Thursday, July 30, 2009

Abortion is Murder, September, 2009, 7-6

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

September, 2009, Vol. 7, No. 6
PO Box 7424, Reading, PA 19603
Phone – cell--484-706-4375 (new), machine -- 610-396-0332
Email –
Web –
Circulation – 45`
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 the website. Faxes and emails are free but snail-mail is free only for POC’s, $20 for others.
Because I believe we should use every legitimate means, including force (although “Dear Mr. Dunkle” has me thinking), 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. Hill, Paul, graduated summa cum laude, 3/9/03
5. Howard, Peter Andrew 57760-097, FCI, Box 900, Safford, AZ 85546
6. Jordi, Stephen 70309-004, FCI P.O. Box 33, Terre Haute IN 47802 6/30
7 Knight, Peter CRN 158589, Port Philip Prison, P.O. Box 376, Laverton, Victoria, Australia (new)
8. Kopp, James 11761-055, USP Canaan, 3057 Easton Tpk., Waymart, PA 18472 (new)
9. McMenemy, David Robert 08168-030, FCI Elkton, P.O. Box 10, Lisbon OH 44432
10. Richardson, Alonzo Lee 12898-021, PO Box 474701, Des Moines, IA 50947
11. Roeder, Scott, Sedgwick County Jail, 141 West Elm, Wichita, KS 67203
12. Rudolph, Eric 18282-058 US Pen. Max, Box 8500, Florence CO 81226-8500
13. Shannon, Rachelle 59755-065, FCI Dublin Unit A, 5701 8th St., Camp Parks, Dublin CA 94568 3/31
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 - Delaware Hall, Box 1000, 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

More of Chapter 2 of Abortion, the Irrepressible Conflict, by Eric Rudolph:

“In view of all this,” wrote Blackmun, “we do not agree that, by adopting one theory of life, Texas may override the rights of the pregnant woman that are at stake.” Although Harry wouldn’t let the states adopt a “theory of life,” that is exactly what he did, despite denying it. “We need not resolve when life begins, when those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus.”21
Roe explicitly adopts a theory of life, one that refuses to consider a fetus’ right to life and a state’s belief that such a right ought to be protected, as states in the Western world had been doing for a thousand years. Acknowledging that there were divergent beliefs about when life begins, Blackmun was not at all uncertain about giving a woman the power to destroy the life inside her, a power the law had never given a woman before. As Richard Epstein said, “It is simple fiat power that gives his (Blackmun) position its legal effect.”22 Elliot Silverstein, a supporter of abortion, put it even better: “If the Court really means, when it says it need not decide when life begins, that it need not recognize the State’s valid interest in instilling a respect for life, then Roe is, indeed, a dangerous precedent.”23 If as, Blackmun claimed, there was such confusion about when life begins, then why not leave such a matter to the Legislature to decide? And why adopt the three-trimester framework?
In bizarre fashion, Blackmun proceeded to formulate a construct for legal abortion that resembled the work of a city commissioner fashioning an ordinance:

(a) For the stage prior to approximately the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman’s physician.
(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting the interest of the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in a way that is reasonably related to maternal health.
(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the state in promoting interests in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment for the life or health of the mother.24

Former Attorney General Archibald Cox pointed out that such a construct was a house of cards: “The failure to confront the issue in principled terms leaves the opinion to read like a set of hospital rules and regulations, whose validity is good enough this week but will be destroyed with new statistics upon the medical risks of child-birth and abortion, or new advances in providing for the separate existence of a fetus.”25

The three part formula was pure subterfuge. Knowing that the differences between a late term fetus and a newborn infant were negligible, Blackmun used his construct to distance himself from accusations of infanticide. He did this knowing that the construct’s supposed protection for late term fetuses was a charade. On the same day that Roe was decided, the Court ruled on another abortion case, Doe v Bolton. Doe and Roe, said Blackmun, should be “read together.”26 Blackmun had said that in the last of his three part formula the state could intervene to “regulate and even proscribe abortion,” except in those cases where it is necessary to preserve “the life or health of the mother.”27 Roe, however, didn’t define “health of the mother.” Doe v Bolton was designed to give this definition.
As it turns out the Court had a very Holmsian definition of “health”:

The medical judgment maybe exercised in light of all factors—physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and a women’s age—relevant to the well-being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health. This allows the attending physician the room he needs to make his best medical judgment.28

Roe and Doe became the twin pillars of abortion-on-demand. These decisions made abortion untouchable before the twelfth week. After the twelfth week the states could impose some minor restrictions, but if a woman could find a doctor to say that carrying the unwanted child to term might threaten her physical, psychological, or financial “health,” abortion was legal right up to the last months before the birth of the child.
Two cases in the seventies strengthened the pillars. The Danforth decision (1976) brushed aside the third trimester distinction. Forbidding the states from using the third term division (24 weeks) for proscribing abortions, Danforth substituted “viability” as the only test for when states could restrict abortion. Like Blackmun’s definition of “health,” viability was vague and subjective. One physician may say one baby is viable, while another may deem the same child unviable. Finally, Colautti (1979) made it clear that viability was a matter for the mother and her physician to decide.
Today, abortion on demand is legal in every state in the Union. It kills approximately 1.5 million children annually. Currently, about 90 percent of abortions are done in the first trimester (12 weeks), using a vacuum aspirator. Second trimester abortions (12 to 24 weeks) account for 10 percent of the total. In the 70s saline injections into the uterus were preferred. Today, abortionists use a procedure called “Dilation and Extraction” (D & E): In this procedure, the abortionist applies a local anesthetics, dilates the cervix, and basically pulls out the fetus one piece at a time, breaking them off against the two rings of the cervix.
Just last year the Supreme Court upheld the Partial Birth Abortion Ban, which proscribes a type of heinous late term abortion. Even though the ban will cover only 10,000 of the 1.5 million abortions annually, it is the most significant pro-life victory in over thirty-five years of legislation and litigation. Until the ban hundreds of thousands of children met their deaths in the most horrible manner. Abortionists called the procedure “Intact D,” opponents of abortion call it Partial Birth Abortion. A nurse who formerly worked with Dr. Martin Haskell described the procedure before the Senate Judiciary Committee, as performed on a 26 ½ week old child:

Dr. Haskell went in with the forceps and grabbed the baby’s legs and pulled them down into the birth canal. Then he delivered the baby’s body and arms—everything but the head. The doctor kept the head inside the birth canal. The baby’s little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his little feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck a pair of scissors in the back of his head, and the baby’s arms jerked out, like a startled reaction, like a flinch, like a baby does when he thinks he is going to fall. The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the hole, and sucked the baby’s brains out. Now the baby went completely limp. He cut the umbilical cord and delivered the placenta. He threw the baby in a pan, along with the placenta and the instruments he had just used.29 (tbc)

If you can read this without gagging, you were born after 1930.

Jim Kopp’s meditation on the death of his beloved niece Breezy continues:

On the evening before the night she died, she was talking to “someone” (no physical person present) and she told her husband, across the room, that she was worried that she would forget all the things she was being told because “someone” was answering every deep question she had ever had. I’d clean forgotten that months earlier I’d very formally begged Jesus to send her my poor bedraggled guardian angel (. . . he’s gonna get a medal one of these days) and I told Breezy to be sure to ask him anything. Since she knew she was dying and was reconciled to it in some ways, as a surcease of suffering it seems likely to me that that’s why it all happened at the end.
She formerly denounced the Hinduism of her youth and embraced Huichol traditionalism, which does have one creator, healing/purification rituals which acknowledge sin and tribal/clan fealty the likes of which most American Christians are clueless about.
She said she believed Jesus was an indication or sign or example of the love of the Creator for mankind. I wish she could have been more explicit at the end, but, like I say, I’m not in the assurance business, I’m in the Jesus business, and I look to Him for assurance in His timing.
I keep thinking of this scripture, “He who is not against Me is for Me.” If being “not against” the Lord is a virtue, Bree is a saint, especially considering the hidden new-age hostility of her generational cohort.
Thank you so much for your prayers, and us Maccabees readers, let’s continue.
Clay Jr.
In the last days of Breezy’s life, and every day since then, Clay Jr. has started to grow larger and larger in my prayers, and I want to beg you, let’s make him our focus.
Paul ordered us to “pray without ceasing.”
There’s a way to focus on Clay Jr. that way. There is no way to pray more for Clay Jr. without spending more time with the Lord, so, it is not “taking away” from anything substantial. Most of us, in this culture, need more Quiet, Quiet Time. In addition to an hour a day, this Sunday, spend the whole day with the Lord, and tell him you dedicate that day to Clay Jr. Then just listen and relax. Jesus intended the whole day to be devoted to Him. In my humble opinion, malls, movies, and football games don’t count.
I will be praying that if it is appropriate, that Clay Jr. will be looked at by the absolute best rare congenital defects guy in the world. Often, these guys take a case that doesn’t pay just because it’s interesting or unusual, which is certainly Clay Jr.’s case, however tragic. I know because my eye got fixed exactly that way. Not to make it some receding horizon: he may already be at the place of correct diagnosis. It’s just that the best surgeons are sometimes also risk takers where others fear to read. So I’ll be praying for this.
No one, married or single, father or not, should ever repent for having obeyed the clear, obvious, charitable motion of the heart which said: I will try to save that baby and mom.
To do so makes Shelley Shannon and Paul Hill look like dopes, and they are not, but worse, it makes the Lord Himself look like a dope. Sitting in glory, high above the highest heaven, He came down to earth knowing full well that this or that He did would be used as an insult against the Father, but He did it anyway. He jeopardized his “family” for our sake. He descended into the mud to pick us up and incurred almost perpetual insult for His trouble. This is easy for me to say since I have no family of my own. But all the more I admire those with families who stepped up. My work was a piece of cake by contrast.
It is very important not to confuse pain at the cost, with repentance. How much how much, my dear evangelical brothers and sisters, do i love this answer of our brother Frank, when asked, do you regret having chosen the life of poverty? His answer: I have many regrets, but no doubts.
In this sense regret all you want, and I will weep with you, and in my own pathetic, piker way, i will regret i didn’t spend more time with my Breezy during the, oh 32 years of my life when i was busy being “married to my work.” But i have no doubts, and
yes, i’d do it all over again, a thousand, thousand lives i wish i had to spend all over again.
There are two kinds of regrets anyone can have after having lived in this benighted century: I did too much, or i did too little. Which regret would you rather have? And here is the mystery: if we did “too much” with even a modicum of prayer and compassion, the compassion that comes from God, He will fix it. If we work for Him, He carries the workmen’s compensation, no one else. This sounds easy for me to say, but a billion years form now, there is absolutely no evil on earth that will not be cured by a billion years of joy in the presence of God.

Come ye disconsolate, Where ‘ere ye languish
Come to the mercy seat, humble kneel
Here find your heart’s content, here find your soul’s release;
Earth has no pain that Heaven cannot heal.

And do not be found wanting in our happy duty to pray for Clay Jr.’s healing. I’m going to be praying for the best heart-guy in the world to look at him. Then, I will feel more peace, DV. Have you had Quiet, Quiet time today? And did you tell everyone you’re booked up this Sunday? Your bro’ in the Lord, jk,

As is his wont Jimbo adds a couple dozen PS’s to this, which I will post next issue.

Cal is convinced that Jim should be set free and he continues to show us why:

Dear John, Stare decisis is a Latin rendering of the words of a judge who says, "My decision shall stand." In contrast, settled law means a matter of law settled according to a high standard of law.
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), does not qualify as settled law because the standard of law was low. For example, if Jane Roe's attorney Sarah Weddington had wanted that case to achieve the status of settled law, then she should not have perjured herself by claiming her client was raped. Like the common misperception that the police must read you your rights when arrested, television viewers also have the misperception that Roe was founded on a woman's right to choose. Instead, the Court rejected a woman's right to choose, and instead founded Roe as an extension of its forced sterilization case, Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927). Roe, Id. at 152-159; Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179, 214-215 (1973) (Justice Douglas concurring); San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 100-101 (1973) (Justice Marshall dissenting); Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978); Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 859 (1992) (indicating a tightening of tolerance for forced abortion, such that it should no longer be considered a form of justified government interference "as readily" as it might be without Roe's precedent).
That the State of Texas was something of a straw man in Roe is evident from the record. Roe, Id. at 157, n. 54 ("[Texas] faces a dilemma."); at 162 ("In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense."); on oral reargument (Justice Stewart: "[Maybe] Texas abortion law presently goes too far in allowing abortions."); on oral reargument, being scolded by Justice White for trying to dodge the States' rights issue entirely (Justice White: "[The State can still have an interest in asserting rights over the fetus], whether the fetus is a person or not."). In a nutshell, Texans were too proud to legalize abortion on their own as Californians and New Yorkers did, so the only way for Texas to have abortions was to lose at the Court on both of two points: the fundamental proposition (a child's rights) and the secondary proposition (a State's rights). For this reason, the Court had found the perfect straw man in Texas. (The expression comes from the observation that straw men tend to fall over on their own, and so the straw man can be counted on to lose the argument.)
Another television misperception about Roe is that the Court is divided into pro-life and pro-choice Justices, who have been vigorously debating the issue of the children's rights. As Justice Stevens reports in Casey, no member of the Court has ever questioned this fundamental proposition: namely, that "an abortion is not the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection" (meaning, that the children are not entitled to due process and the equal protection of the laws like everyone else). He says, "From this holding, there was no dissent [in Roe]; indeed, no member of the Court has EVER questioned this fundamental proposition." (emphasis added; internal quotes and citations omitted) Casey, Id. at 913. Obviously, there cannot be any debate without someone so much as questioning the matter of the children's rights. Instead, the Court's division has been over the States' rights, never the children's rights.
Another television misperception is that the States' rights Justices are pro-life. For example, in Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (2000), the Court addressed the issue of partial-birth procedures. But even for these procedures, the States' rights Justices joined together saying, "Although a State MAY permit abortion, nothing in the Constitution dictates that it MUST do so." Id., at 980. In Casey, the plurality warned quietly that if the States' rights Justices have their way and Roe is overturned in the specific way they want to see it overturned (meaning, not in favor of the children having rights we are bound to respect, but rather in favor of a State's rights), then not only will the State be allowed to permit abortion-on-demand without limitation at the whim of the legislature, but it will also be allowed to permit forced abortion "as readily" as to make women keep their babies, citing "population control" as an example of "asserted state interests" in this regard. Casey, Id. at 859. Note that even the plurality in Casey would not concede that that there should be no room for forced abortion, as this would contradict Roe; instead, leaning toward tightening on the issue, they simply interpreted Roe to mean States could not employ forced abortion "as readily" as without Roe's precedent.

Fellow and sister dilatants, I offer you here the best poet America has yet produced (since Emily Dickinson) -- better than Whitman, better the Lowell, better than Pound, better than Elliott, better than Stevens, better than Ransom, better even than Updike:

Rev Lee Roy's Bad Flu Rising
By Tobra Potter

Across the pond
Hope you got your things together and
Are prepared for nasty weather
There's a bad flu rising across the pond
So dont go over to england
Don't go there tonight
Looks like they're in for nasty weather
Hope them straights & fairies
In that fagdom are prepared to die
Or will God give them UKians
Another try
To do it God's way
What's that you say
Pastor rick warren
Pastor creflo dollar
Hollar louder
Benny hinn
Jimmy robison
Franklin graham & daddy billy to
They say you
Have rebuked the swin flu in the american land
Tis tru
Saith our ministry mafia
Sendeth your hard earned money
For we bend the Lord's ear
When He called us this morning early
For instructions on what He
Should do in the american land
We told Him
Let them UKians flu it to death
And cough till their lungs turn blue
But bless us here in america
America america oh beautiful for spacious skies
For faggots defiling our byways
And babykillers killing with pharmacutical sales
Bought with tampax fake snow & Christian romantic fiction
Lord please watcheth your diction
Say it is so Lord
And we won't go to the UK
For they don't know & serve you like us
Americans for we are blessed
Yes blessed
That will be all Dear Lord
You can sign off
Now if you like you might help
Them africans with that AIDs
While we humbly helpeth our poor & huddled masses

Peter Knight’s letter continues from issue #4:

In a place like America, such is the apathy of people, that the only time they are going to create a wave of simultaneous jihads is after someone puts a loaded gun to many people’s heads and convinces them that the trigger will be pulled if they don’t. Until then, nothing is going to trigger them into creating a wave of simultaneous jihads. Unless, you consider that you already have a wave of simultaneous jihads with abortionists’ attacks on the unborn in America. Three thousand more than the equivalent of the Word Trade Center killed each day. It’s considered a very bad day in Iraq if fifty get bombed or shot to death. And yet Greg Cunningham says that he fears America could be turned into another Iraq. Would that the situation in America was so good.
Of course the well publicized violence in Iraq is a good bit more discussed and a good bit more obvious than the murders which go on behind closed doors in America. Eric Rudolph describes abortion as “the irrepressible conflict”. When there’s one person in twenty million in the USA who is in prison for actions they’ve taken against abortionists, it’s hard for me to describe that as a conflict. But if it is a conflict, then it is certainly one which has been well and truly repressed.
When discussing his own methods of dealing with abortion murder, Greg Cunningham, and people like him, use such terms as “a detestable abomination”. Paragraphs. But when describing it in relation to Paul Hill’s actions, they see a need to water it down to mere “elective pregnancy terminations”. Para one
Greg Cunningham says in his paragraphs 3 and 4 that the martyr Paul Hill is a murderer. And in papa 4 he states the reason for saying he is – because that’s what the government says. The government also says that abortionists aren’t murderers. They say that they are respectable and responsible people who are providing a necessary and valuable service to the community. So since Greg Cunningham is so willing to mention and accept the government’s word on Paul Hill, why doesn’t he accept their word here too and forget this stuff of producing photos which he says is to convince people that the government is wrong about abortion?
We see Greg Cunningham bring into view for us once again a trait which is so prevalent amongst no-violence anties: a huge tendency to use double standards. They chop and change from this judgment basis to that judgment basis. They say that something is their reason for making a judgment and then reject that reasoning for something else less than a minute later.
Rarely do we see police describe burglars as burglary providers. And rarely do we firemen describe arsonists as fire providers. But in para 2 I note the supposedly anti-abortion GC’s find use of the pro-abortion term for murderers – “abortion providers”. One of the things that can be said for Paul Hill is that we didn’t see him develop a liking for pro-abortion terminology. You didn’t see me develop a liking for it. And you won’t see anyone develop a liking for it who doesn’t have a predilection for sucking up to abortionists.
Paragraph 6 is where Greg Cunning decided to direct his focus onto Romans 13. This is the one we’ve seen people like him mention so many times before. Romans 13 was where the Apostle Paul attempted to tell us that the governments of Nazi Germany, Pol Pot, the Antichrist, and every other government were established by God to do people good and must therefore be obeyed. He said that anyone who disobeys the government is in effect disobeying God and will be condemned. Great public relations stuff for governments, isn’t it? Hitler and Stalin would be pleased. He portrays Hitler as someone who held no fears for those who did right. Some might suggest that the legacy of Romans 13 is that there is no such thing as a democracy. It’s never voters who establish a government, but God. Greg Cunningham says that the Apostle Paul didn’t mention any exceptions to this precept regarding obeying governments, so he says there aren’t any.
Jesus said to preach the gospel and make disciples of all nations. In some countries is it illegal to preach the gospel. So the great prophet, Greg Cunningham, tells us that Jesus got it wrong with this too. That it shouldn’t be preached in all nations as Jesus said. But only in those where the government has been willing to grant its permission for it to be. Well thanks for the correction Greg; I’ll pass that on to Jesus next time I talk to him so he learns what the right thing is.
There have been, and are, places in the world where it is illegal to be a Christian. So the great prophet, Greg Cunningham, is saying that no one in those countries should be a Christian. Or is he saying that the way to be a Christian in such a country is by obeying the government and not being one. Must obey the government. No exceptions says Greg Cunningham.
Not satisfied to leave it at that, the great prophet then went on to say that anyone who is a Christian where Christianity is banned by the government is an anarchist. With that sturdy foundation laid, he then declares “that anarchy is a human teaching”, and, “a product of the fall”. So we’ve managed to journey to the stage now where Christianity in a country where it is banned is a “product of the fall”. That then leads him upward to his next enlightening revelation, that Christianity is not “a fruit of the spirit”. To conclude his fine educational sermon on this subject G.C. taught that Christianity where it is outlawed is “totally antithetical to the Gospel of Jesus Christ”. So let’s all adopt the teachings of the great prophet Greg Cunningham, a director at the “Center of Bioethical Reform”.
I support Paul Hill. Greg Cunningham and a host of irrationals make no sense. Idiots like him condemn Paul Hill. If someone
had asked Greg Cunningham to give him a reason for condemning Paul Hill that would confirm that he is an idiot, then he could hardly come up with a better one to meet the request. But in his letter he didn’t just confirm it once. To cover the possibility that someone might be super tough to convince, he decided the best thing he could do was to give a whole long list of reasons which confirmed it. There are just so many ridiculous and hypocritical statements that people like Greg Cunningham make – the abortionist’s three millionth chance to repent is of prime importance. More important than the lives of his multitude of victims. Therefore, the abortionist should be left unharmed so he can take their lives and be given the three millionth chance.”
Before the pro abortion politicians in this country, I’m undecided to turn Medicare into medimurder. Before they decided to make the cost of abortions claimable on the medi murder system which was provided by their taxes, there were those who said things very much like this – “We abhor abortion and would never support it. We’d rather be burnt alive than give our support to abortion”. So how did the people who said this stack up when the government told them to pay the cost of abortions? Sure, they could make the claim that anti-abortionists were in some regard unhealthier and that bad abortionists were in some way subsidizing them in return, but is that the case? Or was it just one-way traffic when the pro abortion politicians graciously said that it was their intention to force each and every person to help pay the cost of the bad abortionists’ abortions?
So did any of them jack up and refuse to pay? Did they get themselves put into prison where they’d never be asked to pay taxes and pay the cost? Did they even jack up to the extent of going on the dole so that they could at least say that they were not giving the government or the pro abortionists anything that they had not forced them to give to them? No, they couldn’t even do that little bit. Some abhorrence. Some opposition to abortion. Pay the cost of abortions when the government tells you they’d like you to give the abortion industry your help and financial support.
They say such things as – “We should not be complicit in evil”, and then they make themselves fully responsible for the evil
The say such things as –“I cannot fight fire with fire”’ and then they pour petrol on the fire.
They go so far overboard that they say – “If it’s murder for an abortionist to kill thousands, then it’s murder for someone to kill the abortionist to save his victims”.
They even do what Ruben Israel of Los Angeles did, and travel to Florida to be present when Paul Hill was killed so he could stand up and proclaim to everyone what a possessed lunatic he is by saying – “I am a Christian, and I have traveled from the other side of America to say Hill became precisely what he preached against – a murderer”. (tbc)

I hope you save these newsletters so you can reread things like Greg Cunningham’s essay that Peter is attacking here. I am less than a quarter of the way through Peter’s attack on the Gregs.

Jim Kopp sent the following letter to “The Standard” in response to their editorial attacking Scott Roeder:

Dear Editor, How nice! How clear! If it wasn't for the Scott-Readers of this world, life would be so beautiful. The Barack Obama's of this world would say, "Gee, you prolifers are so nice, and quiet and respectful and law-abiding I can't help but be drawn to your civic-mindedness. What is it you want? No more abortion? Well, why didn't you say so! Here.

If only saving a child from dismemberment were this easy:
The problem is not Scott Roeder; the problem is not Barack Obama ("If meat rots, it's not the meat's fault. That's what happens to meat if it has no salt" -- R. Stott)

The problem is not abortionists (some people will do anything for money). The problem is not women. They are surrounded, each one, by a ring of powerful males, each with something
to gain (so much for “choice”).

The core problem is you and me.

We do not do for any child, what we know we would do for our own child if he or she were at risk of being dismembered. The problem is nothing else. It is nothing more – or less. There is no magical cure with “education” or polities, or piety alone, things that we would never do if it were our own kid.

Now here's a strange thing to ponder: considering that Our
Lord commands us to do for any child what we would do for our
own child ( Mt. 5:46; see also Mt 6:32, 7:12 and Is.58), then the
tricky part is not the justification of legitimate, Thomistic force (such as rescue), but rather, the justification for the absence
of same. This absence, when children are being torn up, is
complicit, and sinful, even if it is, sadly, quotidian and universal.
If we willfully allow today's children to be killed in hopes of appeasing the powers-that-be, that one day hypothetically laws may be changed, we lose today's kids and future kids.

Why? Because we show by our actions that some kids are expendable, for any reason. Once you do that, all children are expendable for any reason.

If you want to judge the Roeders of this world, I can't stop
you. But first, look in the mirror, and tell me why you won't work on the mill sidewalk, or in a CPC? We have met the enemy, and he is not Roeder. He is us. IF we all had been doing our job in these less forceful endeavors, it would've never crossed his mind to use more force. Like any good father, his action was directed against outcome, not personal cost. IF it had been
your child, can you blame him? Juries in the Philippines and Middle East, to pick a couple spots, would never have.
In times like these, when people criticize people like Roeder, it always turns out that the core of their concern is not what Roeder did or didn't do. The core of their concern is most certainly not the actual welfare of children who, obviously, can’t be saved by words.
The critics are worried about themselves.

They are more anxious to distance themselves from him than a cockroach scrambles from the light. They have a lot to lose, in our current, debauched culture. Not only will they not risk their lives (an apt risk, looking at the danger), they won't even risk their mortgage, something the Bible never promised.
"A man can gain the world and lose his soul, Richard," said St. Thomas More, "but . . . for Wales?"
Let's be practical, spiritual, adopted mothers and fathers for any child being disarticulated, not just our own. Go to the mill. (Hebr. 13:13; par. Good Sam.) .
Silent time with Our Lord will gently confirm these truths (Ezekiel 20:13; Job 40; Zech. 7:13).

“Many hands make light work.” In the context, the more people obeying the Lord, the less force is necessary. Even one million, of the many alleged millions of prolifers, acting at the Gandhi/MLK level of force, will resoundingly fix the problem.
Until you and I do this, some will always be called to sacrifice to counterbalance our sloth with legitimate Thomistic force.

Mr. John, Greetings to you in the name of Christ Jesus, and praise God for the death of George Tiller! May he burn in the 7th Circle of Hell for all of Eternity.

I don’t know if you’ll have time to print this in any of the upcoming newsletters of skyp/aim...but I wanted to send you a few things. First of all thank you for printing my story! I have found great comfort in knowing that it has reached others, and hopefully it has blessed many. Secondly, and primarily, I saw (as my story and Eric’s book were following each other for several past issues) that Patricia (his mother) requested statements for the back cover of Eric’s book, which she is having printed.

After reading what I have read of Eric’s book, I actually had some comments – and since I am as well serving the next 3-4 decades with Eric, growing old in America’s dungeons for assaulting an abortion clinic, I thought I would add an insightful touch to the board of comments. I give my permission to print the following comment; however, if Patricia needs me to sign something (via mail), she is welcome to write to me.

In the midst of an epoch of endless noise and chaos, where one can barely think because of the noise, Mr. Rudolph brings us a purified piece of literature that screams the truth. Like Ortega Y Gasset or Oswald Spengler, he brings the truth not only to the Christian Right but to anyone intelligent enough to follow along. Praise God for Eric Rudolph.

Well, I do hope that is helpful. I hope all of my friends – Christian DOERS and KNOWERS of the word (from all over) are all well. I have prayed for you all – (you know who you are). Seemingly these next few months, I should pray for the insects who have delayed my mail (as well as many other’, certainly) ever since the laughable demise of the Pig George Tiller. It seems that now all the pro-life soldiers are in bad odor with the Justice Department, yet again.
How unthinkable. I only wish that when they seized (stole) my mail from outgoing envelopes at the 3rd party box it goes to, that they would simply XEROX it and not STEAL it Keen Bible students that they fancy themselves as, they should know that one reaps what he/she sows.
But I must remember to pray for the FBI. How terrible it must be to spend one’s life under a lamp, sweat beading on one’s forehead, while snooping thorough another person’s private belongings rather than seeing Europe, wineglass in hand on a sunny day, or loving a beautiful woman until you are old and gray and smiling with her night and day. The nauseating vermin who perpetrate such acts against Christian patriots, searching thorough their private belongings, will one day discern the discord their slimy fingers create. How amusing. Until next time, Paul Ross Evans


OperationCounterstrike said...

PAYBACK for Dr. Tiller coming soon.

COUNTERTERROR against right-to-lifers coming soon.

WHO would be the most effective, and deserving, TARGETS for anti-right-to-lifist counterterror?

WHERE do they LIVE?

OperationCounterstrike said...

In particular, looky here:

John Dunkle said...

OperationCounterstrike or operationimpotence

OperationCounterstrike said...

We shall see, Mr. Dunkle.

Would you like your son to be killed (NOT murdered; it will be JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE) by gunshot, or by knife?

How about Mary Waagner, Clayton's wife? Would you prefer us to rape her and then kill her, or kill her and then rape her?

John Dunkle said...

None of the above. As I say, operationimpotence. Read William Faulkner's Light in August.