realized. I left with good relationships with many inmates, and no enemies--mucb better than when I first got there. There were still some pro-aborts, but we got along fine.
March 31 (my birthday) a flyer was put out at Dublin about a Newsboys concert the next evening (DVD). I said it was my birthday present from God. It was great.
The officer at Dublin woke me up at 1:15 am Sun. the 19th of April to leave, along with 24 others. The first part of our trip was a bus ride to Los Angeles. We got a nice Lt. and other officers, and they didn't put leg shackles on us, just belly chains and handcuffs. They also got us McDonald's food. We spent Sun. night in L.A., and they got us up at 1:30 am Mon. morning. We took a bus to Victorville (2 hrs. in shackles), then flew straight to Indiana. It was probably afternoon then. We got on a bus and drove all the way to Waseca still in our shackles. We had 40 of us then, and got here at 3:30 am Apr. 21.
The unit I started out in was dorms, but not too bad. Now I'm in a unit waiting to move into a 4-person room. We're in the basement now, and it's not anything I'd want to live in for any length of time. The rooms aren't bad though, upstairs. Ours is open dorm, and crowded.
MN is beautiful at present. The air is fresh and nice. The water is good to drink. We have lots of trees and grass outside. The track is huge and beautiful, and there are many indoor recreation rooms and games. We can order a lot of crafts, but I don't think I will, at least not now.
Two days after we got here, some of us got job assignments. Mine was pipefitting. The crew I was on did welding, but I mainly just measured, hauled, cleaned up, and painted. Starting May 4 my job is Horticulture. We have 3 or 4 greenhouses, and I'd like to take “greenhouse specialist.”
There's no air conditioning here, so summer could be pretty bad. I got a fan from commissary and a big jug for ice and ice water.
The other negatives are that we have to wear boots a lot, so we have blisters, and we have to wear a T-shirt under our shirt and both have to be tucked in. That will be hot in summer too. Mostly things are much better here. The beds are more comfortable. The food is better. Commissary too. We have more and better clothes. The windows open, which should help during summer.
If anyone would be willing and able to order some Christian books for me, please let me know. Also, if you have used paperbacks, they can be sent in a non-padded envelope (no bubble plastic either), with "authorized – 2 paperback books" (or whatever). Many prisoners like Christian fiction, even
some who aren't Christians. Wal-Mart sells little Heartsong Presents books, which are Christian romance books, and popular, also.
I'd love to hear from you, so please write when you can!
Jesus bless ya! Love in Him, Shelley
And now,bddddddmmm, I begin Chapter 2 of Abortion: The Irrepressible Conflict by Eric Rudolph

We have seen in the writings of spiritists, feminists, and socialists a tolerance for abortion was emerging in the middle of the nineteenth century. As these ideas evolved over the next one hundred years, a new regime of truth seized power in the West. Roe v Wade was not, as Blackmun claimed, a return to precedent. It came as a direct result of this ideological revolution.
Central to this new regime of truth, which I have labeled “egalitarianism,” was a desire to break unequivocally with Western tradition and Christianity. Christianity was the core of Western culture; it had provided the touchstone for all thought up to the 1800s. However far a thinker veered from Christian orthodoxy, he remained tethered to its core beliefs, one of which is the belief that the universe as a whole has a purpose and that humans exist as part of such an end-directed universe. Since the seventeenth century thinkers such as Thomas Hobbes and Michel de Montaigne were building systems of thought that challenged many of the theological assumptions of the Christian worldview. But they had always reserved a place for the Christian perspective, or at least treated it with respect. Then in the writings of Darwin, Marx, Mill, Feuerbach, Renan, Comte, a new universe was being charted, one without God, without organic culture, without meaning and purpose. Life was explained on strictly material terms. The universe had no purpose and was the result of random material processes. Humans, likewise, had no particular purpose and were merely the result of random forces of natural selection, said Darwin. Human culture was merely a superstructure built upon economic conditions, said Marx. And human society had evolved from a backward theological stage, to a less backward metaphysical stage, but had finally entered a modern scientific stage, said ComtĂ©. For those like Marx who combined egalitarian ideals with this materialist conception of the world, social reform took on a whole new meaning.
Christianity had taught free will, that man had a unique soul and was free to control his environment through good and bad choices. Not true, said the egalitarian, man was the product of his environment. Actually, man is simply a material object in a world of material objects, all working according to determined patterns of cause and effect. Man is a slave to material forces, he has no soul and no free will. To solve social problems, one had to manipulate the material forces just so. Thus arrived the so-called social sciences, and social engineering. Poverty, crime, war—egalitarians believed that all these problems could be engineered out of society once and for all. These things were not a part of man’s fallen nature, as Christianity had argued. Man was a victim of material conditions. Change those conditions, and man would change.
The materialists said man was a biological machine, a computer programmed by his environment. The implications were that all men were basically the same. Each of our environments has either been tilted for or against us; making some rich, and others poor; some educated, other ignorant; some law abiding, others criminals. The systems of hierarchy that are seen in all societies everywhere, said the egalitarians, are the result of tilted material forces. And those who were blessed with a favorable tilt in the beginning have perpetuated those hierarchies in their own self-interest, thereby keeping most of humanity on a tilted playing field. Therefore, these hierarchies are responsible for all the social injustices in the world. To end social injustice, one had to level the material conditions. But in order to do this, the social engineers first had to remove the evil hand of the hierarchies that are keeping the unequal tilt. Egalitarianism thus organized itself as a revolutionary force intent on purging the bourgeois tilters.
While Christians waited for Christ’s kingdom of Heaven to come, the egalitarians cut loose of the Bible and sought to erect a literal kingdom of heaven on earth. Conservatives accepted the social inequalities as organic and the result of the unequal distribution of natural attributes such as will, talent and intelligence. Egalitarians viewed inequalities as the source of evil. Classical liberalism used reason to soften those organic inequalities with reform measures designed to protect the individual from the arbitrary abuse of the powerful and give him equality of opportunity. But egalitarians argued that even with equality of opportunity the ultimate distribution of wealth and power in society will still be based upon the unequal distribution of natural abilities. Meritocracy, they believed, was just aristocracy at its beginnings. The few with abilities soon monopolize wealth and power and pass it on to their heirs, creating another form of hierarchy. Therefore egalitarians set out to smash all inequalities and create equality of condition—the classless society.
Because hierarchies create and maintain high cultures, culture itself was the ultimate enemy. Egalitarians went after the cultural sources of inequality. Ancient wisdom teaches that human nature is inclined to selfishness and anti-social behavior, and is therefore in need of correction. Only through the correction of religion, education and law can the child become an adult in society. In Christian culture this selfish, corrupt human nature is attributed to Original Sin. Christianity sought to break the chains of Original Sin and correct the heart of the individual, hoping that once corrected he would carry the gospel ethic into his social life. Believing that human nature was basically good, egalitarians denied the need for correction. Material conditions made men bad or good. If a man was bad, his conditions were bad. Make his conditions good and he would be good. Christians sought to change hearts; egalitarians sought to change socio-economic conditions. Take wealth from those who have it (“Haves”) and redistribute it to those who don’t (“Have Nots”), said Marx. When once society has an established “Fair” system where citizens contribute according to their abilities and receive according to their needs, utopia will be possible.

This new perspective has produced misery on a scale never before seen in history. The 50 million unborn children killed through abortion in America are just a fraction of the victims of this pernicious ideology. Without a doubt most of the people who tolerate abortion are not agenda-driven. Nevertheless, those who articulated the “pro-choice” position, made it into law and who now maintain the Roe regime are card-carrying egalitarians. (tbc)

Dear John, The Supreme Court of the United States was established in 1789. For its first 100 years, the Court operated on the basis of legal review. Legal review meant the Court had to
eview any case presenting a question of legal merit. This is the Court Americans still think we have. But the Judiciary Act of 1891 initiated a radical change to our legal system. Also known as the Evarts Act, it introduced the practice of certiorari (sir-she-uh-RARE-e). Rather than being required to honor the duty to hear appeals based on legal merit as it had previously done, for the first time in history the Evarts Act gave the Court discretionary power to reject certain appeals even if they had legal merit. The Judiciary Act of 1925, also known as the Certiorari Act, sweepingly extended this radical new discretionary power to all appeals presented to the Court. Under certiorari practice, the Court no longer operates on the basis of legal review. Instead, it operates on the basis of literary review. Literary review means the Court is writing a journal of law review, rather than taking cases as they come on the basis of legal merit.
In effect, rather than having to honor appeals as they come on the basis of legal merit as the Framers of the Constitution intended, the Certiorari Act gave the Court discretion to hear appeals on a let-us-decide basis; for, now the Court is allowed to say to petitioners, “Let us decide if we want to hear your appeal, whether it has legal merit or not.” In doing so, the Court shifted from legal review to literary review.
To appreciate the distinction between legal and literary review, consider this scenario: The trial court cheated you on the basis of plain error, and the appeals court ignored it. The nature of the error involves laws, rights, or technicalities that are well-trodden in the literature. Well-trodden means the Court has already gone over the underlying issue many times, and you can find it anywhere in the literature. For example, the error in your case is so plain that any first year law student would be aware of it immediately from reading the first chapter of a text on constitutional law.
So, given that the nature of the error in your case is plainly evident and well-trodden in the literature, does this make it more likely or less likely that your case will be given review by the Supreme Court? If the Court operates on the basis of legal review, then it makes it more likely to the point of certainty that review will be granted, because your case presents with obvious legal merit, so the Court must rule on it. But under the Certiorari Act the answer is the opposite: Because the Court now operates on the basis of literary review, it is almost certain that the Court will NOT grant your case review. Why? Simply put, since the issues presented in your case have already been well-trodden in the literature, granting review will add nothing NEW to the literature.
Instead, the Court today is looking for 1) new questions, 2) discord among lower courts, and 3) “big wedding” cases. (Big wedding cases are spare-no-expense cases involving big companies or important people.) The reason why poor prisoners are not aware of this is because the Court has not come clean. Americans still believe the Court operates on the basis of legal review, as it did for the first 100 years.
But, in very small part, more recently the Court has slowly and quietly started coming clean about the change. For example, Supreme Court Rule 10 now adds the following disclaimer: “A petition for a writ of certiorari is rarely granted when the asserted error consists of erroneous factual findings or the misapplication of a properly stated rule of law.” Translation: “Sorry you were wronged; unfortunately, your case will add nothing new to the literature.”
Why is it difficult for the Court to come out in the open and be completely clear about this? For one thing, the Court uses the misunderstanding to its wrongful advantage, because the Court is still allowed to masquerade in the eyes of the People as something it once was but no longer is. Another reason is that the Court’s certiorari practice, if revealed, would look truly absurd when it comes to the cases of poor prisoners. Why? First, a poor prisoner is not going to have a big wedding case, where the Court’s law clerks are delighted by the extravagance of the proceedings and the social distinction of the personalities involved. Second, a poor prisoner, left to his or her own wits in a jail cell, does not have access to a Westlaw computer terminal to search for similar cases throughout the land, to show, for example, that “a United States court of appeals has entered a decision in conflict with the decision of another United States court of appeals on the same important matter.” Supreme Court Rule 10(a). And, third, the question presented for review is what-it-is; whether it is a “new” question or not is beyond the prisoner’s control. Thus, if the Court were to come completely clean about the nature of its certiorari practice, the Court would look truly absurd.
The deceit takes its toll on prisoners in a number of ways. First, in forma pauperis cases (poor prisoner cases) are much less likely to be granted review, percentage-wise, than cases paid for by people who can afford them. Second, adding insult to injury, another is that the Court makes prisoners jump through hoops to present petitions in conformity with the Supreme Court Rules, wholly unaware that despite their efforts the Court will almost certainly NOT grant their cases review, precisely BECAUSE their cases present legally clear examples “of erroneous factual findings or the misapplication of a properly stated rule of law.” Supreme Court Rule 10. (It sounds like a contradiction, until you realize the Court is no longer conducting LEGAL review; instead, under certiorari practice, the Court is conducting LITERARY review, and hearing your case will add nothing NEW to the literature.) Third, and this is especially going to affect you if you are a small fish in the frying pan, the Court’s certiorari practice enables lower courts to confidently disregard well-trodden principles of law, since the almost certain outcome is that the Court will look the other way and deny review.
As a historical note, technically the term “appeal” means the Court must hear your case if it has legal merit, whether the Court wants to or not, as it once did before the Evarts and Certiorari Acts. In other words, true appeal means review is mandated. But, with certiorari, review is merely discretionary; in other words, the Court can decide to hear or reject your petition for review on the basis of let-us-decide, regardless of its legal merits. Importantly, the fact that we now refer to petitions for discretionary review as “appeals” shows that the American public has not yet fully appreciated these radical changes. In other words, true appeal means the Court must rule on your case if it has legal merit, whether it wants to or not. In contrast, discretionary review means the Court can deny your case without any reason. Under the Certiorari Act, the Congress still allowed true appeals for a few categories of cases; but historians note that, even in those cases, the Court interpreted the Act to allow it to skirt its mandated responsibilities, instead of acting on a discretionary basis, at least in part. Finally, with the Judicial Improvements and Access to Justice Act of 1988, the Congress eliminated most categories of true appeals. So now the Court claims sweeping powers of discretion to ignore your case even despite its conspicuous legal merit.
Put another way, today’s Court is not focused on legal merit. Instead, it looks for literary merit and big wedding cases. Sure, out of the blue, from time to time, the Court, at its discretion, may hear a relatively inauspicious case from a poor prisoner; but only so it can say it heard one of those cases, as if to legitimize the Court. Sincerely, Cal.

So, President Obama is outraged over the shooting and killing of Tiller, is he? Yet, he supports the killing of children while they are being born, the barbaric and excruciating painful partial birth abortion. And, get this, Obama even supports killing children by denying them treatment if they survive an abortion.

Of course, Obama would be outraged that one of his kind would be killed, but not a whimper when thousands of children are killed by Tiller every year while they are being born.
The fact that the killing took place in church is ironic. One has to wonder why Tiller the Killer was even allowed in church. He should have been excommunicated until he repents his sins of killing little children.
When I first heard of this news, my only thought was that now children will live because of the death of Tiller. Sure, other doctors will take up the slack, BUT, I'm sure that not all of the slack will be taken up and children WILL LIVE WHO WERE SENTENCED TO DEATH.

So, is this a good thing that Tiller was shot to death and many children will live because of it?
It can be compared to war time when, say, German soldiers were shot who would have killed our soldiers. But, no war has been declared against baby killing, you say. It is legal. Ah, but in the eyes of God, is it legal?

You be the judge -- Tiller's life, or the lives of thousands of children? Remember, "Thou Shalt Not Kill," applies equally to the killing of Tiller and children in the womb and partially out of the womb and completely out of the womb. Are you reading this, Obama? Frank Joseph M.D.

Tiller the Killer’s procedure with a gun has us prolifers hopping mad at one another. Here’s one example:

----Dear Steve Lefemine, Prolife missionary and Dir. Columbia Christians for Life, You left out a word. When you said the murder of george tiller must be condemned. You left out the word not as in the murder of george tiller must not be condemned.
And after that mistake i would ask you take your condemnation of our hardworking hero and shove it up your cowardly ass, please. Sincerely, Tobra Potter

----You may disagree with my position, Tobra, and that is fine, but your foolish profane language is unacceptable. There are proper ways of using force. Vigilante execution is not one of them.
Do not send me any more e-mails until you have repented of your foul language. If you can't express yourself without personal insults and profanity, then I am not interested in what you have to say.
Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks (Luke 6:45). There is something not right with your profanity, something you have demonstrated before. Your repeated use of foul language is a heart issue (Col. 3:8, Eph. 4:29). Please take me off your e-mail list immediately. thank you, Steve Lefemine

----fuck off, Sincerely Tobra Potter, Sinner saved by grace

----Remove me from your list immediately. Second request.
I do not wish to receive any further e-mails from you.
Steve Lefemine

PS I hope you are saved Tobra, at times, you certainly do not express yourself as one who is.

And here’s a second:

----The Kansas Coalition for Life Unequivocally Condemns the Shooting of Abortionist George Tiller.
Although at the time of this writing, it is not known who killed Abortionist Tiller, we do know for certain that this crime was NOT the work of any true proLife person. A true proLife person respects human life as a gift from God, and leaves all life and death decisions to God Himself.
This killing, if it is in any way connected to a genuine proLife group, has the potential to set back the proLife movement by 20 years or more.
The Kansas Coalition for Life asks all reporters and commentators to make a clear distinction between lawless thugs who act on their own accord, and the good proLife people who obey the law, seeking a change in abortion laws via peaceful means and the legislative process.
It is completely misleading, for the media to imply, in any way that this is the work of the proLife movement. We urge the media to report responsibly and truthfully in this regard.
KCFL would have much preferred that Abortionist Tiller follow the footsteps of Dr. Bernard Nathanson, a former abortionist who is now one of America ’s most prominent and effective proLife leaders.
In 1993 Shelly Shannon, who had no connection whatsoever to any proLife organization, brought shame on all proLife groups by her stupid action, when she attempted to kill abortionist Tiller as he entered his abortion facility on East Kellogg Drive at Bleckley Street in Wichita.
Tiller’s death comes at a time when all recent polling data shows that the peaceful proLife message has the support of a majority of American voters. We hope this terrible news does not hurt the steady progress that the proLife movement has made by peaceful legal means over the years.
And may our God keep & sustain you this week

----Coward, imbecile! What is in Kansas water that makes you and Troy write such stupid remarks? Who would want to associate themselves with you "poor lifers”? I hope the Pro-life Movement dies and is not merely set back 20 years. You are already 37 years behind. Go ahead and weep over the grave of "Tiller the Killer." I will save my tears for the babies.
dan holman, Missionaries to the Pre-born, Iowa

Even though there are about as many killers in this country as protectors, killers have nothing to do with whether or not the killing of the young remains legal. It is we protectors, prolifers, who will decide that, and it is our souls, far more than the killers’, which will be judged according to our response to this holocaust, alone.

Air Space Moral Theology
By James Kopp

Occasionally, another optimizing topic which would show up in the over-the-road Chataquas S&H had was moral theology or conscience.
Some things only seem to come out in long discussions over-the-road, things which usually fall victim to the fast-food, compulsive, mindless entertainment society we live in.
A mere century ago, hassles like this would routinely be hashed out in long winters by the simple rhythm of no-electric light culture which would cultivate proper meditation, and even recollection, and mirabile dictu, true contemplation, a la Job 38.
But here we are in our accursed Daytimer 24-hour news cycle maelstrom of vapidity, and wisdom goes begging, where once she was enthroned, regal (Proverbs).
It was Stacey who started it.
“Call me hopelessly middle-class,” she said, as miles and miles of “flyover” terrain slipped by, “but I keep thinking of that building manager coming out and spending $ and labor to clean our stuff off of his building.”
“Is that what you’re thinking? It’s his building?” shot back Hutch, the lively one.
“Listen, Sweetie, who built that switch-house, huh? Did he?”
“Well, when you put it that way...”
“I’ll put it another way. Why build a switch-house?”
“That’s easy,” Stacey came back, “to put a switch in.”
“And who runs the switch?”
“Um,. Well, we do. “’We do’ is correct. Who made the money to pay for the next switch we built?”
“We did!” shouted Stacey, the bright pupil, “not management, not management.”
“Even if it weren’t so,” Hutch added, “God owns that airspace and that footprint, and not the gol-dang Bell.”
Stacey mused on this...

Next time: Optimize your operation. Battle Stories.

He Waits For Me
He Waits For Me
He Waits For Me, alone.

Will I Be There?
Will I Be There?
Will I Be There?

Cadets: Our Lord beckons us in Quiet Quiet Time. Let’s not be AWOL

Obama: Abortionist More Important Than Murdered Marine

It is very simple. A person who was involved in thousands of abortions each year, was murdered. Five hours after the murder, President Obama issued a press release nationwide .

A Marine was murdered by a Muslim militant, another almost killed, and it took the White House two days to issue a press release, not nationwide, but to an AP office in the backwoods of Arkansas.
Obama knew the murderer of the Marine was a militant Muslim, a jihadist, yet he made no mention of it in the release. He did not note the numerous arrests and convictions of Muslims in this nation attempting to bomb and kill American military. But, he was concerned about the abortionist.
The contrast between Obama's statements is striking: He's "deeply saddened" by the murder of a U.S. soldier, but "shocked and outraged" by the murder of an abortionist? The murder of a U.S. soldier is a "senseless" act of violence but the murder of an abortionist is a "heinous" act of violence?

It's almost as if Obama views the shooting in Arkansas as an impersonal tragedy--a "man-caused disaster" if you will--while the shooting in Kansas was a wicked crime, committed by a man who had the choice between good and evil--and chose the latter."

The media and the President have made the abortionist killer of thousands a martyr and the marines serving his country, an afterthought.

This is the change he told us about--approve crooks and ethically challenged into the government, promote bigots to the Supreme Court and disrespect the military. Obama is the change most of us expected. Davis, Ayres and Wright must be proud. Our Founding Fathers would be horrified, are you? Dr. Frank