Wednesday, October 28, 2009

Abortion is Murder, 7-11, December, 2009

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

December, 2009 Vol. 7 No. 11
PO Box 7424, Reading, PA 19603
Phone – cell—484-706-4375, machine -- 610-396-0332
Email –
Web –
Circulation – 65
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
7. Kopp, James 11761-055, USP Canaan, 3057 Easton Tpk., Waymart, PA 18472
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 (new)
15. Whitaker, Vincent 18851-056,Federal Medical Center
PO Box 14500, Lexington, KY 40572

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

Dear John, Thank you very much, dear brother, for all the back issues of skyp. This will keep me in good reading for quite some time!
Wanted to make a few comments concerning the article out of your June issue titled “Kansas Coalition for Life Condemns the Shooting of Abortionist George Tiller.” This is preaching to the choir and we’ve all heard these arguments before, but isn’t it interesting how the article starts out by stating that a true pro-life
person leaves life and death decisions to God Himself.
So then, according to those who believe this way, would they be willing to protect themselves or their families from an intruder attempting to take their lives? It sounds like a broken record using this illustration, but it gets the point across. If someone broke into your home and was attempting to murder you or one of your family members, would you just sit back and allow this to happen? This all sounds gallant and noble to leave life and death decisions up to God, but how gallant and noble would it be to stand by and watch one of your family members die? In reality, the claim of leaving life and death decisions up to God is a shield for cowards to hide behind. Next, the whimper that the pro-life movement might be set back 25 years is pathetic! We need to agree with Dan Holman and others who hope that the pro-life (poor life) movement will die, let alone get set back 20 years!
Granted, the movement has done a good job of exposing these crimes against humanity over the years, but only within the confined perimeters of their comfort zone. Take, for example, Troy Newman of Operation Rescue. After the shooting of George Tiller, federal marshals were giving murder mills more protection. At the same time, Troy was crying for more protection for him and his ministry. He has the audacity to ask this while claiming anyone who would dare to protect the preborn babies is a lunatic! I’m sorry but is this not the epitome of hypocrisy? Not to mention cowardice! To cry out for protection of one’s self and at the same time condemn someone who protects preborn babies is the height of lunacy itself! Actually this is the height of lunacy, hypocrisy and cowardice all rolled up into one!
Next is the claim that all good pro-life people obey the law, seeking change through the legislature process. First of all, we’ve had 37 years of “seeking change” through the legislative process. How’s that been working out for ya? Shall we wait another 37 years and allow another 50,000,000 babies’ lives to be snuffed out while seeking this change? If you were the preborn child slated to have your life taken in the next few hours, would you want someone to protect you? Or would you rather have them call the legislature and plead to have the “laws” changed? It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure this one out! This is just one more attempt to cover up the fact that those who advocate these policies are cowards. Laws are made (or should be made) to protect the innocent for the good of society. Anything contrary is to be considered null and void from inception. Actually, Scripture tells us there is only one lawgiver and if anytime man-made laws go contrary to His law, they must be disobeyed. We’re all familiar with Thomas Jefferson’s statement, “Disobedience to tyrants is obedience to God,” and Peter in Acts 5:29 when he said, “We ought to obey God rather than man.”
There will definitely be more comments concerning this article in the future. Thank you for providing your newsletter as a sounding board for those desiring to express their viewpoints. And thanks again for sending all those back issues!
Until next time, May our Heavenly Father and His Blessed son watch over you and yours, Scott Roeder
PS, Maybe you can include the enclosed illustration in your newsletter? (My wife came through – p. 6)

Dear Scott, One Tobra, a long time fan of prisoners of Christ, called yesterday declaring joyfully that we who pray and cheer for you ought to call ourselves Roeder Rooters.
It is certainly slow and grueling in there for you. How much better it would be if you were out and working on your defense and praying with those who love you.
I hope you received my last letter dated 25 September in which I rambled on about Socrates and musings about his circumstances and yours.
My prayers go daily upward for you. I interviewed with HDNet, some cable channel that has a program called World Report. It will air on November 10. I was a bit dull but it may come out all right. Fortunately, the reporter and producer do not seem to be hostiles. Dan Rather works for this channel/business or helped form it after he was fired. On Friday I will interview with a company called 60 Minutes (Australia) which is not connected with the company in the U.S. by that name. I hope to do better at that meeting. These opportunities to speak the truth come because of the deeds you are jailed for. The truth goes out and words are broadcast when they are accentuated with deeds.
I will say again that I will be your advocate and do whatever I can to promote your defense and your well being. I will seek support for that defense, and your efforts to continue to serve “the least of these,” His brethren.
I trust that you are still meeting with Tony, Gene, Regina and others. We pray for them as we pray for you.
Maintain discipline. Preach the Word. Listen to Him as you pray. He will lead you and all who share with you the love of God and the zeal to seek justice and show mercy.
Pray for us and we seek our Lord as to the best way we can help you. What does your lawyer say, even this late, about getting you out on bond so that you can think clearer and enjoy the encouragement of friends? Will the judge allow real estate pledges? At peace in Him alone, Michael Bray

Eric’s Chapter 3, The Debate, continues:

Classical liberals put too much faith in reason, when man is primarily irrational. Will, instinct, passion, emotion, fear, superstition, individual identity—influence a man’s behavior far more than reason. His social arrangements reflect this fact. Humans are never seen apart from a social group. From the moment of birth, man is a member of the most basic society—the family. And the basis for the social group is shared culture identity, not an abstract social contract. The outward reflections of this identity are seen in connections of blood, language, religion, race, shared history—culture. The terms “man” or “human being” are abstractions. A man is a unique individual, born at a particular time, into a particular class, into a particular culture. He has unique talents, intelligence, and will. His moral universe is unique, and is defined by these existential conditions. He will live and die in his particular world. A man’s environment conditions him, but doesn’t fully define him. He must do this himself. And ultimately the differences between individuals and groups originate from these internal defining forces unique to the individual or group.
What is identity? Ultimately it is spiritual. In so much as I am able to possess something, I am at once connected to it, and also have distance from it. I possess an attribute such as an idea, a belief, a desire, an experience—in other words, it is mine rather than yours. But I also have a distance from my attribute—it is mine, but it is not me. Even if I lose an idea, or my desires change, or I am subjected to different experiences, I am still the same “I.” The invisible “I” is my identity. Although my identity is separate from my attributes, without my attributes I am unable to define myself. Thus certain attributes become more important than others in defining my identity. As an idea, a belief, or experience becomes more central to accomplishing my aims in life, the less I posses it and the more I am possessed by it, until finally the attribute becomes indistinguishable from my identity.
Similarly, the organic social group has an identity, a culture identity. It’s a super personal identity, but an identity nonetheless. The culture identity uses attributes to define itself. But the culture identity is not the sum of its attributes and experiences. Ultimately it is a spiritual unity. Culture attributes include blood connections, religion, language, race and customs. What seems insignificant to one group is vital to another. Religion is important to some cultures. Others like the Zo’e of South America consider a tube of wood inserted in the lower lip an essential attribute of their tribal culture identity. Experiences like wars, revolutions, migrations and persecutions help define the culture identity. The Civil War, for instance, is a defining experience for the American culture identity. Six hundred years of English occupation is a defining experience for the Irish. The organic culture identity acquires or loses attributes and undergoes new experiences, but a certain continuity remains.
Only those who share this culture identity are able to feel this connection with the past, and a continuity with the future. More important than attributes or past experiences is a shared purpose. The culture identity dies when it has no plan for the future. Life is moving forward. The clich√© about “living in the now” is a lot of nonsense. The only people who “live in the now” are corpses. Life is about living into the future. The culture identity is healthy and under effective leadership when its plan for the future leaves the group healthy, secure, powerful and growing. Similarly, the individual is healthy when his plans for the future fulfill his destiny. As every identity is unique, so each requires a different
plan of action, one that is suited to that identity at that stage of development. Thus there is no such thing as a template for the perfect society, the perfect economy, or the perfect social contract, just as there is no such thing as a template for the perfect life. Each has a unique journey, in keeping with its unique identity. The history of the world is the history of identities in motion—defining themselves, asserting themselves, in conflict or cooperation with other identities, living, growing, declining, dying.
Man has free-will, but he is not “born free,” as Rousseau and Locke would have it. He is born a dependent to family and community. As he is raised into the society, a man earns rank and freedoms and privilege. Even the smallest of social groups—family, band—are governed from the top-down. The Marxist nonsense about primeval egalitarianism is a lie. As social groups grow into tribes, chiefdoms, and states hierarchy becomes even more pronounced, and classes develop. Minorities give form and direction to society. In every society there is internal competition
between those who have power, and those who want more power. At any given time, the definition of justice is dependent on these competing interests within society. As the social group grows or declines, competing interests change the definition of justice, sometimes organically, other times artificially.
By observing the various cultures of the world one can arrive at a set of universal laws. Aristotle’s definition of justice as fairness is, as far as I can tell, a universal virtue. The problem is that every culture has a somewhat different definition of fairness. And the definition of fairness changes as the circumstances of justice change. Any concept of justice is dependent on an organic culture identity’s comprehensive moral or religious definition of the good as applied to the circumstances of justice. “The circumstances of justice are the circumstances that give rise to the virtue of justice.”5 Society is a cooperative endeavor for the mutual benefit of individuals, and is marked by the clash as well as the cooperation of interests. Persons unite their interests for the mutual benefit, but they also clash over how common assets should be distributed and on what grounds individual interests should prevail against the group’s interests. And there are conflicts between competing individual interests. There must be principles of justice in order to come up with arrangements for sorting out these competing claims. The underlying conditions that make these arrangements necessary are the circumstances of justice. What need have you of justice when there is no clash of interests? And how can you decide which claim should prevail unless you first examine the circumstances that gave rise to the clash?
Generally, states are overthrown as a result of a disjunction in identity, not because of a violation of an abstract social contract. When a culture identity disjunction becomes great enough, no abstract social contract, however “just,” will restore the former social order indefinitely. Social groups are established and grow in size under pressure from external threat, or as a result of conquest. Never in the history of the world have a bunch of similarly situated sovereign men sat down and traded rights for protections in the manner of Locke or Rousseau. Leaders of little societies, as well as big ones, are jealous of their independence and will not merge with other societies unless forced to do so.
Usually a society is in a state of crisis when faced with external threats. At such times it is the leadership that acquires more power to make decisions for the group. And thus it is the leaders, not the people, who decide the terms of the new social contract. For example, before the 1730s the Cherokee Indians were divided into 30 to 40 chiefdoms, of about four hundred people each. Then, as white settlement started to encroach upon their lands, they formed a defensive confederacy. By 1758 a Cherokee council met regularly at their capitol, Echota, to discuss issues, pass laws, and shape a concerted policy for all Cherokee. Similarly, the leaders of the American colonies banded together in response to the threat of England. And after the Revolution, disunion among the states and Shay’s Rebellion caused the American leaders to meet in secret and form a more powerful central government with their Constitution of 1787. After several failed attempts, the German states finally formed a central government in order to meet the threat of war with France (1871). In every case, these societies were coerced into becoming larger. (tbc)

Kayhaitchers (killers’ helpers) love blogs, and I love to read them. I find some of my best material there – like Anne Sexton’s poem, “The Abortion.” (Thank God kayhaitchers are illiterate, too, because they thought it was pro-death!) My favorite kayhaitcher blog is The Abortioneers, you know, like “pioneers”! How sick is that? Look at this excerpt from a young lady is who is about to go through with “the procedure”:

I always thought if i did it, it wouldn't be a big deal. I am so desensitized to everything. When i donate blood, i "race" with friends to see who can fill the bag the fastest. Now i'm getting the heebee geebees. Hell, i doubt there'll be any protestors but still, if there was even one...that would freak me the eff out.
I'm trying not to cry. He's watching South Park. It's 10:30pm and i have so much work due tomorrow. I can't think.
I can't even figure out how far along I am. Apparently they calculate how far along you are based on the start date of your period. Which puts me at 4 weeks, 2 days. But i did one of those pee stick things to tell when you're ovulating (don't ask), so that would put me at 3 weeks.
Going insane thinking about this.

Just one protester? Gives you hope, doesn’t it.

This morning, Toni Najor and I were praying outside of Womancare. The first abortion client, a young girl with her mother, had already gone inside the building when I arrived. Just as Toni finished telling me about them, a car pulled up and a young man got out. He had a sad expression on his face and explained to me that it was too late to save his baby. His girlfriend had already had the laminaria put in yesterday. She had a terrible, painful night, and they had talked briefly about whether it was possible to stop the abortion now and have the laminaria removed, but they didn't seriously consider it.
My immediate fear was whether she might already be in the building, but he walked around the back and confirmed that her car wasn't there yet. He told me that he wouldn't be mad at her if she continued the pregnancy, and said that he really did want to see the baby...and so I asked him gently, "Do you know if they injected digoxin in the baby's heart yesterday to kill it or not? If they did that, there is nothing we can do."
When I said that, a large tear fell down his cheek and he admitted that he didn't know. A few minutes later his girlfriend arrived. He met her behind the car in the parking lot and urged her to walk over to talk to us on the sidewalk. At first it didn't seem like she would change her mind, even though she was obviously struggling inside. I was holding my "I regret my abortion" sign and after a couple different approaches didn't seem to be connecting, I finally said to her, "God threw me so many lifelines to try and help me change my mind, but I didn't take them. He is throwing you a lifeline now. Please, let us help you!"
She agreed reluctantly to follow me to The Problem Pregnancy Center, where I asked her more about her situation. After describing what the doctor had done the day before, it didn't sound like he had used digoxin. I asked her, "Can you feel the baby move?" She said sadly, "No."
"Then we will have to just see what's going on when we get to the doctor," I said. There are several strongly pro-life doctors in the area, although I was nervous about whether they would actually see her. This is the first time I have ever had a client change her mind at this stage. The very first doctor on the list
said "Absolutely!" and so we were on our way to his office a few minutes later.
The staff at this office were beautiful to her, and her boyfriend. They made on over them, excited that they had changed their minds, and just surrounded them with love. I waited in the lobby for what seemed like ages, but when they came out, both of them were beaming.
The baby's heartbeat is a very strong 150 beats per minute, and there is an absolutely adorable ultrasound picture that shows without a doubt that their baby is a boy!
One of the most beautiful things I have ever seen is the expression on that father's face when he told me, "As they did the ultrasound, he turned over and waved at us!"
Please keep them in constant prayer. The situation is the best that could possibly be hoped for, however it's still critical. The abortionist put in 7 laminaria - but failed to puncture the amniotic sac (which would have practically doomed her baby to die of an infection.) Her cervix is long (great) and, considering how many laminaria were in place, it is surprisingly little dilated. The doctor is very hopeful that her cervix will close completely by Monday, when she is scheduled to go back to see him.
If she develops an infection, her risk of miscarriage is high. The doctor put her on two different strong antibiotics, and now it is in God's hands.
We will be working to try and get her money refunded to her. The abortion clinic collected $200 from her the day they did lab-work and the ultrasound (not refundable), and $800 from her the first day of the procedure. They are only allowed by law to keep what reasonable charges apply to the portion of the procedure that was done. The rest they have to give back to her. I am not sure how to go about that, and may need some legal advice!
When we determine which portion of the money is non-refundable, I would love to take up a collection to reimburse them for that amount so that they are not out of pocket....the main reason they considered abortion is financial. I just think it would be a kind gesture from those of us in the faith community!
Pray, pray, pray! and trust God now....

What beautiful fruit from our 40 days! Michelle

In London Dr. Edward Erin was found guilty of adding poison to drinks he gave his girlfriend to kill the baby she was carrying. Rev. Michael Bray protests:

Hey! What about a father's rights? Why does the woman have all the rights to kill her child? Fathers ought to have the right to kill their children! Blood! Give us more blood shed!

Motion sickness On October 21st my attorney’s argued a motion to drop concealed weapon charges before Judge Mark Goldsmith.
The state is always attempting to beef up its case. The original police report contained pages of Goggled Internet articles about our position on abortion, along with pictures of our van. But the prosecution objected to us introducing their photographs of our van into evidence at the Preliminary Hearing.
The state’s Motion to Resist Bail included a gossipy letter from Glynis Bethel, a woman who pretended to be Donna’s friend. Shakespeare so eloquently put it “nothing comes out of nothing” so little should come of little.
Attorney Robert Fleming argued “If having a hammer in a vehicle is ‘Carrying a Concealed Weapon’ (CCW), than so potentially is a tire iron.” Concealed Weapons statute MCL750.227 is limited to proscribed stabbing type instruments. Previous case law excluded an ax handle as a dangerous weapon.
People v. Robert Early Smith 393 Mich 432 (1975, on appeal, excluded a loaded M-1 carbine in a vehicle)

Robert Fleming is one of three attorneys defending me. He is a former sheriff’s deputy, and is presently a law professor in Lansing Michigan. Mr. Fleming is volunteering his time though the Alliance Defense Fund.
Chicago attorney Tom Brejcha is volunteering time, money, and investigative resources through Thomas Moore. Mr. Brejcha spent 25 years fighting Planned Parenthood’s RICO case against Pro-life Action league, and other defendants. Had Planned Parenthood prevailed, RICO would have taken the teeth out of the pro-life movement. We could not be on the street speaking up for the babies if RICO applied to our activities.
Attorney Anthony Lubkin from Owosso, Michigan has been defending me since the beginning. Mr. Lubkin wrote a brief on CCW which I have attached to this e-mail.

Think about the implications of being convicted of a CCW with such things as a hammer. Are hammers among the objects we are to apply for licensing? Will the legislature require safety standards by eliminating its sharp claw? Will those convicted of “Hammer CCW” be banned from future use of a hammer?
Judge Goldsmith is writing a decision on this motion. It is the 2nd written decision in this case. He also wrote a decision regarding my bond.
I am charged with two felonies: CCW and “Felony Assault.” The “victim” told police that I approached her vehicle with a hammer in a threatening manner. I told the police that I merely displayed the hammer at a distance as I was boxed in at the first light. At the 2nd stop light I approached her vehicle without a hammer. My display of the hammer at the 1st light is the reason for the state charging me with Felony Assault.
The “victim” is lying throughout this incident. At the Preliminary Hearing she testified that her road rage toward me was because my vehicle “drifted into her lane.” She did not notice what message was on our van until the incident was over. The 911 tapes tell a different story. She tells the operator that she cut in front of us to avoid her son viewing our pictures. The first sentence out of her mouth was about the awful abortion pictures.
The assistant DA told the judge that he hopes to “resolve this case before it goes to trial.” He told me outside the courtroom that he believes in what we are doing.
In the early 1990’s I was in a trial with Matt Trewhella and Edmund Miller for blockading abortionists George Woodward’s vehicle at his home. We sat by the wheels so he could not leave the driveway for his bloody days work. We were found guilty and a juror approached us after the trial. He told us that he agreed with what we are doing but was compelled to find us guilty because all the other jurors were putting pressure on him.
He reminded us of the soldiers who crucified Jesus. There might have been a sympathetic brute among them who was just following orders. While pounding in the nails he might have said to Him “Now, this is going to hurt!” Dan Holman

Dear John, The number one supporter of legal abortion is the Pope, number two is the Mormon Church, and number three is the Republican Party. Then way back in the peanut gallery we have the Democratic Party and Planned Parenthood.
Let's first expose the Pope's modus operandi. . . .

Gentle Reader, I will skip here Cal’s attack on the Church and refer you instead to our exchanges in the third and fourth issues of Volume 6 (May, 2008). We continue with the Mormons:

Let's expose the Mormon Church as well. When senator Jesse Helms and representative Henry Hyde proposed the Human Life Bill at the U.S. Congress, the Mormons swiftly responded with the Hatch Amendment to defeat it, proposed by Mormon senator Orin Hatch. It is easy to predict that an amendment that condemns abortion but refuses to close the latch on personhood will be defeated, because it lacks substance. So the Mormon Church proposed the Hatch Amendment to derail the Human Life Bill, finding an eager co-conspirator in the Catholic Church. Both Churches wanted to defeat the Human Life Bill because it would have closed the latch on personhood to take away abortion. Instead, the two Churches only want to deny complicity, while letting Mr. Wolf operate.
Why? Well, let's look at the Mormon predicament with the aid of statistics. In the Mormon Church they have what are called "singles wards" where Mormon boys go to meet Mormon girls. The boys think the girls are all virgins. The actual statistics, however, are that over 40% of the girls have already been there and done that and then disposed of the evidence at the abortion clinic. The repeat factor averages 1.8-1.9 abortions each. Do you think Mormon boys are going to peddle around on bikes for two years, with their hair trimmed wearing white shirts and black pants, along with fellow "elders"--do you think they are going to pay 10% to the temple tithe--only to end up with a girl who has already had abortions with other guys? Without legal abortion, the Mormon boys would find out the truth. Without legal abortion, they would need a child daycare center at every singles ward! So Mr. Wolf is very convenient for the Mormon Church. With Mr. Wolf in business it is easy to say, "You're mistaken. Those statistics don't apply to us."
The Catholic Church tried to say that. But Catholics got slapped in the face by statistics showing Catholic girls actually have slightly higher abortion rates than their Protestant counterparts! Without Mr. Wolf in business, Catholic schools would have to have daycares for the girls' children, and pregnant girls would be walking around campus. The pews would have Catholic girls showing up pregnant on repeat pregnancies that would have otherwise been aborted along with the first. People at home would wonder what is the point of being Catholic or sending your kids to Catholic school.

Cal’s right here about the Anti-Catholic Catholics (“only Catholics have abortions anymore because Jews and Protestants choose sterilization”), but the Mormons will have to speak for themselves. However, as I’ve told Cal, I lived through the clash between the Human Life Amendmenters and the Hatchers. I thought both sides at fault, with the HLAs slightly more so.
Next issue I’ll continue with attacks on Republicans and others.


Here’s more of Peter Knight’s letter, continued from No. 9:

That fact (that child killing would remain legal) wouldn’t do anything to explain why any of those who refuse to use Paul Hill’s methods haven’t gone to Hawaii and taken such actions there. If someone was capable of working out that there are hundreds of abortionists in North America, then he is surely capable of figuring out that there would be only one or two in far remote Hawaii.
However important it is to save the lives of unborn children though, and however many you might be able to save, saving their lives is not the number one duty of any true Christian.
The other thing that is said in regard to Paul Hill’s actions is that it is asking too much of people to take his actions. More than what is required of them to be true Christians. And so, it is wrong to demand that they do and to condemn them when they don’t. Those who say this, when describing Paul Hill, often use such words as fanatic and extremist.
A fanatic and extremist from older times, Jesus of Nazareth, wasn’t wishy-washy or backward when it came to laying down the law as to how much is required of people. MT 7: 13-14, MT 10: 37-39, LK 14:25-33. Verse 33 of the latter says, “Anyone who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple.” But the parts of the Gospel which tell of Jesus’ crucifixion give an even clearer picture of the standard that people are required to measure up to. And they also reveal what the true Christian’s principal duty is. It’s a duty which very few people make any attempt to carry out, and which very few people accept they have. As with almost all duties which people have and deny, they deny this duty because they do not want this duty.
If there’s one thing that people have heard about Jesus it’s that he was unjustly crucified and rose from the dead. Jesus knew that he would be crucified when he went to Jerusalem on that final occasion. MT 20. 17-19. One of the truths about Jesus which has been very much falsified is the reason why it was necessary for him to lay down his life and why he willingly did so. The explanation given by many preachers goes like this: People right from the time of Adam and Eve had sinned. And God demanded that a penalty be paid for that sin. That someone be made to suffer to pay the penalty. And he didn’t much care who paid so long as someone did. And along came the innocent Jesus to square the ledger.
Now, have you ever heard of anything more unjust and silly? What just person is there who, if someone committed a crime, committed a sin, in order to obtain punishment payment for that crime/sin, would have an innocent person pay in place of the guilty party? The only thing that’s necessary for people’s sins to be washed away and forgiven by God is for them to repent. And if they don’t repent then nothing anyone can do will save them.
When it is said to the preachers who put forth this ridiculous explanation that it doesn’t make sense, the reply is, “That’s the way God is. He’s beyond human understanding. He and his ways are a mystery.” It’s similar to the one I heard some “scientists” use – “If the descriptions and explanations we give you of the workings and origin of the universe seem to get more and more crazy, then that’s not because we’re crazy, it’s just because that’s the way the universe is. The universe is crazy. It’s not us that’s crazy.” And the preachers who give this explanation say the same – “It’s not us that’s crazy. It’s God that’s crazy.” (tbc)

Monday, October 12, 2009

Abortion is Murder November 2, 7-10

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

November 2, 2009 Vol. 7 No. 10
PO Box 7424, Reading, PA 19603
Phone – cell—484-706-4375, machine -- 610-396-0332
Email –
Web –
Circulation – 61
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
7. Kopp, James 11761-055, USP Canaan, 3057 Easton Tpk., Waymart, PA 18472
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 (new)
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

Abortion: The Irrepressible Conflict Chapter 3, The Debate
By Eric R. Rudolph

In the 1850’s the conflict over slavery came to a head. As part of the Compromise of 1850, the Fugitive Slave Law was revamped. Among other things, the law required free-state authorities to return runaway slaves to their masters down South. In response, several Northern states passed so-called Liberty Laws, which in effect nullified the Fugitive Slave Law, and thereby challenged the authority of the federal government.
Then came the Kansas Nebraska Act (1854), a law that nullified the Missouri Compromise of 1820. In the famous Compromise, slavery was banned north of the 36° 30’ line. Now, under the new act, slavery in the territories was to be contingent on “popular sovereignty.” If a majority of any new territory’s residents wanted slavery, they could have it, regardless of whether the territory was north or south of the 36 degrees and 30 minutes line.
The Supreme Court’s decision in the Dred Scott (1857) case was the straw that broke the camel’s back. The decision capped off a decade of defeat for anti-slavery forces. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Taney ruled that Congress and the territorial governments had no power to exclude slavery from the territories, popular sovereignty notwithstanding. Property in slaves was protected under the Fifth Amendment and neither Congress, nor the territorial governments could deprive any U.S. citizen of his property, said Taney. Nor could they prohibit a man carrying his property (slaves) across state lines. In effect, Dred Scott said that all Congressional action limiting the expansion of slavery in the past seventy years, including the Northwest Ordinance of 1786, were null and void. Abolitionism was no longer a viable movement.
For abolitionists, who had worked for half a century to limit the expansion of slavery, these measures were not simply temporary set backs; they were a declaration of war on the anti-slavery cause. Henry Clay’s dream of a compromise between the North and South was dead. Pro-slavery and anti-slavery folks could not live together under the same system. Abraham Lincoln captured the significance of Dred Scott: “It is merely for the Supreme Court to decide that no state under the Constitution can exclude it [slavery], just as they have already decided that. . .neither Congress nor the territorial legislatures can do it. . ..” If, therefore, the Constitution protects “the right of property in slaves,” then “nothing in the Constitution or laws of any state can destroy the right of property in slaves.” The next step, said Lincoln, was to nullify all the free-state constitutions that had outlawed slavery. Lincoln understood that the Constitution could no longer serve these two irreconcilable positions. He used a Biblical metaphor to drive home this point: “‘A house divided against itself cannot stand.’ I believe this government cannot long endure permanently half slave and half free.” 1
Constitutional efforts to outlaw or limit the expansion of slavery had failed. Unless the anti-slavery folks intended to permanently back down, they would have to devise a new strategy. The slavery debate was over. The only option left was a naked struggle for power. The winner of the struggle would impose his system with respect to slavery. In a famous speech (1858) Lincoln’s future Secretary of State William H. Seward called the impending collision of the two Americas “the irrepressible conflict.”2
There are limits to diversity within one system of laws. In the 1850s, those limits were reached over slavery. In 1973 the limitsof diversity were reached again, this time over abortion. There are, however, significant differences between the conflict over slavery and the present one over abortion. In the 1850s the underlying differences between the people of the North and the people of the South were slight. Although North and South developed sectional identities, both shared the same culture, both shared the same Western Christian Culture identity. The differences between North and South were issue-based, not identity-based. Slavery and race were those issues. Once the slave system was destroyed and Reconstruction ended, the South was easily woven back into the fabric of American society. When slavery and race were put aside, the Northern and Southern people were the same.
On the other hand, the differences between the typical San Francisco pro-choice liberal and the average Alabama pro-life conservative are vast. Every year the differences increase. Even though both are children of the West, their differences do not center on one or two issues, like slavery and race—their differences are fundamental.
Since Roe v Wade much has been written on abortion. Whether conservative or egalitarian, most arguments stick pretty close to the classical liberal concepts found in the U.S. Constitution. Classical liberalism is the name given to that body of political thought found in the writings of such philosophers as Locke and Montesquieu. Classical liberalism was a response to the religious and political upheavals in Europe during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The Reformation pitted Protestants against Catholics; Nationalism was eroding the former connections between the kingdoms of Europe; money and the new middle class were challenging the landed nobility; science was questioning the authority of the Church. The unity of Western Christendom that had existed for 1,000 years was coming unraveled.
Using reason as their guide, classical liberals tried to redefine the individual’s relationship to society. All the old definitions seemed uncertain and based on the arbitrary claims of the nobility and the Church. Feudal society was full of inconsistencies and unfairness. Classical liberals would try to create a formula for a rational objective society. John Locke's “Second Treatise On Government” is the most influential statement of classical liberalism.
First, Locke asked what was the origin of society. Before formal societies existed, so the theory goes, men were sovereign independent beings, living in a “state of perfect freedom,” and could “order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons as they thought fit, within the bounds of the law of Nature, without asking leave or depending upon the will of any other man.” In this “state of Nature” every man obeys the “law of Nature. . .which obliges everyone. . .that all being equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions. . .” Man had no prior social obligations. But because this state of Nature was inherently unstable and dangerous to his interests, he entered into a voluntary social contract with other sovereign men. Society begins “by common consent,” and the only “reason why men enter into society is the preservation of their property. . .” Instead of each man acting as his own little country, “the community becomes an umpire, and by understanding in different rules and men authorized by the community for their execution, decides all the differences that may happen between any members of society. . .”3 Thus men traded a bit of their sovereignty for the protections of social organization. But a man’s most important rights—life, liberty, property—were retained as inherent, with society having limited power to infringe upon them.
Since society is man’s creature, it serves his interests. If at any time the state threatens inherent rights, especially property rights, “the people have a right to remove it by force,”4 and set up another government to their liking. Thus government receives it power from the voluntary consent of the governed. Classical liberalism influenced most educated men of that era, including the authors of the U.S. Constitution.
Classical liberalism was an idea within the Western Culture. It was a noble attempt to protect the individual from the arbitrary abuses frequently encountered in the social context. Feudal society was rife with arbitrariness based on the prerogatives of birth, wealth, and class. Classical liberals wanted to substitute the rule of laws for the rule of men. They didn’t want to destroy the organic culture and the existing inequalities that were based on birth, wealth, and class. What they wanted was a legal-political context that was free of arbitrariness, where natural abilities could allow a man to move up the social ladder -- they wanted equality of opportunity. A social contract, however, can’t exist apart from a particular cultural context. And culture identity is the actual basis of the social contract, not the voluntary consent of sovereign individuals. (tbc)

Thank U John for continuing to publish Eric's chapters. We visited with him in Sept and he wants U to know how much he appreciates your help in getting the history of Abortion to all the prolifers. Most of them seem to be taking a different slant today towards liberal left and race, ex: Life Dynamic recent news letter (Maafa 21 video). No doubt black women have suffered under Roe vs. Wade but far more white women so why play the race card.??? Look at the facts, not the current world agenda. I will send U a copy of his book as soon as I can get it from Amazon. Patricia

Dear John, The Rosetta Stone of Roe is found at page 159. With the subterfuge removed, it reads, "The situation therefore is inherently different from ... Skinner," meaning, the situation presented by abortion. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 159 (1973). Contrary to popular belief, in Roe the Court specifically and unequivocally rejected a woman's right to choose. Instead, "the Court reaffirmed its initial decision in Buck v. Bell." San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 100-101 (1973).
Giving women a chance to choose abortions voluntarily on their own was only Plan A. As a backup the Court also reserved Plan B: forcing women to abort.
In 1905, the Court ruled that states have the authority to conduct biological abatement programs against the will of individuals, starting with forced vaccination in a case called Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11. For example, some people (like activist Jenny McCarthy) might be opposed to vaccination. But in Jacobson the Court ruled that states can do it by force anyway. In 1927, the Court added pregnancy abatement to the list of biological abatement programs that states could forcibly conduct, beginning with forced sterilization in a case called Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200.
In handing down Buck v. Bell, the Court relied on Jacobson, saying, "The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes" with an aim "to prevent our being swamped with [female sexual] incompetence." Buck v. Bell, id., at 207. In 1973, swamped with the sexual incompetence of women running around on the loose in the hippie craze, the Court relied on the forced abatement policies of Jacobson and Buck in handing down Roe, saying that "the abortion decision" cannot be left to "the woman's sole
determination" in view of the "important state interests" reflected by "Jacobson v. Massachusetts (vaccination)" and "Buck v. Bell (sterilization)." Roe v. Wade, id., at 153-154 (citations omitted). Meaning, in Roe the Court extended its 1927 policy on pregnancy abatement to include abortion.
But the Court had a problem. Back in 1942, in a case called Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, the Court modified its initial decision in Buck v. Bell, to prevent states from applying forced procedures to control reproduction in arbitrary connection with the punishment for crimes. But after witnessing the drug-related pregnancy epidemics of the hippie craze, the Court worried that if women refused to abort, or were too spaced out on drugs to get to an abortion clinic, states would be powerless to crack down on such epidemics with Skinner in the way, because under Skinner they would not be allowed to force women to abort in arbitrary connection with illicit drug use.
To remove this limitation, the Court in Roe abandoned Skinner and instead returned to "its initial decision in Buck v. Bell." San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez, ibid. Meaning, when it came to using abortion for pregnancy abatement, the Court abandoned the protections of Skinner v. Oklahoma, saying, "The situation therefore is inherently different from ... Skinner." Roe v. Wade, id., at 159. Indeed, in his concurring opinion in Roe, despite having written the decision in Skinner for a unanimous Court back in 1942, even Justice Douglas threw in his support for the Court's reliance on Jacobson and Buck when handing down Roe. Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179, 215 (1973).
In other words, the Court in Roe specifically and unequivocally rejected any substantive constitutional guarantee of a woman's right to choose. Instead, the Court literally ruled in favor of pregnancy abatement by whatever means necessary. Plan A was to give women a voluntary option first. But in case voluntary efforts were not enough to abate epidemics, the Court quietly reserved involuntary abortion as Plan B. Sincerely, Cal.

Dear John, I hope this letter finds you supremely blessed and safe. Things with me here are mostly the same. I am finishing up a 100 page text called “The Militant Christian”; this is a body of text I’ve been working on while here in Kentucky, for a while. It outlines Theocratic Law, Criminal Law, Moral Law, as well as having a section covering some of my endeavors targeting anti-Christian agendas, a section of sacred prayers (some of which I created), and also a section covering Rules of Engagement. Surely much of it will be featured on the webpage.
I was curious, are there any attorneys in “our realm” who would be interested in corresponding with me, lending me some advice over my present unfortunate legal situation? My public shaming never bothered me in the least; however, I feel that there are things that could be done in order to shorten the length of time of my inconvenient incarceration.

Originally, I was charged with:
- 2332 (a) Use of a weapon of Mass Destruction (punishable, as defined, by life or any number of years) (or if death occurs – by death)
- 844 (i) Manufacture of Explosive Material (punishable, as defined, by 5-20 years.)
- 248 (a) (3) Freedom of access to clinic entrances (punishable, as defined, on first offense by 1 year)

Later, the 844 (i) (Manufacture) was dropped, and substituted was 924 (c) Using or carrying a destructive device during a crime of violence.
This charge carried a maximum mandatory 30 year sentence, which added to my guideline 29-31 years for the use of a weapon of Mass Destruction charge gave me 59-61 years total. In turn I pled guilty and took a 40 year sentence.
The main problem I have are these excessive charges. First of all, the bomb was detonated by the ATF bomb squad. There was a malfunctioning detonator. Not only did I not kill anyone but since little-to-no structural damage occurred at the Austin women’s abortion mill that day, I feel that the accusation I “used a weapon of mass destruction” is exaggerated. After all, Saddam Hussein didn’t even have one, right? In all of Iraq, under his regime, there was no one with a pipe bomb? I find that laughable.
Second, the charge that led to my ultimate acceptance of the plea – the 924 (c) – is defined as “any person who, during and in relation of any crime of violence, uses or carries a firearm, in addition to the punishment for the crime of violence .... (B) (ii) like a machine gun or destructive device, shall be sentenced to a term not less than 30 years.”
In plain English I was charged with (pay attention here) using the bomb to destroy the clinic and also carrying the bomb as a “defensive” weapon to the clinic, to put it at the clinic. Yea, I know, I’m confused too.
Especially when I hear Tyrone Johnson talk in the dayroom (of my housing unit at a Maximum Security Federal Prison where I am serving 35 flat years – more than most murderers receive in the State system by 3 fold), talk about how much crack he’s going to sell again when they let him out again after his (latest) 2 year sentence for selling crack to 100 other of his fellow “community” members.
But these above matters are simply the tip of the iceberg, and there are other matters that could be brought up too, if I were to have any knowledgeable attorney to help me (ANY/EVER). I don’t have a problem with my guilty plea, or doing some time. But 35 flat years on a 40, at age 27 (when looked up), well that is a hard pill to swallow. Frankly, I don’t see most people ever do that, here where I live, without a) ratting their way back out, or b) using millions of dollars on attorneys’ fees (which I don’t have) in battling the case with the government. Truth be told, when I went to court and accepted the plea, I hadn’t even spoken to any member of the pro-life community, ever. So, now that I am “in touch” and now that people have “reached out,” I do ask for legal help from any who care.
From what I understand I am pretty much the youngest (one of us) with some of the most time, other than an actual life sentence with no parole. My out date right now is 2042.
Don’t get me wrong, I am determined, and I am not regretting a single decision I made for the unborn child. But it would be nice if someone could offer me some guidance and/or advice . . . if so inclined.
I don’t know much about legal time-bars, etc., either . . . so that might be something to keep in mind also.
With Love and Respect, Paul Ross Evans

Any ideas, anyone? Let me know.

Reverend Donald strikes again: Letter criticizes church for allowing George Tiller to serve as an usher by Judy L. Thomas The Kansas City Star

A Virginia anti-abortion activist has sent a scathing letter to the church of slain Wichita abortion provider George Tiller, telling pastors they “brought damnation” onto themselves for failing to rebuke the “babykilling.”
The Rev. Donald Spitz, a longtime advocate of the belief that killing abortion doctors is an act of justifiable homicide, said he also mailed a letter to College Hill United Methodist Church, which offered its larger sanctuary to Tiller’s family for his funeral.
Tiller was shot to death in his church on May 31 while serving as an usher. Scott Roeder of Kansas City awaits a Jan. 11 trial on a charge of first-degree murder.
Spitz, who is the head of Pro-Life Virginia, runs a Web site called the Army of God. He has praised Roeder’s actions and calls him a “true American hero.”
“If Reformation Lutheran Church had done its job and brought George Tiller to repentance, he would be alive and the babies he killed would be alive,” Spitz said in a phone interview. “But George Tiller received his just reward, and Reformation Lutheran Church is to blame for his blood, and the blood of the children he murdered is on their hands.”

Abortion-rights advocates condemned the letters.

“Unbelievable,” said Kathy Spillar, executive vice president of the Feminist Majority Foundation. “After they vilified Dr. Tiller, after they viciously attacked him in writing and in person and tortured him for years, it’s beyond the pale.”

In his letter to the pastors of Reformation Lutheran Church, Spitz wrote: “Why would you allow a babykilling abortionist like George Tiller to serve as an usher in your church without informing him his eternal soul was at stake for the sins he was committing?” You “have failed in your responsibility towards the position He has placed you in and have brought damnation onto yourselves,” Spitz told the pastors.
The Rev. Lowell Michelson, senior pastor at Reformation Lutheran Church, confirmed receiving the letter. He said he didn’t intend to respond. “We have received several letters like that, and I was encouraged by our attorneys not to fuss with them,” he said. “You can tell by reading the Scriptures that he quotes that he has a certain slant, and everything about it is militaristic. They’re just fueling the fire.”
Michelson acknowledged that church members aren’t in agreement on the abortion issue.
“But churches gather for a variety of different reasons,” he said. “The reason we gather together isn’t because we all think the same, but because we are children of God. So we come from our different lives and different thoughts. For many folks, the only thing we have in common is faith in Jesus.”

In his letter to the pastor of College Hill United Methodist Church, Spitz berated the Rev. John Martin for allowing Tiller’s funeral to be held there. “Instead of standing up as a servant of the Lord and speaking out against this mass murderer, you have praised him as being a Christian, which is blasphemous,” Spitz wrote.
Martin was unavailable for comment, but a woman who said she opens most of the mail at the church said she did not see a letter from Spitz. She said, however, that it wasn’t unheard of for the church to receive hate mail. One of its former pastors was a friend of Tiller’s.
Roeder told The Kansas City Star on Thursday that Spitz had sent him copies of the letters. He said he was pleased Spitz mailed the letters to the churches. “You’re supposed to bring your brother to repentance, not accept what he’s doing,” he said. “It’d be no different than if you knew someone was a thief in your congregation and you just welcomed him in and didn’t say anything to him whatsoever.”

Ludicrous, isn’t it, when kayhaitchers like Kathy Spiller accuse us of “torturing” Killer, a man who got rich torturing young people to death.

Another example of the ludicrous: these words of Judge Lee Smith to Neal Horsley admonishing Neal for displaying a picture of the head of a baby who had been tortured to death:

Who is this child? Do you know who this child is? . . . .Do you have permission to use that child in your political campaign? Is it not an indecent act to display this child? With, uh, against the parents of this child, the grandparents of this child? And the child itself? The child itself is the ultimate indignity and you come along and leap, and heap on top of that . . . ..

Dear Friends, On our Via Dolorosa through Michigan is a 5 year old "Assault" case in Escanaba; I am being arraigned on it October 7th.
On a 2004 Michigan Tour, I restrained a female vandal, Karl Kimberley, who was spray painting the signs on Ron Brock's motor home. The women in the UP tend to be horsy, and Karl put up a fight. I restrained her until the police arrived.
Michigan has no "Citizen's Arrest" law, but the sympathetic police let me go. They warned me that I might have a warrant for my arrest in the future. On October 18, 2004, Karl Kimberley was sentenced for Malicious Destruction of Property.
Escanaba, Michigan is in the Upper Peninsula; it is some 450 miles from Pontiac, Michigan. I am somewhat wary of being held hostage in Escanaba along with my vehicle. I contacted a local church for permission to park my car should I be snagged into their “just us” system.
A local Michigan man gave me his take on the Oakland County legal system. His story is similar to my experience, and to what I have heard from Oakland County inmates. Michigan is a foreign
country within our nation, and Oakland County, and the Upper Peninsula are foreign nations within Michigan. Outsiders are something they have for lunch.
God is still on the throne, and He watches over us. He has guided Donna and me through all of this and much more; He has provided for every step of the way.
Continue to pray for us as we make this next “Station of the Cross.” Dan Holman

You subscribers know that Jim Kopp has two books going in these pages, one about the adventures of Stacey & Hutch, and one about avoiding college, working in the trades, and really learning something. Here’s another section of the latter:

Neo Trades III Shade Tree Safety Lessons

Shade Tree (noun): what you sit under when you’re eating lunch on a job site.
Shade Tree Horror Stories (noun): construction disasters and near-misses you hear about under the Shade Tree so you won’t get “so old, so soon, so late, so smart.”
Actually Shade Tree Horror Stories are good to help bring you to the point where you can grow old, whether you get smart or not. And in a world of mechanization, tools, gadgets, trucks, and backhoes that can hurt you worse than a smashed thumb in the middle ages, well, let the Shade Tree Safety Lessons begin! And not to worry, by God’s grace your kids will hear more as they go along. Construction sites are safe, especially when compared to offices where workers kill or VD themselves to death with boredom or isolation . . . so what is the most dangerous part of a chainsaw? Well, I’d be remiss in my duties as a Shade Tree Safety guy if I didn’t tell you at least some ways in which the blade can hurt you. Like the guy who sees a pro undercut a branch. Tell me you haven’t seen this one before: A guy in a tree is about to cut off a branch, but he knows that if he cuts it top to bottom, like you think would be the simplest way to do it, a couple of problems come up. One problem is a little one that amateurs might not care about: as the weight of the branch breaks through the last inch or so of itself, below the almost-finished cut, it will peel or pull of the intact fibers that run axially along the branch, along the branch stump that is going to remain on the tree. So you think, well, big deal, right? So what if the remaining stump has a little section of the peeled bark on it – can’t you just paint that with some roof patch and we’re done? And besides, if you’re working for yourself or a friend for beer and pizza what’s the big deal if there’s a little section of bark peeled back? So what? What’s the big deal?
Oh, thou amateur/novice construction guy, fear and tremble. That little inch of branch as it falls off can spell the difference between life and death, in a way that you might not be readily aware of.
When a branch is cut, as it starts to fall, for that instant there, it is effectively weightless, or at least it acts as if it is weightless, like an astronaut in space.
An astronaut in space still has to deal with the intrinsic inertial of his mass, in moving around, in such a way that he has to push off the edge of a rocket ship to get around. But, because he’s weightless, it’s easier to get around and just a delicate little nudge will spin him around or send him where he wants to go. He has to be careful because if he pushes too hard, he could go caroming off into space.
What does this have to do with undercutting tree branches? Gentle Reader, I thought you’d never ask.
When that branch has been cut almost all the way through, and it starts to fall, it is essentially weightless, even if just for a moment. Imagine that!
Kind of a shocker, after so many years of being attached to a nice sturdy trunk and then one day, all of a sudden, YOW! There you are falling through space.
*Phew*! It’s enough to make you mindful of John 15 (if not Zech. 7:13, too) . . . And tremble! As Keith Green said once, “We are the branches, and He is Divine!” (I love it. You know it, you survivors, you really are deprived. If you’ve never heard Keith Green singing, you will come to find out later that all of your life in this Vale of Tears was divided into the part B4 you heard Green singing, and the part after. And if you still are in the part B4, don’t let it go another day!
Take your piggy bank and a hammer and get Mom to drive you down to the Christian bookstore today. OK? Today is before 5 p.m. Greenwich local time. Quick! And tell them a born-again Byzantine Catholic sent you! That’ll make Keith laugh his head off, something he was prone to do. OK? Go! Drop this skyp, it can wait. And turn it up till the windows rattle and the cops beat on the door. You will never be the same, you will never look at life the same and that’s a promise from me to you.) (tbc)

To the editor: Abortion is sin, a violation of the 6th Commandment “You shall not murder.” Sin has consequences! I could write much on the consequences of abortion. I will share a few thoughts on the corporate economic consequences of abortion.
More than 50 million Americans have been aborted since 1973. This equates to over 200 million pairs of shoes and many other commodities that will not be bought or sold this year. There are also lost investments, revenue, taxes, services, production, and entertainment (children can be very entertaining).
No matter what your business, people are needed as customers, investors, producers, management, and sales. In order for your economy to survive and flourish there must be people to manufacture, purchase, and service your product.
Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in America. They receive hundreds of millions of tax dollars every year to promote childlessness through condoms, birth control, and human pesticides that decrease our population.
Death, sterility, and a barren womb are the products of Planned Parenthood.
Is Planned Parenthood killing your business? Donna Holman

The Eighth Day
By Brad Miner

Was there ever a more ambitious or successful book than St. Augustine of Hippo’s De Civitate Dei? Written in the aftermath of the Visigoths’ early fifth-century sack of Rome, The City of God was the great convert’s demolition of both the lively vestiges of paganism and the emerging Christian heresies of his time. More than that: he sought to construct a sturdy Catholic
orthodoxy. All this he accomplished with stunning erudition and √©lan; sometimes with generosity to those he corrects; and occasionally with withering wit. (The warrior-scholar Marcus Terentius Varro was for centuries Rome’s leading light, and there’s a reason he’s not much read today: Augustine.)
I don’t know how anybody who sneaks a look at a newspaper horoscope could read Augustine on the subject of astrology and not blush. Indeed, I picture some bright young pagan, who – like so many Augustine describes – may have attributed Rome’s collapse to the overthrow of the state’s traditional pantheon by the upstart notion of the one, true, and triune God of Christianity, realizing that in De Civitate Dei was refutation not only of the treasured zodiac but of every false god, from the innumerable domestic deities to the great Jove himself. (I love Augustine’s sarcastic exposition on the proliferation of Rome’s corn gods and goddesses.) It was hard to argue with Augustine, since he knew all the lore and legend of the pagans, having been one himself – and something of a heretic too. And a hedonist. The future bishop even fathered a child out of wedlock. Although Monica, his long-suffering Catholic mother, never gave up on him (John Paul II said of her that she implored her son with “supplications and abundant tears”), she must have wondered if he’d ever see the light. He finally did when he was thirty-three.
As he wrote in his other great book, Confessions:

It flattered my pride to think that I incurred no guilt and, when I did wrong . . . I preferred to excuse myself . . . . The truth, of course, was that it was all my own self, and my own impiety had divided me against myself. My sin was all the more incurable because I did not think myself a sinner.

Christianity had been the official religion for some time as Augustine began writing his great book, but the transit of Rome up from paganism was an astonishing and ongoing transformation: from active persecution of Christians – most notably by Diocletian, ending in 311 – to Constantine’s embrace of the faith just one year later. Think about it: You’re, say, a twenty-year-old soldier and are ordered to hunt down the followers of Jesus as treasonous revolutionaries worthy of death; you celebrate your twenty-first birthday by fighting alongside
Constantine at the Battle of Milvian Bridge, a Chi-Rho – one of the earliest Christian symbols – now emblazoned on your shield!
Of course, there were Christians in military ranks and throughout the empire before Constantine saw a cross in the sky, but there were plenty of polytheists too, and the conversion of the Roman Empire to Christ didn’t happen in a lightning flash – old habits of the heart die hard. The people of that reeling worldly kingdom were all but punch-drunk, and it took a sober fellow such as Augustine to throw the icy water of faith in their faces: your old gods failed you because they were a fiction; the one, true God’s kingdom is not of this world; the sins and failures of Rome are the sins and failures of Romans; you are free, even though God knows your actions before you act; you are sinners after the Fall; your happiness in the Earthly City is always and only as it mirrors the happiness of angels and saints in the City of God.

On earth we are happy, after a fashion, when we enjoy the peace, little as it is, which a good life brings; but such happiness compared with the beatitude which is our end in eternity is, in point of fact, misery.

And what is the City of God? Well, it’s not the Church, since some Catholics may not be saved. It is the holy dwelling (it may be in our hearts and it is certainly in heaven) where we “shall have no greater joy than the celebration of the grace of Christ . . .” Augustine says that true Christians will become like the seventh day of creation:

[W]hen we are restored by Him, and perfected with greater grace, we shall have eternal leisure to see that He is God, for we shall be full of Him when He shall be all in all. For even our good works, when they are understood to be rather His than ours, are imputed to us that we may enjoy this Sabbath rest.

And yet there will be more: an eighth and eternal day, when history will end, and “we shall rest and see, see and love, love and praise.”

The City of God is a long book. It soars, but it also plods. It is worth every effort of patient attention, because Saint Augustine shows – as few writers have been able to – how the history we’re living is always a drama defined by the eternal destiny for which we should all still be striving.

Monday, October 05, 2009

Abortion is Murder, November, 2009 7-9

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

November, 2009 Vol. 7 No. 9
PO Box 7424, Reading, PA 19603
Phone – cell—484-706-4375, machine -- 610-396-0332
Email –
Web –
Circulation – 55`
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
7. Kopp, James 11761-055, USP Canaan, 3057 Easton Tpk., Waymart, PA 18472
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 (new)
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

Here is the conclusion and endnotes of Eric’s Chapter 2:

On the surface the Partial Birth Abortion Ban and Gonzales look like significant steps toward overturning Roe v. Wade; but underneath they are hollow meaningless bones that the Republican establishment has thrown to their social conservative supporters. Pro-lifers are mistaken if they believe the Ban and Gonzales signal a serious shift in the Court, one that will eventually lead to overturning Roe v. Wade. Gonzales makes it clear that Roe is safe in front of the Roberts Court. This is not because conservatives are still lacking one more vote. No, they are lacking the same number of votes as before. Alito and Roberts added nothing to the Roe equation. In their confirmation hearings, they held their abortion card close to their vest. Nevertheless, the smart money was betting that neither Alito nor Roberts would vote to overturn Roe. They were right.
Now that they sit on the bench for life, Alito and Roberts have nothing to fear in expressing their opinions on Roe. If they truly wanted Roe v Wade gone, the best way to effect that is to signal to the states to bring abortion cases before them. Scalia and Thomas have been doing that for years. In every major abortion case that has come before the Court, they have expressed their opinion that Roe should go. Gonzales v Carhart was no different. Thomas and Scalia concurred in part and dissented in part. Although concurring with the majority in upholding the Partial Birth Abortion Ban, they dissented, saying “The Court’s abortion jurisprudence, including Casey and Roe v Wade, has no basis in the Constitution.”45 Here was an opportunity for Alito and Roberts to sign onto Thomas and Scalia’s dissent and tell the country, especially the states, that they would overturn Roe if the issue came before the Court again. But they didn’t sign the dissent. So much for George W’s appointees.
This was a great disappointment for conservatives because Roe is the real target they've hunted for thirty-five years. But Roe is safe, unless Bush or the next President appoints three more Justices like Thomas and Scalia. With the election of Barack Obama and huge Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress, it's almost certain that no conservative judges will be confirmed for the next decade. Even on the off chance that a Republican president is elected in 2012, he or she will be a decidedly more liberal Republican. The Republican Party establishment has tried for twenty years to cut its ties with social conservatives. They will most certainly redouble their efforts before the next presidential election. And what about the states? For Roe to go down, a state must first pass a law that explicitly proscribes abortions anytime after conception, health exception not included. Last year South Dakota attempted this very thing. But the egalitarians forced the law before a state referendum, where it went down in defeat. Believing the reason for the defeat was the law's lack of an exception for cases of rape and incest, prolifers in South Dakota prepared a new Initiative for the 2008 election. This one allowed abortions in cases of rape, incest, and to save the life of the mother. But the Initiative was voted down 55 percent to 45 percent. As South Dakota is one of the more conservative states, the defeat is a bad omen.
But let us imagine that Roberts and Alito vote against Roe. What then? Most Americans believe that abortion would then be completely outlawed. Not even close. Roe v. Wade prevented the states from deciding on the issue. If Roe was overturned tomorrow, abortion would return to the state legislatures. Based upon what happened in South Dakota, only a few states would move to outlaw abortion completely. Without Roe, abortion-on-demand would remain legal in most of the states. All these years, conservatives have been pleading with the Marxists to let them have one pocket of territory where abortions are not allowed—just one. That is the only thing Roe’s demise would accomplish.

In order to outlaw abortion nationwide, using constitutional methods, one of three things would need to happen: the Supreme Court would have to recognize a pre-natal right to life under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment; or Congress would have to pass a law banning all abortions; or the Constitution would have to be amended to protect unborn human life. Even under the most Republican of Congresses, the chances of one of these scenarios happening are remote.
This was shown clearly in the 2008 elections, when 72 percent of Coloradans voted against an initiative that would have defined the unborn child as a person. The initiative encapsulated the stated objective of the prolife movement, which is to eventually outlaw abortion nationwide by enacting an Amendment to the U. S. Constitution that affords pre-natal life the full protections of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. But the major prolife organizations did not line up behind the Colorado initiative. They thought it was asking for too much too soon. We must first use the "soft-sell" to promote a "culture of life," they said. And eventually, after fifty years, the American people will come to support a personhood Amendment to the Constitution. But all the demographic-political trends are moving in the opposite direction. In fifty years, prolifers, if there are any left, won't even be able to get enough signatures to put a personhood initiative on a state ballot, let alone enact an Amendment to the U. S. Constitution.
Given all this, the Partial Birth Abortion Ban is best seen as the high water mark of the pro-life movement. Constitutional efforts to outlaw or limit abortion have come to an end. Unless a different strategy is devised, conservatives will gradually lose ground, until eventually they are pushed out of the political process entirely. But a new strategy requires a new perspective.
Strategically, conservatives have failed over the decades because they do not truly understand their opponents. And tactically, they have lost every conflict because they have allowed their opponents to set the agenda, thus placing themselves on the defensive. As any lawyer or general knows, he who sets the agenda and takes the initiative almost always wins. The reason conservatives don’t understand their opponents is because they have made a conscious choice not to. Retreat a little farther out, has been their strategy. The egalitarians are liars but they have never been shy about discussing their ideas or plans. The Court’s majority in Casey, for instance, were emphatic as to what was at stake. Roe, they said, was an essential pillar of America’s egalitarian society. An attack upon it was an attack upon their America: To eliminate the issue of reliance that easily, however, one would need to limit cognizable reliance to specific instances of sexual activity. But to do this would simply be to refuse to face the fact that for two decades of economic and social development, people have organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail. The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives.46
If conservatives took this position to heart, they would understand that this is not just about abortion, or the constitutional process. They are up against an ideology, one that in the case of abortion, justifies this heinous practice so that women can achieve equality in society. But this twisted thinking affects every other aspect of society, as well, not just abortion. Going on and on with the personhood argument is not going to work. For years conservatives have fooled themselves into believing that the abortion debate is really just about whether or not the unborn child is a person. For years they have sought to convince the egalitarians to respect unborn life because life begins at conception. This will not work. Why? Because the true egalitarians already know that life begins at conception. They don’t care. Equality for women is more important to them than the lives of unborn children. To them 50 million deaths is a small price to pay in order to level the playing field. Laurence Tribe, probably the leading leftwing legal scholar in the country, put it this way:

Perhaps the Supreme Court’s opinion in Roe, by gratuitously insisting that the fetus cannot be deemed a “person,” needlessly insulted and alienated those for whom the view that the fetus is a person represents a fundamental article of faith or bedrock personal commitment. The Court could instead have said: even if the fetus is a person, our Constitution forbids compelling a woman to carry it for nine months and become a mother.”47

Chapter 2 References

1. Elizabeth Cady Stanton, “Infanticide and Prostitution,” Revolution, I, No. 5 (Feb. 5, 1868) p. 65
2. Revolution, I, No. 14 (April 9, 1868) pp. 215-216
3. Dorothy Kelly, “Prevention and the Laws,” Women Rebel, (April 1914) p. 10
4. Victor Meric, “The First Right,” Women Rebel, (April 1914) p. 10
5. Ibid, p. 11
6. Ben B.Lindsey and Wainwright Evans, The Companionate Marriage, (New York: Boni and Liveright, 1927) p. 338
7. Marian Morton, “Seduced and Abandoned in an American City,” Journal of Urban History, vol. II (Aug. 1985) pp. 464-465
8. Henry Marcy, “Education as a Factor in the Prevention of Criminal Abortion and Illegitimacy,” Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 47 (1906) p. 1889
9. Dorothy Kelly, “Prevention and the Law,” Women Rebel, (April 1914), p. 10
10. “Ten Years of Legalized Abortion in the Soviet Union,” American Journal of Public Health, (Sept. 1931) p. 1043
11. Olasky, Abortion Rites, p. 262
12. Time (March 16, 1936) p. 52
13. The Abortion Problem: Proceedings of the Conference Held Under the Auspices of the National Committee on Maternal Health, Inc., (Baltimore, Williams and Wilkins, 1944) pp.100-101
14. Ibid, pp. 50-52, 104
15. Arizona Republic, (Aug. 21, 1962) p. 1
16. The Gallup Poll: Public Opinion 1935-1971 (New York: Random House, 1972) p. 1984
17. Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45, 74 (1905)
18. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 1(1973)
19. Ibid.
20. Ibid
21. Ibid.
22. Richard Epstein, “Substantive Due Process by Any Other Name,” in Supreme Court Review, 1973 n.t. 31 at 182
23. Elliot Silverstein, “From Comstockery Through Population Control,” North Carolina Law Journal, 39-40 (1974)
24. Roe v. Wade
25. Archibald Cox, The Role of the Supreme Court in American Government, p. 113-114
26. Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179, 191-193 (1973)
27. Roe v. Wade
28. Doe v. Bolton
29. H.R. Rep No. 108-158, p. 3 (2003)
30. Roe v. Wade
31. John Ely, “The Wages of Crying Wolf: A Comment on Roe v. Wade,” in 82 Yale Law Review, 921 n. 19 (1973)
32. Richard Posner, “The Uncertain Protection of Privacy by the Supreme Court,” in Supreme Court Review, p.173, 199
33. Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 492 U.S. 511 (1989)
34. Ibid.
35. Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 438 (1980)
36. Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 852 (1992)
37. Ibid.
38. Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 922 (2000)
39. Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. (2007)
40. 18 U.S.C. 1531 (2000 ed. Supp.IV)
41. Gonzales v. Carhart
42. Ibid.
43. Ibid.
44. Ibid.
45. Ibid.
46. Planned Parenthood v. Casey
47. Lawrence Tribe, Abortion: The Clash of Absolutes, (New York: Norton, 1990) p. 135

Next: Chapter 3 The Debate

Table of Contents


Chapter 1 History of Abortion

Chapter 2 Roe v. Wade

Chapter 3 The Debate

Chapter 4 Mass Man

Chapter 5 The Media

Chapter 6 Hour of Decision

Neal Horsley responds to the latest section of Peter Knight’s long letter:

John, I've been thinking about Peter Knight's letter in the last issue of your "Abortion Is Murder" newsletter. He said, "Even if the Supreme Court didn’t override a decision by the states to criminalize abortion, how stupid would you have to be to think that you could get every state to criminalize it?"
Of course he's right. It is inconceivable at this point in time that every State would overturn legalized abortion in the USA. But Peter Knight misses the point--(in his defense he does say he knows "little about American politics" because he is an Australian).
Here's the point: One of the powerful facts of the American political system centered on the matter of States Rights. The creation of State Sovereignty in the USA resolved one of the central dilemmas of all government throughout all history: what happens to the world when one State goes insane and becomes a murderous beastly parent?
The American system originally resolved this question by admitting that each State was sovereign under God. This solved the central problem of government by realizing that real culpability cannot be ascribed to everyone when one family goes insane. If one father kills his own children, every father is not deemed guilty by God: only the murderous father. So, too, is it with different States. If one State can be established as a Free From Murder Zone, then people who want to avoid legal culpability for murder in murderous beastly States can move there and avoid the culpability earned by the murderous States. Having established a murder-free zone in that State, then the whole world would wait to see how God resolved the matter of the murderous beastly State.
And that seems to be the underlying problem that Peter Knight was focusing on. As we see in our example, the murderous father remains murderous even if a Free From Murder family (State) is established.
As news reports seem to indicate, Peter Knight's solution was to kill all those supporting the murderous father. And based on his letter, it appears that is still his "solution" even though he now is facing life in prison.
I understand the logic Peter Knight brings to this discussion and recognize he has earned his place at the discussion table. But I don't think Peter Knight understands that individual action is only rarely the way God goes about settling matters of government on earth. Jewish Phineus is not God's ordinary model for government, but rather the exception that proves the rule, the model.
I think Reason clearly understands that no murderous father can be allowed to go unchecked in his murderous ways without endangering every family around him eventually. And when we see that the father in this example stands for each individual State, then every State would eventually have to become involved in restraining the murderous father.
World War II, at some level, was a paradigm of how God resolves the matter of a world where some States are murderous and others attempt to outlaw murder. So, too, when we look at ancient Israel, we see other instances of one State (Israel) taking on the nature and behavior of pagan, murderous States by sacrificing their sons and daughters to idols, thereby becoming a murderous State itself--and reaping the wrathful fruit thereby cultivated.
And that is also the point: God has ways of bringing a whole world into harmony with His Law.
But those ways seem to begin with each State either accepting or rejecting God's Law.
In the United States of America today, the Supreme Court has usurped each State's Right to establish a murder free zone. That usurpation must be resolved before we will have the opportunity to see how God will resolve the remainder of the murderous government problem on earth.
To resolve the Supreme Court's ungodly and unconstitutional usurpation of God's Law by nullifying evil federal law that contradicts God's Law, I'm running for Governor of Georgia. This is the way God ordained to resolve fundamental problems here in the USA: He raises up Governors to establish His Law somewhere, then expands His Law from there.
Presently the people of Georgia--even most who call themselves God's people--reject me and make it clear they are thinking--in that secret place where corporate thinking occurs among members of the same tribe--of killing me for rocking their prosperous, and apparently powerful, federal boat.
But I want Peter Knight to know it ain't over till it's over. I know how frustrating prison can be, but I also want Peter Knight to know that God is using him anyway, even in his Australian prison, to move this matter of legalized murder toward completion in God's own time.
It's all way over my head, I admit that. But this much I understand: establishing a return to State's Rights in the USA is what comes next. And I covet Peter Knight's prayers in that regard. Neal

And here Peter’s letter continues. I am not yet half-way through:

At what point will the people who have waited and waited and waited decide that they’ve wasted enough time and enough lives? Obviously, since they condemn the use of the only means they have that can stop the problem, obviously, the answer is never. No amount of savagery from the abortionists would be too much for them to willingly accept. Jesus said, MT 25: 34-35, that the way you have responded to people in need of your help is the way He considers you have responded to Him. So the people who decided it was right to wait and wait and wait decided it was right to wait until the Baby Jesus had been brutally slain millions of times.
Abortion murder, worldwide, over the past four decades, has cost over five hundred million of defenseless children their lives. Greg Cunningham, in his paragraph 8, says there is a comparison between that and black civil rights. Something which by comparison cost virtually no lives.
Many of the few who do not condemn Paul Hill’s methods have said that to demand that people use his methods and to condemn them when they don’t is wrong. Those who say this suggest that some people’s duty lies elsewhere. When millions were being torn to pieces, they suggest that some people’s duty was to leave the battle field, abandon the children, so they could go off, get married, and raise a family. They suggest that some people had a duty to abandon the children so they could go off and be a farmer or lawyer or nurse.
Your duty, and everyone’s duty, is to do what will bring about the most good. Since some people are slow to accept that, I’ll repeat it. It is the duty of everyone, there are no exceptions, to do what will bring about the most good. Deciding to take a course that will bring about the 2nd most, or 3rd most, because that is easier, or for any other reason, is not a lesser success, that’s total and absolute failure in doing your duty.
Abortionists are sitting ducks, as was shown by the rank amateur assassin Paul Hill. And no amount of protection they are capable of hiring or could ever be given would make them anything other than sitting ducks. If even just two hundred people in the USA and Canada, that’s less than .000001 of one percent of the population, had given Paul Hill’s response to abortionists, there shouldn’t be anyone who would need to be told the result.
No, there wouldn’t have been dead abortionists everywhere, there just aren’t that many abortionists around. There aren’t millions of them like there are mechanics or truck drivers or plumbers. The last figure I saw mentioned said there were 840 in the USA and Canada. And by the time 100 had met a violent end, probably even before, the only abortionists willing to remain in the practice would be those with a totally insane death wish. There’s only a handful of those and there would be more than enough of the two hundred Paul Hills remaining to give them their wish.
Name the arena where two hundred people could have brought about greater good than by putting a stop to the abortionists in North America. Of course not many would need to be told that there were not two hundred Paul Hills in North America. But does that give anyone an excuse for not taking his actions? The fact that without support of others, the one or two abortionists one individual might reasonably expect to put a stop to by Paul Hill’s methods would be an ineffective measure, as regards saving unborn babies, because the dead abortionists’ clientele would have little trouble transferring to one of the many nearby remaining abortionists.
That fact wouldn’t do anything to explain to me why any of those who refuse to use Paul Hill’s methods haven’t gone to Hawaii and taken such actions there. (tbc)

I sent this letter to the New Oxford Review:

In the September, 2009, issue of the New Oxford Review, erstwhile prolife tough gal, Judie Brown, has shown herself to be as cowardly as I. Brown responds to this powerful quote of pro-abort Nancy Gibbs in Time magazine by calling it a “caricature of the prolife movement”:

If someone truly believes that abortion is the same as murder, then is not bombing abortion clinics or killing the doctors comparable to bombing concentration camps or killing their commandants?...If abortion providers are mass child killers and the law refuses to act, the (prolifer) may see himself as the lone defender of justice....

Notice that Brown does the same thing as the abortion apologist when faced with a fact that might shatter her glass cage – she resorts to name-calling -- no careful analysis, no indication of subtle difference – just name-calling. And the rest of the article follows suit. The New Oxford Review will lose one subscriber, me, but you can see the pickle they would be in if they had
printed a serious examination of Gibbs’s quote: they’d lose more than one.

I also sent it to Brown and she answered: Dear Mr. Dunkle, The logical response to your personal attack on me is to explain a simple fact of life. You wrote: If someone truly believes that abortion is the same as murder, then is not bombing abortion clinics or killing the doctors comparable to bombing concentration camps or killing their commandants?...Your statement presumes that one act of evil demands an evil response. You are wrong. You are not God. And we are called to imitate Christ, not the evil one.

I answered her: It is not evil, Mrs. Brown, to defend forcefully someone whose life is being threatened.

Here’s the rest of Jimbo’s latest “Stacey & Hutch” episode, “The Case of the Disappearing Switch.” Peruse these at once.

The beauty of this road trip is that it gave S some time to fill in H on the whole P.O. thing (see previous episodes)
But Stacey was still kafuffled. "What do I put as the address on the top of the P.O.? I can't put my work address. They'd kill me. I can't put my home address. Frank would divorce me, they’d drag the children off to jail."
Hutch got a twinkle in her eye. "Did you see the flick with the Titanic kid in it?"
“DiCaprio? My daughters are all in love with him"
"That's the one. So he's in this other flick, ‘Catch Me if You Can’, about a guy who impersonates a pilot, a doctor and a lawyer and stuff like that.”
“Now I know the flick you mean.”
“It turns out it’s all from a book with the same name by a guy named Frank Abignale. He started out as a check kiter, and got into other stuff.”
“Well, what does this have to do with P.O.'s?”
“Check kiting is all about fake IDs, fake addresses and one way to get a fakey address is those post box places, not like the official USPS mailboxes, but. . .”
“mail boxes etc? like that?”
“There you go. That's one. There's bunches of 'em. the seedier the better. Listen: I got a friend back home, she’s got a friend, and her friend's husband ran out with all the money, and so she hired a detective to go and find him, and it turned out he was getting a paycheck sent to this funny mailbox to hide the money.”
“So, silly, that's the address you put on the top of the P.0.”
“But how do you get an ID to rent the fakey po box in the first place?”
“It’s all in the book, and it’s not rocket science. Those people make money from deadbeat hubbies showing up to get a box, and they don't look too carefully at stuff like that. A million guys standing on the street corner in Orange County, CA, or, heck, the guys in high school who make fake drivers’ licenses to get their girlfriends into bars, they can't be all scholar-geniuses. It don't take much. And then my friend found out that bartenders all have this book under the bar that tells them how to tell fake ids. But in the book are pictures of every type of driver's license.”
“You're joking.”
"Now, the way the high school kids do it, is, they get a hold of the bartender book, and photo shop, and they go. A little typesetting, a little paste-up, and away we go.”
“So I've got an address for my PO. What's next?”
“Payment, you gotta pay the guy for the barrel of paint. You Can’t just write a check, right?
“I give up. Spill.”
“USPS MO, paid for at an old post office that don’t have cameras, or, one of those wells fargo places, the places guys cash seedy checks and like that. but you pay so far in advance, that the bean counter at the wholesale place has got you ready to go by the time you show up with a pickup at the loading dock at the warehouse.”
“You are a sleaze!”
“You ain't seen nothin. You should talk to my friend, but this is all in the Catch Me book."

It was a little frustrating, to have made an outing that could have gotten three or four switches, and to come away only with one, but the upside of it was that by mistakes like this, and long talks on the over-the-road drives, that S and H optimized their work, which made for more results for less money, and also for more confidence and less energy spent worrying. It started to feel like a normal job, only more relaxing because they made their own hours, and had fun on the way. And now, they had basically a zero liability-footprint when it came to buying paint, and stuff.
Slowly but surely they got more and more below the horizon until, grace of God, they rarely had to darken the door of Home Depot, and they never seemed to bring any attention in the middle of the night, or even daylight, when most of America, sad to say, was busy glued to their electronics anyway, or exhausted from same, or drunk, etc. *Selah*
( Next up: What S & H Told the Paint wholesale salesman. . . .)
(verse 3 of “Oh Little Town of Bethlehem":

How silently how silently the wondrous gift is given
So God imparts to human hearts the wonders of His heaven
No ear may hear His coming, but in this world of sin
Where meek hearts will receive Him still, the Dear Christ enters in.
Have you had your Quiet Quiet Time today, marine? the Lord waits for you. He's the One we should be talking to, not computers and over the back fence. The time He has set apart to talk to you today will be lost forever if we miss it, today. Just a thot.
Bless me Lord, Bless me Lord, you know that's all I ever hear
No one aches, no one weeps, & no one even sheds one tear
But He cries, He weeps, He bleeds, and He cares for our needs
But we just lay back and keep soaking it in
Can 't you see it’s such sin?
For He comes knocking at our door and we smile and say,
"God bless you, be at peace, and all heaven just weeps
For Jesus rose from the dead
and you, you can't even get out of bed.
Oh, come on, get out of your bed!

Survivors: this is No Compromise by Keith Green. Run, don't walk to your local Christian book store and get it, OK?

By Billy Collins (former poet laureate)

It occurred to me around dusk
after I had lit three candles
and was pouring myself a glass of wine
that I had not uttered a word to a soul all day.

Alone in the house,
I was busy pushing the wheel in a mill of paper
or staring down a dark well of ink –
no callers at the door., no ring of the telephone.

But as the path lights came on,
I did recall having words with a turtle
on my morning walk, a sudden greeting
that sent him off his log splashing into the lake.

I had also spoken to the goldfish
as I tossed a handful of pellets into their pond,
and I had a short chat with the dog,
who cocked her head this way and that

as I explained that dinner was hours away
and that she should lie down by the door.
I also talked to myself as I was typing
and later on while I looked around for my boots.

So I had barely set foot on the path
that leads to the great villa of silence
where men and women pace while counting beads.
In fact, I had only a single afternoon

of total silence to show for myself,
a spring day in a cell in Big Sur,
twenty or so monks also silent in their nearby cells --
a community of Cameldolites,

an order so stringent, my guide told me,
that they make the Benedictines,
whom they had broken away from in the 11th century,
look like a bunch of Hells Angels.

Out of a lifetime of running my mouth
and leaning on the horn of the ego,
only a single afternoon of being truly quiet
on a high cliff with the Pacific spread out below,

but as I listened to the birdsong
by the window that day, I could feel my droplet
of silence swelling on the faucet
then dropping into the zinc basin of their serenity.

Yet since then –
nothing but the racket of self-advertisement,
the clamor of noisy restaurants,
the classroom proclamations,

the little king of the voice having its say,
and today the pride of writing this down,
which must be the reason my pen
has turned its back on me to hide its face in its hands.