Abortion is Murder, 7-14, February, 2010

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

February, 2010 Vol. 7 No. 14
PO Box 7424, Reading, PA 19603
Phone – cell—484-706-4375, machine -- 610-396-0332
Email – johndunk@ptd.net
Web – skyp1.blogspot.com
Circulation –79
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 POCs, $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 for 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, P.O. Box 300, 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

Continuation of “The Debate”:

Dialectical materialism was supposed to be a scientific process like photosynthesis. But when it is put next to the historical record dialectical materialism becomes a pile of nonsense. Marx’s explanations of history are childish. Marx's theory had the working classes being gradually reduced to abject poverty. But the fact is that under capitalism the working classes have tended to rise in wealth and power. And almost all of his important predictions never came true. Marx's theory said that the most advanced industrial societies of Europe (France, Germany, England) would be the first to shrug off capitalism and accept communism. But in fact communism has had its greatest impact in the most backwards societies (Russia, China, Vietnam). Marx’s theory of history, however, was popular not because it was factual. Humans naturally envy those who have more money, more talent, more intelligence and so forth. It’s a story as old as Cain and Able. And people naturally resent the “unfairness” of life, where some people got this and others got that. For the envious and resentful, Marx prophesied about a great day of revenge. It was the message of victimization and the promise of revenge that inspired millions of people. Nineteenth century Europe and America were brutal places for the poor and the powerless. There was certainly a dire need for more social justice. But Marx was uninterested in mere reform. He pointed to a paradise that could only be reached after a long journey across an ocean of blood. Get rid of the mythological paradise and Marx’s message is nothing but envy, resentment and blood. He expressed this nihilism perfectly, saying “Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality…it acts in contradiction to all past historical experience."(Karl Marx, Communist Manifesto, trans. Ed. Samuel Moore and Joseph Katz, New York: Pocket Books, 1964, p. 92).
From 1869 to 1912 Marxist political parties— called either Social Democratic or Socialist— were organized in every Western nation. Socialists also gained control of all the major trade unions. They became dominant in academic, intellectual, and artistic circles. In keeping with Marx’s vision of a universal socialist movement, representatives of the various socialist organizations met in a global parliament called the International. There were four Internationals, the first two being the most important. The First International (1864-73) fell apart over squabbling between Marx and anarchist leader Bakunin. After Marx’s death the new Social Democratic parties of Europe and America formed the second and most important International (1889). Right away there were differences of opinion. Most of the socialist parties were already involved in parliamentary politics. So the question arose: should socialists prepare for revolution in keeping with Marxist doctrine, or should they drop the politics of revolution altogether and continue to work for the gradual acceptance of socialism within the democratic process? Another question concerned control of the movement: the orthodox Marxists insisted on international control, believing that the socialist parties should work to undermine their own national governments and bring about a global revolution; others wanted local control, insisting that each nation’s situation was unique, and the parties should work within their own nations to achieve limited goals. Edward Bernstein’s Evolutionary Socialism (1908) advocated the gradualist approach. In England the highly influential Fabian Essays (begun in 1889) contained a blueprint for socialist legislation and gradualist reform. Fabians such as George Bernard Shaw and Sidney and Beatrice Webb, who were members of England’s upper class, sought to change society by “wire-pulling” — influencing key politicians, civil servants, and trade union officials. Edward Bellamy’s socialist tract Looking Backward (1889) was the Bible for American gradualists such as Eugene Debs and Columbia professor John Dewey. The intellectuals who gathered in New York City’s Greenwich Village and the Lower East Side brought this form of gradualist socialism into American society. Eventually they joined the two party system, becoming a powerful part of the Democratic Party’s coalition. They dominated the Roosevelt Administration from the second and third tier posts. Today, they are the dominant voice in the Democratic Party and in American society as a whole. Gradualists were thereafter known as Democratic Socialists; orthodox Marxists were called Revolutionary Socialists.
The First World War finally destroyed the international socialist movement. Revolutionary Socialists saw the war as the death knell of capitalism. The socialist parties, they said, should encourage resistance to conscription. They should organize strikes and undermine the war effort of the bourgeoisie governments. But the Democratic Socialists were caught up in the war fever. Instead of organizing resistance to the war effort, they joined it, calling on their constituents to enlist and fight for their country. The Democratic Socialists’ insistence that a worker’s loyalty to his country (nationalism) trumped his loyalty to the international workers of the world contradicted the core of Marxism. The worst blow came immediately after the war, when Marxists again called for global revolution. The Bolsheviks had just come to power in Russia (October 1917), and many socialists believed that with one final push they could easily take all of Western Europe. There were Communist uprisings in Budapest, Berlin and Bavaria. And the Red Army under Trotsky marched into Poland. But within a matter of weeks the uprisings were suppressed and the Red Army was turned back. And nowhere did the workers rise up and throw off their capitalist chains. Thereafter Democratic Socialism in the West would be a reform movement, pushing for the creation of a welfare state within their respective nations. (tbc)
---------------------------------------------------------------

Cal asks me to post his letter whole rather than piecemeal:

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. The Pope dresses up as the great shepherd and stands in front of the gate with a big sign that reads: "Mr. Wolf, please don't steal the sheep. We morally condemn this." But if you look very closely, the Pope has jammed a nail in the gate's latch to keep it open. To close the latch means to affirm the person in the whole sense without equivocation. Instead, to keep the latch open, the Pope calls it a "question" and says "the answer to this question cannot be of a 'definite kind,' but must remain OPEN, in any case, to further considerations." (emphasis added) [Final statement of the 12th General Assembly and of the International Congress on: "The Human Embryo before Implantation. Scientific Update and Bioethical Considerations" (February 27-28, 2006)] If you try to pull the nail out of the latch to close it, the wolf is going to pop out of shepherd's clothing and attack your efforts. This is why the Catholic Church has worked to defeat the Human Life Bill and the Personhood Amendments of Georgia, Colorado, Montana, and now Nevada. The reason why the Pope wants to keep the latch "open" is so that, with the gate's latch open, the wolf will do the inevitable, thereby clearing the pews, school desks, and homes of awkward pregnancy scandals.
So the modus operandi of the Pope is to deny complicity by holding up a big sign morally condemning what the wolf is doing; the Pope tries to give the impression that if anything he is such a good shepherd for the children that it is not fair to Mr. Wolf; but then with another face the Pope works behind the scenes politically, to make sure no one goes so far as to pull out the nail holding the gate's latch open. This way, with the issue of personhood still "open" to further considerations, the wolf is free to do the dirty work of clearing the pews, school desks, and homes of awkward pregnancy scandals.

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.

But with Mr. Wolf in business, no one need be the wiser. All you have to do is to invent a clever scheme to deny your own complicity, to make it look like you actually condemn abortion, and you are scot free! This clever scheme is backed not only by the Mormon and Catholic Churches--to clear the pews, school desks, and homes of awkward pregnancy scandals--but also by the Republican Party. Although the yap in favor of legal abortion is led by the Democratic Party and Planned Parenthood, the actual turning of the political cogwheels to legalize abortion-on-demand was done by conservatives, with names like Ronald Reagan, Nelson Rockefeller, Harry Blackmun, and Sandra Day O'Connor leading the way. These are the names of the people actually responsible for legalizing abortion and keeping it legal throughout the United States.
When Ronald Reagan was Republican governor of California, he legalized abortion-on-demand because conservatives there were frustrated by their daughters' participation in the sexual revolution. Young women were throwing away the life of pretty dresses and convenient household appliances their mothers had planned for them. In New York, conservatives, especially Jewish conservatives, were frustrated that their daughters were making the "melting pot" boil over in the unmarried bedroom. So they had their Republican governor Nelson Rockefeller legalize abortion-on-demand. But although conservatives in Texas wanted abortions just as much as California and New York's did, Texans were too proud to do the dirty work themselves. So, Republican justice Harry Blackmun wrote the decision in Roe v. Wade, so pathetic states like Texas could have legal abortion too, by letting the U.S. Supreme Court do the dirty work for them. Then, after Republicans had done all the work to legalize abortion throughout the land (while still managing to carry on the appearances of denying complicity), a newly elected president Ronald Reagan appointed Sandra Day O'Connor to the U.S. Supreme Court, as a ringer to make sure abortion would stay legal throughout the nation.
Abortion was never legalized to give women a choice. Abortion was legalized to cover up for the sexual imbecility of our women with child homicide. As justice Thurgood Marshall points out two months after Roe, the Court in Roe rejected any substantive constitutional guarantee of a woman's right to choose; instead, "the Court reaffirmed its initial decision in Buck v. Bell." San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 100-101 (1973). Translated, what this expression means is that the Court in Roe had gone so far as to outline plans to force women to abort if they did not cover up for their sexual imbecility with abortion voluntarily. In other words, though our nation carries on with the pretense of a debate to keep the wool over our eyes, there has never been a real question of a woman's right to choose or when life begins. Instead, abortion was legalized to cover up for the sexual imbecility of our women with child homicide. Simply put, our judges, gynecologists, psychiatrists, and feminists did not know of any other way to maintain the public facade of a woman's good judgment, than by covering up for the underlying sexual imbecility with legal abortion.
As justice William Douglas puts it in his concurring opinion to Roe, our women are "imbeciles afflicted with hereditary forms of insanity or imbecility," indicating that if women do not make voluntary recourse to abortion to cover up for their sexual imbecility, then citing the likes of Jacobson v. Massachusetts (forced vaccination) and Buck v. Bell (forced sterilization), and disavowing the applicability of Skinner v. Oklahoma (which he himself wrote for a unanimous Court back in 1942), then we would have involuntary abortion to get the job done. Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179, 215 (1973). Skinner would have protected women from unbridled use of forced procedures to control their reproduction in arbitrary connection with the punishment for crimes. But in the wake of the hippie craze the Court was worried there might be no other way to control drug-related pregnancies. So the Court in Roe quietly disavowed Skinner saying, "The situation [of abortion] therefore is inherently different from … Skinner." Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 159 (1973).
The successor to Roe was Planned Parenthood v. Casey. The whole reason why the Court decided to hear Casey was that states were creating quite the clamor by pressuring women to abort in connection with drug-related pregnancies during the crack baby epidemic. So the Court decided to review its opinion on the matter of forced abortion. The whole reason why the Court fractioned in Casey (why the justices could not come to a majority agreement) was that the states' rights justices were outnumbered 5-to-4 by the Roe-supporting justices, and only three of the Roe-supporting justices, and none of the states' rights justices, were willing to signal any tightening at all when it came to Roe's policy on forced abortion.
In this regard, justice John Paul Stevens, a Roe-supporting justice unwilling to signal any tightening of Roe's allowance for forced abortion, decided to play the Court clown. Rather than being content with the traditional disavowing of Skinner's applicability to abortion to express the Court's support for forced abortion, Stevens decided to make it a point to also disavow a case called Rochin v. California as well. Let's examine the parallel he is making. Rochin involved: 1) forcing someone, 2) to expel something from the body, 3) by the police power, 4) with the aid of the medical arts, 5) in connection with drug use. Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952). So what does it mean to force a woman to abort her crack baby? It means: 1) forcing someone (meaning, the woman), 2) to expel something from the body (meaning, the baby), 3) by the police power (meaning, the state), 4) with the aid of the medical arts (meaning, the abortion doctor), 5) in connection with drug use (meaning, crack cocaine). Although the Court had originally condemned such practices in Skinner and Rochin, justice Stevens says the Court was actually "neutral" in those cases when it came to abortion. But then he adds a small caveat to say that by this he does not mean he thinks states should be allowed to make "all women undergo abortions"; in other words, the line between forcing some and forcing all has to be drawn somewhere, a matter the Court can decide later whenever it chooses to grant review on a writ of certiorari to such a question. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 915 (1992). Roe v. Wade author justice Blackmun joined justice Stevens on this. Casey, id., at 932. This left only three of the five Roe-supporting justices to hand down the "plurality" decision in Casey.
Thus, when women like justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Sonia Sotomayor do nothing to reject Roe v. Wade, it shows they believe there is no other way to cover up for the underlying sexual imbecility of our women than by maintaining a facade of good judgment with child homicide in the form of abortion. Indeed, having been called "imbeciles" by the most senior Member of the Court in Roe, it is only fitting for our female justices to have the word "Imbecile" embroidered on the bibs they wear to Court. Sincerely, Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Here’s the conclusion of “Ireland Sinks into the Sea”:

One of Pope John Paul’s greatest disappointments was his well-documented failure to convince this same European Parliament to even mention the Christian roots of Europe in the EU Constitution. Several Socialist governments in Europe were adamant that all references to the "Christian roots of Europe" must be excluded from the Constitution. But "Europe is very difficult to understand and evaluate without a Christian perspective," pleaded the Holy Father, "the last century made strong efforts to exclude God and Christianity from all expressions of human life, and thus Christianity has now been confined to each person's private life." (Zenit files, Jan-Mar, 2002).
The Pope's words fell on deaf ears, of course. Initially, he believed he could dialogue with the fanatical secularists of the EU. That proved to be a tragic mistake.
On March 13, 2002, a resolution entitled Women and Fundamentalism passed in the European Parliament even though it would essentially force the Catholic Church to ordain women. According to the resolution, the "European Parliament condemns the administrations of religious organizations and the leaders of extremist political movements who promote racial discrimination, xenophobia and the exclusion of women from leading positions in the political and religious hierarchy."
Got that? The European Parliament — the very same body that browbeat poor Ireland into finally voting "yes" to the Lisbon Treaty — had already in 2002 condemned the Catholic Church for refusing to ordain women.
Little wonder that in the wake of Ireland's "Yes" vote,
an EU MP immediately called for compulsory "EU
Education" in European schools to demonize opposition
to the Lisbon Treaty. The education program for 14-year-
olds will become mandatory in all member-states if Mario
David, a Portuguese MEP, gets his way. According to
Leigh Phillips (Oct. 15, 2009, Telegraph.eu.uk), David
insists that:

Knowing and understanding, from a young age, the principles,
the procedures and the successful history of the European
Union, the generations of tomorrow will be immune to any
distortion of the perception of the role of the EU and will
much better embrace the advantages of this unique project of
voluntary sharing of sovereignty.

He said the curriculum would initially include a series of five half-day seminars on the history of the union. It would cover the "Founding Fathers", the different treaties, enlargement, EU functions, the role of the union in the world and "How the EU affects everyday lives".

In other words, if you so much as question the "voluntary sharing of sovereignty" in Europe you're certainly not a patriot, you're in need of re-education, and you're likely some sort of closet racist. For only racists, morons and Christians would have a problem with the new regime and its mandatory "shared sovereignty". And they call traditional Catholics fascist?
Regardless of how many phony assurances the European Parliament offers Ireland or any other member-state where the retaining of sovereignty is concerned, we Yanks know a little something about "states rights" and how long that shtick tends to last in the shadow of an all-powerful central government.
At the end of the day, an essential component of the New World Order is being erected in Europe on foundation stones of institutionalized Christophobia, the eradication of national sovereignty, greed, abortion rights, gay rights, and unbridled sexual license.
Christian morality—the conscience of Europe—has
been banished from the shores of Europe.
We can fool ourselves all day long into thinking the EU is just another free trade zone, and that all of this has nothing to do with us, our sovereignty, or the global war on Christianity. If it helps you to sleep at night, go right ahead and drink that Kool-Aid. But when the North American Union appears on the horizon, the U.S. dollar disappears beneath it, Tony Blair is made President of Europe, and President Obama does his part by ratifying the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child—I suspect even many Americans will recall October 3, 2009 as the day of infamy when Ireland—the last real obstacle to the Godless “utopia” in Europe—fell into the sea.
Now more than ever before traditional Catholics need to stand up and make their voices heard. We are not about mere liturgical preferences, nice-smelling incense, and snobbish attachments to all things Latin. We're in the middle of the greatest clash of cultures and civilizations in history, and we must get serious about advancing the message that only the traditional Catholic restoration can slow construction on this new Tower of Babel being erected right before our eyes: ,
False ecumenism be damned! The Kingship of Christ needs to be urgently proclaimed and by the highest authorities in the Church if there is to be any hope for a world obviously caught up in the iron grip of militant secularists hell bent on crucifying the Mystical Body of Christ. If we don't stand up now for God's rights and ours as followers of Christ the King, we may not have the opportunity to do so again for a very long time. After all, Christians would have no right to speak or worship in a Christophobic New World Order.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

And here’s the conclusion of Jim Kopp’s response to Judie Brown’s contention that “prolife force” is an oxymoron:

You can scour these sources (the words of Popes, Saints, and Scripture) all day long (children die while we do it) and despite all kinds of warm and fuzzy misquotings about peace, you will never find this simple formula of words: "It is a sin to use force to protect children."

Critics of force to protect children must produce such a quote if they want to enter into Christian debate on the subject. Personal, Modernistic positions do not have this requirement.
Any Christian in this debate, please do so, first. Everything else is just personal opinion, of which there is an abundance, while children die.

II Personal sanctification and the apostolate go hand-in-hand, not sequentially

It is right to point out that anyone who uses comparatively more force (than a rescue, say) should work with the Holy Spirit to eliminate ad hominem faults such as human anger, hatred, etc.
But this is a goal, not am prerequisite. If it were not so, every fireman, peace officer and soldier would need to resign immediately, and do only sensitivity training and anger management sessions, until they died of old age.
This simultaneous approach to ministry and personal sanctification is classic RC teaching, which makes great allowance for passion which could be involved in a dramatic emergency of just self defense or defense of innocent third
parties, even such incidents which resulted in excessive
force. Secular law also makes such allowance. (See NYS CPL 35.05)
If my child is drowning, give me a fireman who saves her, cursing all the while about my negligence, over a sensitive yoga instructor who chants, “above all, be calm, off to the side, while your kid drowns.”
This is fake piety. Invoking Scripture adds the sin of blasphemy on top of the sin of omission. Since complicity, thereby, in child death is grave matter, both sins are mortal. And we wonder why we're stuck!
But attention to perfecting motives cuts both ways. Those who sit on the sidelines and criticize someone who has a clue must do no less:

*Am I afraid of going to jail in the FACE era if I do a low-force rescue?
*Do I covet money and security and Party favor so much that I must join the "struggle meeting" communist-style denouncing of larger amounts of force to save kids to save myself?
* Do I hope to appease a hypothetical future Congress by cravenness? Losing both today’s and future babies and moms?
* Am I afraid of what earthly powers can do to me, not babies and moms?
* Even staying out of jail (something Jesus never promised His followers . . . ) have I exhausted myself with non-jail activity?

Very few prolifers can answer this last question as Vince Lombardi would, yet we don't hesitate to commit the sin of "criticizing another man's servant” (Romans 14). And Lombardi was playing a game.
Gandhi condemned those who used the idea of "non-violence” to hide behind, in a struggle where life was at stake. He specifically called them "cowards." He specifically said his principle didn't bind on all matters. He worked to stop a salt tax, not mass murder, and he said so. Who doubts Rev. Dr. MLK would have done what it took to protect his own children threatened with death?
If someone, anyone, at any time, has a gun to the head of your child, you do not "educate" him, or lobby a congressman. It would be a sin to do so. You stop him!
By the way: in the process you are doing the only educating and lobbying which is relevant to the situation.
In the context, these other activities are a sin, when done to the exclusion of exactly what you or I would do to protect our own (Mt. 5:46) The same is true of any "God-talk" or piety whatsoever, as we know from the priests praying on the other side of the road, in the parable of the Good Sam.
When your kid goes for the stove after you’ve warned him, the only “education” that will work is Thomistic force, sans opprobrium. The only way to educate people about the value of life is to stop killing immediately. After that, you can talk all you want. Put their babies in their arms, for show~and~tell.
Any other behavior, in the context of child-killing, done to the exclusion of the needful, educates and lobbies that you believe life is expendable.
Child killers just love it when prolifers talk about "peace, nonviolence, love and forgiveness” out of context. These are false virtues, for which small children need not apply.
They come in handy, however, for us larger people, who’d just as soon skip the fines, lawsuits, or jail.
Jesus never authorized us to avoid these things for any reason, including “efficiency.” He did not avoid them either. This answers the pious question, What would Jesus do?

III What shall we do? Isaiah

Between sidewalk and cpc and rescue work, and all those scary things that go boom and bang, there are a thousand things that can and have saved kids. Not all of them end in jail, either. Remember the young woman who went into the mill in Australia dressed a Santa Claus with a toy for every unborn baby? Remember blitzes? Remember the doughty Chicago subway riders who sticky-labeled over the mill advertisements with cpc phone numbers? Ever see red paint on the wall of a mill? (The Holy Spirit loves that prop . . .) A bed sheet over a commuter highway? Mountaineer banners fastened to urban cliffs?
How about a lawsuit that kicks Planned Parenthood out of public schools on the basis of 18 USCS 1841, Laci’s Law, the new federal law that established unborn children as human beings?
And now that this regime is here, how about holding back the one tenth of one percent of your federal tax, the part that is going into abortions? And the salaries of the federal judges, attorneys and police that enforce FACE. The new compulsory aborting health plan, and the new hate crime that target prolifers and the babies, and moms they protect.
None of these people went to jail. Many babies were saved. If all do their part, no more shots need be fired, but only if. Many hands make light work. Be creative.. And don’t forget Quiet, Quiet Time. The Lord knows the way through the wilderness. All we have to do is follow.

Whom have you so dreaded and feared, [the IRS? The FBI?]
That you have been false to Me?
And have neither remembered Me
Nor pondered this in your hearts?

Is it because I have long been silent
That you do not fear Me?

I will expose your righteousness and your works
And they will not benefit you.
When you cry out for help
Let your collection of idols [corporate model pro-life
ministries] save you.

The wind will carry all of them off
A mere breath will blow them away

But the man who makes Me his refuge
Will inherit the land and possess my holy mountain. IS 57
------------------------------------------------------------------

Ole Greg gets smacked again:

A Biblical and common sense refute to Gregg Cunningham’s “Killing George Tiller”:
Gregg Cunningham leads a chorus of pro-life voices that publicly condemn Scott Roeder for the act of killing George Tiller.

Mr. Cunningham does a good work by displaying photos aborticide. He does it on a large scale and I believe his motives for doing it are pure. We do similar ministry in a similar manner; our paths often cross at the same campuses and events. We have been doing it much longer than Mr. Cunningham. We are well-aware of the benefits of displaying the photos. It saves lives by changing people’s minds. But one thing it also does, which Mr. Cunningham fails to mention, is it hardens people’s hearts. We have been displaying the bloody truth since the 1980’s in hundreds of cities both here and abroad. We are no closer to ending child sacrifice today than we were in 1973. Mr. Cunningham insists that showing the bloody photos is the only way to end child sacrifice. Though I view this as important, the displays in themselves are not going to outlaw aborticide. Having public displays for 10 or more years Mr. Cunningham should also realize this.
Mr. Cunningham admits that abortion is murder, and likens aborticide to the Nazi Holocaust and the lynching of blacks. Aborticide is arguably more evil. I believe that God hates some sins more than others. In Deuteronomy 12:31 God explains to Israel why he is driving out the Canaanites. He warns them:
“You must not do the same to the Lord your God, because they practice for their gods every detestable thing the Lord hates. They even burn their sons and daughters in the fire to their gods…”
In listing Canaan’s egregious behavior, child sacrifice tops the list!
Thirty-seven years of failed pro-life policies, incremental strategies, and convoluted rhetoric brings us no closer to outlawing aborticide. The pro-life movement whom Mr. Cunningham defends opposes outlawing abortion! National Right to Life (NRTL) and its affiliates oppose the personhood initiatives in several states. They cite wrong wording, wrong leadership, and wrong timing for their reasons. Outlawing abortion is not on NRTL’s agenda.
Mr. Cunningham is on the pro-life fringe, a NRTL wannabe. Because of his abortion displays he is excluded from NRTL. NRTL hates abortion displays.
But as much as Mr. Cunningham hates baby-murder, he does not hate it enough. His singular doubtful strategy for ending abortion relies entirely upon him. He is so exclusive and protective of his photographs that he refuses to let others use them who disagree with his passivism! He procured many of these photos by paying an abortionist to photograph them. Cunningham sues those who use his copyrighted photos, but do not renounce the use of force toward abortion providers and their facilities. It does not matter to him if the photos are used to save lives; Mr. Cunningham is much more interested in HIS REPTUATION and the reputation of the “pro-life movement.” Mr. Cunningham’s greatest disdain is reserved for those who disagree with his pacifism.
Let us get to the meat of Mr. Cunningham’s arguments. He begins with the false presupposition that Mr. Scott Roeder “murdered” George Tiller. There is no argument that Mr. Roeder shot and killed George Tiller. It is reported that he shot him in the head. Where the fatal bullet entered his anatomy is as unimportant as to where the shooting took place. It makes no difference that it took place in a “house of worship” and that Tiller was “an usher.” Putting a cross on a building does not make it a church. There are NO Christian baby-killers (Revelations 21:8). If abortion is murder than Tiller is a murderer, his so-called “church” consists of collaborators, and accomplices to murder. Tiller was ushering them and himself into hell.
Mr. Cunningham argues that if Tiller deserved to die, than so do abortion workers and murdering moms! Mr. Cunningham understates his case. Almost our entire nation participates in the slaughter of these innocents. Politicians, judges, police, voters, pastors, you, me by commission, or omission, are besmirched with their blood. ALL of us are more or less are deserving of death. If we pay taxes we pay for abortion. If we voted for George Bush or Barak Obama we voted for baby-murder. If we do nothing, we still partake in the killing, as surely as those who recently stood by and did nothing as a screaming woman was being gang raped. Dan Holman (tbc)

(Shelley’s beautiful Christmas letter next issue)