Thursday, August 27, 2009

Abortion is Murder, October, 2009, 7-7

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

October, 2009, Vol. 7, No. 7
PO Box 7424, Reading, PA 19603
Phone – cell--484-706-4375, machine -- 610-396-0332
Email –
Web –
Circulation – 46`
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, $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 5094
10. Roeder, Scott, Sedgewick 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 Waseca, Unit A, P.O. Box 1731, Waseca, MN 56093 3/31
13. Waagner, Clayton Lee 17258-039, United States Penitentiary, P.O. Box 1000, Lewisburg PA 17837 8/25
14. Weiler Jr., Robert F. 39385-037, FCC - Delaware Hall, Box 1000, Petersburg VA 23804
15. 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

Continuation of Eric’s Chapter 2:

Roe never pretended to be good law. It was pure fiat. Blackmun thought women needed the right of abortion, so he invented it. Franklin D. Roosevelt’s court-packing scheme was similar. In 1937 he tried to appoint six new justices to the Supreme Court for each sitting justice who was over seventy years of age. The Supreme Court, which consisted of primarily Republican appointees, had shredded Roosevelt’s First New Deal. Waiting for the justices to die was too constitutional for a progressive like FDR, so he proposed appointing a whole new slate of friendly justices to tack onto the existing Court. This, he hoped, would sway future decisions his way. To keep pace with progress, the Constitution had to be rewritten without having to go through the hassle of the Amendment process. Roosevelt didn’t get away with his dictatorial scheme, Blackmun did. Justices Rehnquist and White were dumbfounded by Roe. In their dissent they accused the majority of legislating from the bench:
The Court simply fashioned and announced a new Constitutional right for pregnant mothers, and with scarcely any reason or authority for its actions, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes . . . As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but in my view
its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to the Court. The Court apparently values the convenience of the pregnant mother more than the continued existence and development of the life or potential life that she carries. . .I can’t accept the Court’s exercise of its clear power of choice by interposing a constitutional barrier to states efforts to protect human life and by investing mothers and doctors with the constitutionally protected right to exterminate it.30

Even liberal legal scholars who are pro-abortion think that Roe was poorly decided. “What is frightening about Roe,” said John Ely, “is that this super protected right is not inferable from the language of the Constitution, the framer’s thinking respecting the specific problem in issue, any general value derivable from the provisions they included, or the nation’s governmental structure.”31 Blackmun’s vague references about a right to privacy found not in one Amendment but in no less than five, proves that he really didn’t care whether it was in the Constitution or not. He said the right of privacy was recognized in a number of cases dealing with marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child-rearing, and education. But he failed to mention that the state has always had a legitimate interest in regulating all these things through marriage laws, divorce laws, child protection and support laws, and mandatory education laws. Judge Richard Posner warns, “Roe v Wade raises the question whether we have a written Constitution, with the limitations thereby implied on the creation of new constitutional rights, or whether the Constitution is no more than a grant of discretion to the Supreme Court to mold public policy in accordance with the Justices’ own personal and shifting preferences.”32
The right to privacy doesn’t protect drug users, suicides, consensual incest, consensual sex between minors and adults, consensual cannibalism and human sacrifice, blood feuds and dueling; it doesn’t shield a person from conscription, taxes, or eminent domain. And as Joseph O’Meara correctly pointed out, “There is nothing private about abortion.” It occurs not at home in a bedroom between a pregnant women and her coat hanger. Roe was asking the court to create a special right for all women,
and force the state to sanction, regulate, and protect an entire industry of abortionists, so women could exercise their sacred right. Not only this, the folks who gave us Roe v Wade believe that abortion is an affirmative right and the state thus has an obligation to provide abortions. Almost every lawsuit the pro-abortion lobby has brought since Roe has attempted to get taxpayer support for abortion. This is not about privacy. In their fevered brains, the state has a duty to give abortions to any women, or girl, who requests one but can’t afford the cost.
And making abortion dependent upon “viability” is indefensible in an age when science is pushing back the date of viability every year. Post-natal care has now made it possible for infants to survive outside the womb who would have died just a few years ago. In ten years time artificial wombs will make it possible to carry a child through most of gestation. Will those children be judged viable? And what about the millions who were judged non-viable and aborted simply for lack of a devise or procedure to care for them outside the womb? Pro-abortion Justice Sandra Day O’Connor was thinking about these same questions when she said that “Roe …is on a collision course with itself. . .it has no justification in law or logic.”33
The states have chipped away at the Roe and Doe pillars from various angles, but the pillars are still there. The legal structure of abortion has survived repeated challenges over the years. In Webster V. Reproductive Health Services the Supreme Court upheld a Missouri law that had a preamble which said “the life of each individual human begins at conception.” The law had two key provisions: “(1) prohibited the use of public employees and facilities to perform abortions; (2) when a doctor believes a woman is carrying a fetus of at least 20 weeks, he must determine with the latest tests whether it is viable or not.” The preamble, said the Court, was mere rhetoric and did not affect the core right to an abortion in a “concrete way.”34 The Court’s majority was moving to the right since Roe, and appeared to be willing to support abortion as an individual right, but was not prepared to fund it with federal taxpayer dollars. Reacting to the pro-abortion lobby’s attempts to get taxpayer funding for abortions for poor women, the Court said in DeShaney v Winnebago County Department of Social Services there was “nothing in the Constitution that required the state to enter or remain in the business of performing abortions.” Nor was there anything in the due process clause that conferred an “affirmative right to governmental aid, even where such aid may be necessary to secure life, liberty, or property interests of which the government itself may not deprive the individual.” Maher v Roe upheld a Connecticut law that said Medicaid recipients could receive money for child birth, but not for non-therapeutic abortions. In Harris v McRae, the Court upheld the most restrictive version of the Hyde Amendment, which refused to release federal funds under the Medicaid Program to reimburse the state for the cost of abortions, except for those cases where abortion was necessary to save “the life of the mother.” In this case the majority also upheld Missouri’s viability test and its prohibition of abortion after viability, finding Roe’s rigid trimester framework contrary to the Constitution’s “general principles.”
The important aspect of Harris was the Court’s upholding of Missouri’s prohibition on post-viability abortion. Viability, however, was still subjective and in the discretionary judgment of the physician. And in all of these cases “the essential holdings in Roe were upheld.” Justice Scalia, an opponent of Roe, voiced his frustration with this incremental approach. Writing the concurrence in part in the Harris case, he was disappointed that Roe itself couldn’t be reexamined and overturned: “I think it should be done, but would do it more explicitly. . . It appears that the mansion of constitutionalized abortion law, constructed overnight in Roe v Wade, must be disassembled door-jam by door-jam, and never entirely brought down, no matter how wrong it is.”35 (tbc)

Cal’s analysis continues:

Indeed, the greatest television misperception of all is that the Court's Roe supporters are pro-choice. On the contrary, the Roe supporters specifically rejected a woman's right to choose. To clear this up, below is a paraphrasing of Justice Douglas' outline of the gist of Roe, published in his concurring opinion under Doe v. Bolton, Id. at 214-215:
I. When it comes to abortion, the woman is free to make the "basic" decision.
II. But that is only the beginning of the problem, because the State has interests to protect--interests important enough to override the woman's decision.
A. The State can override the woman's decision to refuse an abortion, citing Jacobson v. Massachusetts and Buck v. Bell, when women run around like "imbeciles afflicted with hereditary forms of insanity or imbecility" and swamp us with their pregnancy "epidemics"; and,
B. The State can override the woman's decision to choose an abortion, citing the woman's health and at some point the life of the child she carries.
Beginning with forced vaccination, Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), was the Court's founding decision allowing the State to forcibly conduct biological abatement programs against people's will. The Court relied on Jacobson when extending such programs to pregnancy abatement, first by means of sterilization (Buck v. Bell) and then by abortion (Roe v. Wade). Buck v. Bell, Id. at 207; Roe, Id. at 154. Beginning with Jacobson, the Court deprived the people of their sovereign right to secure the blessings of liberty to themselves and their posterity, as had been enumerated in the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States. Jacobson, Id. at 13-22. In other words, beginning with Jacobson, the Court has allowed the States to conduct a number of abatement programs to control people biologically against their will.
In keeping with this policy, at the heart of Roe the Court says the "abortion decision" cannot be left to the woman's "sole determination" in view of "important state interests." Here the Court cites Jacobson v. Massachusetts (overriding a woman's decision to refuse vaccination) and Buck v. Bell (overriding a woman's decision to refuse sterilization) as examples of the sorts of "important state interests" the Court had in mind. Roe, Id. at 153-154. In other words, by the "abortion decision" the Court in Roe meant the decision to refuse or to choose an abortion in the alternative, emphasizing a particular interest in limiting a woman's right to refuse an abortion in view of Jacobson and Buck. In fact, when it came to the possibility of forced abortion, the Court in Roe even went so far as to disavow the protections afforded by Skinner v. Okalahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942), saying, "The situation therefore is inherently different from ... Skinner." Roe, Id. at 159.
Skinner, which was handed down by Justice Douglas in 1942 for a unanimous Court to prevent unbridled use of forced sterilization, would have prevented arbitrary application of forced abortion to control women's reproduction. But at the time of Roe the Court was worried it had no way of knowing whether women would choose to abort voluntarily. The Court feared instead that if women continued to take drugs at gatherings like Woodstock without concern for pregnancy, and either refused to abort or were too spaced out to get themselves to an abortion clinic, then with Skinner in the way the States would be powerless to control the resulting pregnancy epidemics, because under Skinner they would not be allowed to force women to abort in arbitrary connection with their crimes of drug use. So, wary of this possibility, the Court in Roe quietly disclaimed Skinner, saying, "The situation [of abortion] therefore is inherently different from ... Skinner." Ibid. Yet, rather than protesting the Court's abandonment of Skinner for the case of abortion, Justice Douglas of all people threw in his own two cents in support of the Court's reliance on Jacobson and Buck when deciding Roe. Doe v. Bolton, Id. at 215.
Then, less than two months after Roe (when Hispanic Sonia Sotomayor was but a few months away from her 19th birthday), Justice Marshall suggested putting into practice Roe's extension of Jacobson and Buck to abortion, without Skinner, to weed down the Hispanic population in Texas. The issue at hand was that rich people in Texas were angry that their good schools were being swamped by the children of poor Hispanics. So, to pacify the situation, the Court in San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez ruled that rich people in Texas could keep good schools for their children and let the poor Hispanics have crummy schools instead.
But Justice Marshall objected. He said that once you have children to educate, you have to give them an equal education; otherwise, you are chasing your own tail and perpetuating the inequality. Instead, he had another idea. Rather than chasing our tails, he suggested nipping the whole Hispanic overpopulation problem in the bud, by relying on Roe for abatement. He said the Court has never recognized any "right" to procreate (implying in this context that poor Hispanics do not have the "right" to procreate), as evidenced by the fact that in Roe, when it came specifically to abortion, "the Court reaffirmed its initial decision in Buck v. Bell." San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, Id. at 100-101. By "initial decision" is meant without Skinner's protection against arbitrary application of forced procedures to control reproduction, since in Roe the Court had disavowed Skinner for the case of abortion. Roe, Id. at 159.
So, contrary to what people learn from watching television, Roe was, and remains, a decision of Justices unanimously willing to weed down women's pregnancies with abortion, and whose only quibble has been over the extent to which States should be allowed to control a woman's decision to refuse or to choose an abortion, as opposed to having a national policy on pregnancy abatement. None of the Justices supports or has ever even "questioned" the children's rights. And, as far as a woman's right to choose is concerned, the Justices have always agreed that, even under Roe, the State can still override her basic decision--whether to refuse or to choose an abortion--provided the State has an important enough interest to protect.
In conclusion, there is no question that Roe is ineligible for consideration as settled law, due to failure to observe a high standard of law. Simply put, Roe was not settled according to law, but rather according to something altogether inferior to law. Roe was a mockery of law. The members of the Court, as well as parties on both sides, failed to observe a standard of honesty and integrity such as is appropriate for courts of law. Historically speaking, Roe v. Wade is a decision our legal system can be ashamed of, not only for its outcome, but also for the deceitful process that yielded it.
It is one thing for the Court to continue to behave stubbornly and say, "Our decision shall stand." But Roe will never be settled law, because it was never settled according to law.
Let us pause for a moment of silence to reflect on the lives of the children who perished under the tyranny and despotism of Roe v. Wade, as well as the lives of the mothers and fathers and men and women who could have brought greater good to their own lives, and the lives of all children, had it not been for this shameful decision. Sincerely, Cal.

How Pro-Life Leaders Incite Abortionist Assassins

Pro-life leaders like Randall Terry and Frank Pavone and Judie Brown and Alan Keyes and James Dobson and Troy Newman and Greg Cunningham and (fill in here the name of any and all "pro-life" leaders working in the United States of America) might just as well have taken out a contract on the life of Leroy Carhart and Warren Hern, and other late-term abortionists like them, because their "pro-life" activities are guaranteed to incite somebody to put those abortionists down like Atticus Finch put down the mad dog in To Kill a Mockingbird. This is a fairly recent development, but anyone with eyes and ears can see what I'm talking about.
From the day the first abortionist was, uh, aborted back in 1993, the main force driving the people to view abortionists like Atticus Finch viewed the mad dog was the knowledge that the abortionists made their living killing little unborn human beings, all of whom would have lived had not some abortionist decided to kill them. That was the main force. Any moron could see that.
What morons can't see today is this: a new factor has been added to that which incites the abortionist aborters.
Scott Roeder is a perfect example to see this new driving force. Scott Roeder lived in Kansas and, according to his own testimony and Court records, monitored regularly the ongoing efforts of Troy Newman and Operation Rescue to find a way to put George Tiller out of the abortion business.
Troy Newman and Operation Rescue were state of the art, 37-years-into-it, prototypical pro-life leaders. And true to the pro-life movement mold, the efforts of Troy Newman and Operation Rescue were extensive. Literally for years before Scott Roeder assassinated George Tiller, Troy Newman and Operation Rescue hounded George Tiller as unremittingly as any deer has ever been chased by a pack of hounds. Operation Rescue had Grand Juries convened, District Attorneys unleashed, lawsuits initiated, protests of every imaginable variety called and recalled and recalled. For YEARS this went on in Wichita. And all the while Scott Roeder watched. According to his testimony as verified by Court Records, he attended Operation Rescue's protests and sat in the audience during the Court trials of Tiller.
Then finally, when he could take no more, Scott Roeder put a bullet in George Tiller's head ending the Tiller story, at least as far as this world is concerned.
But what could Scott Roeder take no more? That is the question.
Like the earliest Abortion Assassins, Scott Roeder was obviously motivated by the knowledge that George Tiller made his living killing little babies. But, adding to this, shall we say, common motivation was another factor: Call it the failure of the pro-life movement. Call it the failure of pro-life leaders. Give it any name as long as that name focuses on the fact that the ineffectual resistance of the pro-life movement--by that I mean the 37 years of failure to deter abortionists from killing little babies at will--much less to abolish legalized abortion, has become a powerful, if not the most powerful, driving force in the urge to assassinate abortionists today.
There it's out. The pro-life movement does incite people to kill abortionists just like the robber barons in the abortion industry have been saying for decades. But the pro-life movement incites people to kill for a totally different reason than the abortion industry has always said. Instead of inciting people to kill abortionists because the pro-life leaders want them killed, the pro-life movement incites people to kill abortionists because the pro-life leaders and the pro-life movement--all together--have been so utterly ineffectual as to leave no alternative to any person aroused by the specter of legalized abortion like Scott Roeder was aroused.
Is this an apology for Scott Roeder?
Well, duh! Of course it is. Any person should understand that when you set a pack loose after somebody like George Tiller, and the pack runs as long as the pack ran George Tiller, a time comes when the leaders of the pack will take a hold if they get the chance. But we're not talking about hounding deer, and we're not talking about deer hounds, we're talking about men stopping people from killing defenseless babies. How long can little babies be butchered, slaughtered wantonly in the presence of real men, and not have those men go utterly ballistic and take the law into their own hands and put down the abortionists like Atticus Finch put down the mad dog?
Obviously, I don't know the answer to that question because I'm no real man like Scott Roeder. I'm just a wannabee man who can finally see things well enough to find words to explain them.
Back in Wichita, Troy Newman is today sending out emails that say, "We Can LEGALLY Stop LeRoy Carhart From Taking Tiller's Place As The Nation's #1 Late-Term Abortionist". Even though he lies when he says "LEGALLY," his words are a true harbinger of what he is sowing for Tiller's replacement.
And that's no threat; it's a guarantee. The pro-life movement has eliminated every other alternative. Neal Horsley

I used to call myself a coward; then I adopted Dan’s “lack of courage” term. But now I like Neal’s “wannabee man.”

Here’s the rest of Jim Kopp’s eulogy to Breezy, plus:

Months earlier I’d asked my guardian to visit her, and I told her to watch out for him, and ask him anything she wanted. Then I forgot. About seven hours before she died, her beloved caregivers overheard her talking to “someone” and shushing them so she could hear what he said, one who had the answer to every question she had ever wanted to ask. Then, she started to recognize her fate.
In prison or Italy, I always seem to be AWOL when the teachable moments come for perdurant sinners. Thank God. Pronto was on the job in a way I never could even if I’d been there. Praise God!

In the arms of an angel, fly away from here
From this cold, dark hotel room and the aimlessness you feel
Pulled from the wreckage of your silent reverie
In the arms of an angel, may you find some comfort here.

Earlier, she had denounced Hinduism and accepted One Creator, and the need for redemption. With her last hours, she read letters about Jesus her Friend and Brother (she knew the God and Savior part). She confessed Jesus “a sign of the love of the Creator for us.” All this, and her infant Baptism, gives me hope, but like I say, no guarantees (II Pt 2:20, Rv 5:4). I hope in Him, not her. And she never rejected Him. Thank you, thank you, thank you for praying for her. Maccabbee Club: let’s remember them all.

On another note, my pathetic appeal will have Oral Argument 26 February, 2009, 40 Foley Square, 10 AM, Manhattan. If you could go, I’d be so grateful, because I can’t (Feb. 26! -- just goes to show how efficient I am about posting). Take a friend and see how the government really works. (I didn’t take anybody but I met another prolifer, Richie Bruno, there.) If you know a lawyer anywhere who will argue this marvelous hedge (Laci’s Law) against Roe and FOCA, please send a smoke signal.
Clay Jr. seems to be holding, SDG. See skyp for Clay Sr.’s Liberty Campaign for baby representation.
I’ve heard Betsy McDonald is alive. This is considerable improvement. Unconfirmed, but hopeful.
Skyp editor wants to up hardcopy subscription. He’s wacked, but he’s our wacked. (Yea, I upped it to $100 and, let’s see, so far, uh, zero have subscribed.) Get your tech-dweeb nephews/grandkids to download it for free, OK? (
Quiet, quite time: Our Lord awaits just for you each day, don’t be AWOL . . . .Trades: He never went to college . . . . Stacey and Hutch: Freedom scribbled on the subway.
Please pray for a good prisoner in the clink (Fr. M) and another on trial now (Fr. B). Now, more than ever, under our current regime, we need to be grounded in silence and obedience following our Master and Friend (Mt 25). Thank you so much for your prayers
Cherisher and Sustainer of the Worlds, Strong Lion, Invincible King, Paradise of Delights, Mirror of Truth, Master of the Day of Judgment, Liberty of Angels, Creator of Heaven and Earth, Heavenly Physician, Mirror of Eternal Splendor, Desirable King, Fountain of Compassion, Sweetness of Hearts, Joy of the Mind, Royal Virtue, beginning and end of all things, save us. Jim

Find the two messages I received on my answering machine (p. 5, August) from a strange fellow, especially strange looking. He recently left two more:

1. Payback for Dr. Tiller, coming very soon, coming very soon

2. Check out a blog called It, uh, argues that killing right-to-lifers would be justifiable homicide, not murder, and it reveals where Paul Hill’s wife and children go to church, at River Oaks PCA in Germantown, and it discussed the question, “Will the business of people being shot in the face in church become a regular pattern?” Uh, it also reveals the addresses and locations of other right-to-lifers who would become appropriate targets for counter terror, including one named John Dun, John Dummy, something that begins with Du, John, what could it be?

Course I scrambled there to enjoy seeing my name in print, and maybe it is there buried in the turgid prose, but I couldn’t find it.

Somebody I love gave me this, hoping that it would persuade me to join the anti-force contingent of the right-to-life brigade:

In a recent column, we said that "those German officers who plotted to kill Hitler in 1943 were morally justified in doing so because stopping the Nazi dictator was a good thing since it would bring his evildoing to an end and since at that time there was apparently no other way to stop him." E.B. of Ohio has written to offer the following counterargument.

"There were many attempts to assassinate Hitler, more than one by Catholics. You rarely hear, however, that some of the Catholics were counseled against the assassination of Hitler because it was not morally justified based on the Church's prohibition of tyrannicide. The Council of Constance in 1415 condemned as contrary to faith and morals the following proposition: 'Any vassal or subject can lawfully and meritoriously kill, and ought to kill, any tyrant'. The biblical basis is Romans 3:8, which says that evil may not be committed that good may come of it.
"Although killing can be justified as a means of self-defense or in battle, the Church has never approved of assassination. In the movie Valkyrie, Col. Claus von Stauffenberg admits that the killing of Hitler will cost him the loss of his soul in order to gain the lives of others. An act that causes one to lose his soul is a mortal sin and is never justified.
"Hitler could have been kidnapped or the German military could have refused to obey his orders.
He need not have been killed
If we justify the killing of Hitler, it is hard not to justify the killing of many other evil leaders. However, this situation could lead to great chaos in society since there are so many evil leaders and so many well-intentioned people who oppose them. The resulting chaos would likely be as bad as or worse than the living conditions under those evil leaders."

No it doesn’t. Assassination is different from self-defense. Self-defense and defense of others are similar, although the latter is the more noble action.

Peter Knight’s response to people who say things like this, “Paul Hill became precisely what he preached against – a murderer,” continues from No. 5:

Well, how precisely is someone the same as a mass murderer when he kills the mass murderer to stop him? And by comparison, how precisely is someone the same as an abortionist when he pays the abortionist the money to do exactly what he does? Huh. Calls himself a Christian and then pays a mass murderer to carry out his kills when the government asks him to. Some Christian.
They say, as Greg Cunningham said, “We oppose the death penalty, even for . . . “ When someone uses the words “even for,” it means he is about to give you his most extreme example. His most extreme case. So who did Greg Cunningham give as his most extreme example in regard to considering the death sentence? Did he mention Gacy or McVeigh or someone who killed a couple of hundred? No. Did the abortionists who murder 3, 4, or 5 thousand each a year, every year, get a mention? No. So what sort of despicable character did he manage to discover to outrank them? Yes, you guessed it. His number one case is Paul Hill.
Greg Cunningham and his ilk have never once been able to come up with a single, rational reason for condemning Paul Hill and his actions. So why do they get so worked up about Paul Hill when it’s them that’s the abortionist’s identical twin? In these people John 7-7 is once again proved true – “The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify that the works it does are evil.”
The abortionists and their supporters do not testify that people like Greg Cunningham are evil. Their many apathetic fellows who do nothing more in regard to abortion than cast a vote at election time do not testify that they are evil. But when Paul Hill stands up and takes actions, actions which show them up for what they are, they hate it, and him, so they find there’s a need to fabricate reasons to condemn the actions which shout out loud and clear that they are cowards who lack any real concern. And this is the best they can come up with, reasons which are so stupid that they say to people – “Look here at me. I’m a delusional lunatic, and I’ll give you a hundred things to confirm I’m a delusional lunatic.”
Romans 13, which is the theme song of people like Greg Cunningham, and is so often used my them, is used by them as a cop-out. It wasn’t God but the American voters who established and are responsible for the many pro-abortion governments America has had. The people who cite Romans 13 should develop a more respectful attitude towards God. Why say that He’s responsible and that He’s guilty? Why seek to lay the blame on Him for the crimes of Hitler and Pol Pot and the pro-abortion governments? Since they voted them in, why don’t they quit the lying and be more honest and accept the blame themselves?
It is true that God does have the power to overthrow such governments and hasn’t often done so. But no doubt the situation there is that He has simply said – “You voted them in. You wanted them. You can cop what they bring you and take responsibility for it.” And the same applies to non-democratic empires too. No dictator nor any group of politicians have ever taken control when they had little support. They got there because they had much support. And they remained there because people were too apathetic and too gutless to make any concerted effort to kick them out. What the first verses of 13 are telling you is that the pro-abortionists who voted in and established pro-abortion governments are God. Is God on the electoral role?
As Paul said in the latter part of 13, -- “The hour has come and it is high time for you to wake up from your slumber. Our salvation is nearer now than when we first believed. The night is nearly over, the day is at hand. Let us therefore cast away the deeds of darkness and put on the armour of life”.
And people should take Paul’s advice here and leave the darkness and accept obvious facts: the Apostle Paul was not perfect in knowledge and understanding. He got some things wrong. Rational people are not going to accept that all governments were established by God to do people good and must therefore be obeyed.
Unlike Greg Cunningham and similar people the Apostle Paul did not write Romans 13 because he was a coward who lacked concern. No one had/has more courage than Paul. And few if any had more concern and compassion.
Jesus corrected rulings which had been made in the Old Testament – “Ye have heard that it was said by those of old time . . . but I say,” etc. And there are rulings in Paul’s writings which need to be corrected too. Anyone is a fool though who says that you should lose faith in the Bible and in Jesus just because Paul had some things wrong. And anyone who thinks anything less of Paul just because he wasn’t perfect in knowledge and understanding is a fool too

Not everyone is as stupid and error ridden as Greg Cunningham. Some people, when they see the problems there are in coming to terms with this precept of the Apostle Paul, Romans `13. decide that it would be nice if there were some exceptions to it. Jesus said preach the Gospel in all nations. So they say there’s an exception to obeying governments in any country which doesn’t allow that.
You must follow Jesus and be a Christian. You must do all the things you are required to do as a Christian and refrain from doing all the things you are forbidden to do. And if others prohibits you from doing any of the things you are required to do, or commands you to do what you are forbidden to do as a Christian, then they are banning Christianity.

So the question is: in a situation, like the situation is with abortion, where millions of totally innocent people are being slain, is it a requirement of God, is it a duty of Christians, that they stand up and defend the defenseless innocents with the necessary effective means? Or are they entitled to take the coward’s way out and let the murderers do what they will? Is anyone entitled to take the coward’s way out?
And is it a requirement of God, is it a duty of Christians, to refrain murderers to kill young children, or is it your duty, your Christian duty, to pay them to perform the murders?
Greg Cunningham and Aram Berard, unsupported by anything in the bible or elsewhere that makes sense, say that they are entitled to take the coward’s way out and that it is their responsibility to pay for the murders. And for obvious reasons they’ve gone even further, saying that not only are they entitled and not only is it their responsibility, but that you are not a Christian if you do not take the coward’s way out, and that you have not done your Christian duty until you pay the murderers to
perform the murders. But who gives a bugger about the teachings of know nothing idiots like that?
So the obvious question now arises, John. Is your country, that’s your country America, home of the cowards and land of the slaves, is the USA one of those countries which have become so repressive and have gone so far nto the sewer as to forbid you to be a Christian? To forbid you to carry out your Christian duty to defend persecuted people?

In his paragraph 5, Greg Cunningham says – “the solution to the abortion is to outlaw abortion.” And he says that way to get that don is “by changing public opinion,” by turning pro-abortionists into anties. And he says the way to do that is to show pro-abortionists photos of aborted babies. Then in para 6 he says, “Unlike social activists who have lived under tyrannical regimes, we have means to change unjust laws by working within a governmental system which is capable of reform from below.” Social activists, tyrannical regimes, a governmental system, flashy words but do they have any meaning, or did GC just pluck them out of his word barrel at random?
If Greg Cunningham and Co had the means, then why is it that they didn’t make use of the means and get abortion enforceable criminalized? There are only two things that are required to get anything done: the means to do it, and the will to use those means. So is Greg Cunningham telling me here that he didn’t have the will, or is he telling me that he was lying when he said he had the means. Truth be told he didn’t have either one. He didn’t have the means with his methods, and he didn’t have the will to use the only method that would work. How many more decades would the quick-silver Greg Cunningham have to be given to use the means he says he’s got, to get abortion enforceably criminalized over and above the decades he’s already been given? (tbc)

Tobra comments on the fight now going between Troy and Randy over The Operation Rescue handle:

Rev Lee Roy's Abortion Foes Meet For Mediation Concerning The Operation Rescue Name

Rev lee roy: randy terry, i understand rev phillip (flip) benham is to stand in for you, is that correct sir?
Randy: it sure is
Rev lee roy: troy newman sir, i understand cheryl sullenger will be standing in for you?
Troy: correct
Rev lee roy: on my mark, pace 10 feet, turn & fire
Dandy don: oh lookie somebody goofed!!
Tobra: drat the luck i wonder what happened appears like
Troy & randy bit the dust as well as flip & cheryl
Gifford: plain out wierd oh well
Let's make the most after all in everything give thanks
Rev lee roy: amen
Now then spectators
Let's grab the OR loot
Before some other hardworking decent humble
Prolife servants snatch it

1 comment:

Rev. Donald Spitz said...

Great newsletter John. A lot of POC's have let me know how much it means to them. Keep up the good work.
Brother Donald