Formerly Stop the Killing of Young People (skyp) and soon, perhaps, Stop Killing Preemies
September, 2009, Vol. 7, No. 6
PO Box 7424, Reading, PA 19603
Phone – cell--484-706-4375 (new), machine -- 610-396-0332
Email – johndunk@ptd.net
Web – skyp1.blogspot.com
Circulation – 45`
John Dunkle, Editor
Abortion is Murder, a weak, pathetic response to baby murder, is sent out at least once a month. If the gestapo hasn’t jailed you for defending the innocent realistically, you either have to tell me you want it or go the website. Faxes and emails are free but snail-mail is free only for POC’s, $20 for others.
Because I believe we should use every legitimate means, including force (although “Dear Mr. Dunkle” has me thinking), in our attempt to protect those being tortured to death, I want to hear from people who’ve been forceful. I’d also like to hear from those who disagree with me.
Prisoners of Christ:
1. Evans, Paul Ross 83230-180, USP McCreary, P.O. Box 3000, Pine Knot, KY 42635
2. Gibbons, Linda - Vanier WDC, 655 Martin St. , P.O. Box 1040, Milton, ON, Canada L9T 5E6
3. Griffin, Michael 310249, Okaloosa Correctional Institution, Crestview FL 32539-6708 9/11
4. Hill, Paul, graduated summa cum laude, 3/9/03
5. Howard, Peter Andrew 57760-097, FCI, Box 900, Safford, AZ 85546
6. Jordi, Stephen 70309-004, FCI P.O. Box 33, Terre Haute IN 47802 6/30
7 Knight, Peter CRN 158589, Port Philip Prison, P.O. Box 376, Laverton, Victoria, Australia (new)
8. Kopp, James 11761-055, USP Canaan, 3057 Easton Tpk., Waymart, PA 18472 (new)
9. McMenemy, David Robert 08168-030, FCI Elkton, P.O. Box 10, Lisbon OH 44432
10. Richardson, Alonzo Lee 12898-021, PO Box 474701, Des Moines, IA 50947
11. Roeder, Scott, Sedgwick County Jail, 141 West Elm, Wichita, KS 67203
12. Rudolph, Eric 18282-058 US Pen. Max, Box 8500, Florence CO 81226-8500
13. Shannon, Rachelle 59755-065, FCI Dublin Unit A, 5701 8th St., Camp Parks, Dublin CA 94568 3/31
14. Waagner, Clayton Lee 17258-039, United States Penitentiary, P.O. Box 1000, Lewisburg PA 17837 8/25
15. Weiler Jr., Robert F. 39385-037, FCC - Delaware Hall, Box 1000, Petersburg VA 23804 (new)
16. Whitaker, Vincent , FCI, Box 699, Estill SC 29918
The Lord has asked people to make sacrifices related to opposing abortion which all but a handful have had too weak a heart to make. And they’ve looked for any pretense they could conjure up to claim that the sacrifice wasn’t required. They even deluded themselves, as people often do, into “believing” the pretense was real . . . When they get what they’ll get, they’ll fully deserve it. Peter Knight
More of Chapter 2 of Abortion, the Irrepressible Conflict, by Eric Rudolph:
“In view of all this,” wrote Blackmun, “we do not agree that, by adopting one theory of life, Texas may override the rights of the pregnant woman that are at stake.” Although Harry wouldn’t let the states adopt a “theory of life,” that is exactly what he did, despite denying it. “We need not resolve when life begins, when those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus.”21
Roe explicitly adopts a theory of life, one that refuses to consider a fetus’ right to life and a state’s belief that such a right ought to be protected, as states in the Western world had been doing for a thousand years. Acknowledging that there were divergent beliefs about when life begins, Blackmun was not at all uncertain about giving a woman the power to destroy the life inside her, a power the law had never given a woman before. As Richard Epstein said, “It is simple fiat power that gives his (Blackmun) position its legal effect.”22 Elliot Silverstein, a supporter of abortion, put it even better: “If the Court really means, when it says it need not decide when life begins, that it need not recognize the State’s valid interest in instilling a respect for life, then Roe is, indeed, a dangerous precedent.”23 If as, Blackmun claimed, there was such confusion about when life begins, then why not leave such a matter to the Legislature to decide? And why adopt the three-trimester framework?
In bizarre fashion, Blackmun proceeded to formulate a construct for legal abortion that resembled the work of a city commissioner fashioning an ordinance:
(a) For the stage prior to approximately the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman’s physician.
(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting the interest of the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in a way that is reasonably related to maternal health.
(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the state in promoting interests in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment for the life or health of the mother.24
Former Attorney General Archibald Cox pointed out that such a construct was a house of cards: “The failure to confront the issue in principled terms leaves the opinion to read like a set of hospital rules and regulations, whose validity is good enough this week but will be destroyed with new statistics upon the medical risks of child-birth and abortion, or new advances in providing for the separate existence of a fetus.”25
The three part formula was pure subterfuge. Knowing that the differences between a late term fetus and a newborn infant were negligible, Blackmun used his construct to distance himself from accusations of infanticide. He did this knowing that the construct’s supposed protection for late term fetuses was a charade. On the same day that Roe was decided, the Court ruled on another abortion case, Doe v Bolton. Doe and Roe, said Blackmun, should be “read together.”26 Blackmun had said that in the last of his three part formula the state could intervene to “regulate and even proscribe abortion,” except in those cases where it is necessary to preserve “the life or health of the mother.”27 Roe, however, didn’t define “health of the mother.” Doe v Bolton was designed to give this definition.
As it turns out the Court had a very Holmsian definition of “health”:
The medical judgment maybe exercised in light of all factors—physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and a women’s age—relevant to the well-being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health. This allows the attending physician the room he needs to make his best medical judgment.28
Roe and Doe became the twin pillars of abortion-on-demand. These decisions made abortion untouchable before the twelfth week. After the twelfth week the states could impose some minor restrictions, but if a woman could find a doctor to say that carrying the unwanted child to term might threaten her physical, psychological, or financial “health,” abortion was legal right up to the last months before the birth of the child.
Two cases in the seventies strengthened the pillars. The Danforth decision (1976) brushed aside the third trimester distinction. Forbidding the states from using the third term division (24 weeks) for proscribing abortions, Danforth substituted “viability” as the only test for when states could restrict abortion. Like Blackmun’s definition of “health,” viability was vague and subjective. One physician may say one baby is viable, while another may deem the same child unviable. Finally, Colautti (1979) made it clear that viability was a matter for the mother and her physician to decide.
Today, abortion on demand is legal in every state in the Union. It kills approximately 1.5 million children annually. Currently, about 90 percent of abortions are done in the first trimester (12 weeks), using a vacuum aspirator. Second trimester abortions (12 to 24 weeks) account for 10 percent of the total. In the 70s saline injections into the uterus were preferred. Today, abortionists use a procedure called “Dilation and Extraction” (D & E): In this procedure, the abortionist applies a local anesthetics, dilates the cervix, and basically pulls out the fetus one piece at a time, breaking them off against the two rings of the cervix.
Just last year the Supreme Court upheld the Partial Birth Abortion Ban, which proscribes a type of heinous late term abortion. Even though the ban will cover only 10,000 of the 1.5 million abortions annually, it is the most significant pro-life victory in over thirty-five years of legislation and litigation. Until the ban hundreds of thousands of children met their deaths in the most horrible manner. Abortionists called the procedure “Intact D,” opponents of abortion call it Partial Birth Abortion. A nurse who formerly worked with Dr. Martin Haskell described the procedure before the Senate Judiciary Committee, as performed on a 26 ½ week old child:
Dr. Haskell went in with the forceps and grabbed the baby’s legs and pulled them down into the birth canal. Then he delivered the baby’s body and arms—everything but the head. The doctor kept the head inside the birth canal. The baby’s little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his little feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck a pair of scissors in the back of his head, and the baby’s arms jerked out, like a startled reaction, like a flinch, like a baby does when he thinks he is going to fall. The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the hole, and sucked the baby’s brains out. Now the baby went completely limp. He cut the umbilical cord and delivered the placenta. He threw the baby in a pan, along with the placenta and the instruments he had just used.29 (tbc)
If you can read this without gagging, you were born after 1930.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Kopp’s meditation on the death of his beloved niece Breezy continues:
On the evening before the night she died, she was talking to “someone” (no physical person present) and she told her husband, across the room, that she was worried that she would forget all the things she was being told because “someone” was answering every deep question she had ever had. I’d clean forgotten that months earlier I’d very formally begged Jesus to send her my poor bedraggled guardian angel (. . . he’s gonna get a medal one of these days) and I told Breezy to be sure to ask him anything. Since she knew she was dying and was reconciled to it in some ways, as a surcease of suffering it seems likely to me that that’s why it all happened at the end.
She formerly denounced the Hinduism of her youth and embraced Huichol traditionalism, which does have one creator, healing/purification rituals which acknowledge sin and tribal/clan fealty the likes of which most American Christians are clueless about.
She said she believed Jesus was an indication or sign or example of the love of the Creator for mankind. I wish she could have been more explicit at the end, but, like I say, I’m not in the assurance business, I’m in the Jesus business, and I look to Him for assurance in His timing.
I keep thinking of this scripture, “He who is not against Me is for Me.” If being “not against” the Lord is a virtue, Bree is a saint, especially considering the hidden new-age hostility of her generational cohort.
Thank you so much for your prayers, and us Maccabees readers, let’s continue.
Clay Jr.
In the last days of Breezy’s life, and every day since then, Clay Jr. has started to grow larger and larger in my prayers, and I want to beg you, let’s make him our focus.
Paul ordered us to “pray without ceasing.”
There’s a way to focus on Clay Jr. that way. There is no way to pray more for Clay Jr. without spending more time with the Lord, so, it is not “taking away” from anything substantial. Most of us, in this culture, need more Quiet, Quiet Time. In addition to an hour a day, this Sunday, spend the whole day with the Lord, and tell him you dedicate that day to Clay Jr. Then just listen and relax. Jesus intended the whole day to be devoted to Him. In my humble opinion, malls, movies, and football games don’t count.
I will be praying that if it is appropriate, that Clay Jr. will be looked at by the absolute best rare congenital defects guy in the world. Often, these guys take a case that doesn’t pay just because it’s interesting or unusual, which is certainly Clay Jr.’s case, however tragic. I know because my eye got fixed exactly that way. Not to make it some receding horizon: he may already be at the place of correct diagnosis. It’s just that the best surgeons are sometimes also risk takers where others fear to read. So I’ll be praying for this.
No one, married or single, father or not, should ever repent for having obeyed the clear, obvious, charitable motion of the heart which said: I will try to save that baby and mom.
To do so makes Shelley Shannon and Paul Hill look like dopes, and they are not, but worse, it makes the Lord Himself look like a dope. Sitting in glory, high above the highest heaven, He came down to earth knowing full well that this or that He did would be used as an insult against the Father, but He did it anyway. He jeopardized his “family” for our sake. He descended into the mud to pick us up and incurred almost perpetual insult for His trouble. This is easy for me to say since I have no family of my own. But all the more I admire those with families who stepped up. My work was a piece of cake by contrast.
It is very important not to confuse pain at the cost, with repentance. How much how much, my dear evangelical brothers and sisters, do i love this answer of our brother Frank, when asked, do you regret having chosen the life of poverty? His answer: I have many regrets, but no doubts.
In this sense regret all you want, and I will weep with you, and in my own pathetic, piker way, i will regret i didn’t spend more time with my Breezy during the, oh 32 years of my life when i was busy being “married to my work.” But i have no doubts, and
yes, i’d do it all over again, a thousand, thousand lives i wish i had to spend all over again.
There are two kinds of regrets anyone can have after having lived in this benighted century: I did too much, or i did too little. Which regret would you rather have? And here is the mystery: if we did “too much” with even a modicum of prayer and compassion, the compassion that comes from God, He will fix it. If we work for Him, He carries the workmen’s compensation, no one else. This sounds easy for me to say, but a billion years form now, there is absolutely no evil on earth that will not be cured by a billion years of joy in the presence of God.
Come ye disconsolate, Where ‘ere ye languish
Come to the mercy seat, humble kneel
Here find your heart’s content, here find your soul’s release;
Earth has no pain that Heaven cannot heal.
And do not be found wanting in our happy duty to pray for Clay Jr.’s healing. I’m going to be praying for the best heart-guy in the world to look at him. Then, I will feel more peace, DV. Have you had Quiet, Quiet time today? And did you tell everyone you’re booked up this Sunday? Your bro’ in the Lord, jk,
As is his wont Jimbo adds a couple dozen PS’s to this, which I will post next issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Cal is convinced that Jim should be set free and he continues to show us why:
Dear John, Stare decisis is a Latin rendering of the words of a judge who says, "My decision shall stand." In contrast, settled law means a matter of law settled according to a high standard of law.
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), does not qualify as settled law because the standard of law was low. For example, if Jane Roe's attorney Sarah Weddington had wanted that case to achieve the status of settled law, then she should not have perjured herself by claiming her client was raped. Like the common misperception that the police must read you your rights when arrested, television viewers also have the misperception that Roe was founded on a woman's right to choose. Instead, the Court rejected a woman's right to choose, and instead founded Roe as an extension of its forced sterilization case, Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927). Roe, Id. at 152-159; Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179, 214-215 (1973) (Justice Douglas concurring); San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 100-101 (1973) (Justice Marshall dissenting); Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978); Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 859 (1992) (indicating a tightening of tolerance for forced abortion, such that it should no longer be considered a form of justified government interference "as readily" as it might be without Roe's precedent).
That the State of Texas was something of a straw man in Roe is evident from the record. Roe, Id. at 157, n. 54 ("[Texas] faces a dilemma."); at 162 ("In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense."); on oral reargument (Justice Stewart: "[Maybe] Texas abortion law presently goes too far in allowing abortions."); on oral reargument, being scolded by Justice White for trying to dodge the States' rights issue entirely (Justice White: "[The State can still have an interest in asserting rights over the fetus], whether the fetus is a person or not."). In a nutshell, Texans were too proud to legalize abortion on their own as Californians and New Yorkers did, so the only way for Texas to have abortions was to lose at the Court on both of two points: the fundamental proposition (a child's rights) and the secondary proposition (a State's rights). For this reason, the Court had found the perfect straw man in Texas. (The expression comes from the observation that straw men tend to fall over on their own, and so the straw man can be counted on to lose the argument.)
Another television misperception about Roe is that the Court is divided into pro-life and pro-choice Justices, who have been vigorously debating the issue of the children's rights. As Justice Stevens reports in Casey, no member of the Court has ever questioned this fundamental proposition: namely, that "an abortion is not the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection" (meaning, that the children are not entitled to due process and the equal protection of the laws like everyone else). He says, "From this holding, there was no dissent [in Roe]; indeed, no member of the Court has EVER questioned this fundamental proposition." (emphasis added; internal quotes and citations omitted) Casey, Id. at 913. Obviously, there cannot be any debate without someone so much as questioning the matter of the children's rights. Instead, the Court's division has been over the States' rights, never the children's rights.
Another television misperception is that the States' rights Justices are pro-life. For example, in Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (2000), the Court addressed the issue of partial-birth procedures. But even for these procedures, the States' rights Justices joined together saying, "Although a State MAY permit abortion, nothing in the Constitution dictates that it MUST do so." Id., at 980. In Casey, the plurality warned quietly that if the States' rights Justices have their way and Roe is overturned in the specific way they want to see it overturned (meaning, not in favor of the children having rights we are bound to respect, but rather in favor of a State's rights), then not only will the State be allowed to permit abortion-on-demand without limitation at the whim of the legislature, but it will also be allowed to permit forced abortion "as readily" as to make women keep their babies, citing "population control" as an example of "asserted state interests" in this regard. Casey, Id. at 859. Note that even the plurality in Casey would not concede that that there should be no room for forced abortion, as this would contradict Roe; instead, leaning toward tightening on the issue, they simply interpreted Roe to mean States could not employ forced abortion "as readily" as without Roe's precedent.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fellow and sister dilatants, I offer you here the best poet America has yet produced (since Emily Dickinson) -- better than Whitman, better the Lowell, better than Pound, better than Elliott, better than Stevens, better than Ransom, better even than Updike:
Rev Lee Roy's Bad Flu Rising
By Tobra Potter
Across the pond
Hope you got your things together and
Are prepared for nasty weather
There's a bad flu rising across the pond
So dont go over to england
Don't go there tonight
Looks like they're in for nasty weather
Hope them straights & fairies
In that fagdom are prepared to die
Or will God give them UKians
Another try
To do it God's way
What's that you say
Pastor rick warren
Pastor creflo dollar
Hollar louder
Benny hinn
Jimmy robison
Franklin graham & daddy billy to
They say you
Have rebuked the swin flu in the american land
Tis tru
Saith our ministry mafia
Sendeth your hard earned money
For we bend the Lord's ear
When He called us this morning early
For instructions on what He
Should do in the american land
We told Him
Let them UKians flu it to death
And cough till their lungs turn blue
But bless us here in america
America america oh beautiful for spacious skies
For faggots defiling our byways
And babykillers killing with pharmacutical sales
Bought with tampax fake snow & Christian romantic fiction
Lord please watcheth your diction
Say it is so Lord
And we won't go to the UK
For they don't know & serve you like us
Americans for we are blessed
Yes blessed
That will be all Dear Lord
You can sign off
Now if you like you might help
Them africans with that AIDs
While we humbly helpeth our poor & huddled masses
--------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Knight’s letter continues from issue #4:
In a place like America, such is the apathy of people, that the only time they are going to create a wave of simultaneous jihads is after someone puts a loaded gun to many people’s heads and convinces them that the trigger will be pulled if they don’t. Until then, nothing is going to trigger them into creating a wave of simultaneous jihads. Unless, you consider that you already have a wave of simultaneous jihads with abortionists’ attacks on the unborn in America. Three thousand more than the equivalent of the Word Trade Center killed each day. It’s considered a very bad day in Iraq if fifty get bombed or shot to death. And yet Greg Cunningham says that he fears America could be turned into another Iraq. Would that the situation in America was so good.
Of course the well publicized violence in Iraq is a good bit more discussed and a good bit more obvious than the murders which go on behind closed doors in America. Eric Rudolph describes abortion as “the irrepressible conflict”. When there’s one person in twenty million in the USA who is in prison for actions they’ve taken against abortionists, it’s hard for me to describe that as a conflict. But if it is a conflict, then it is certainly one which has been well and truly repressed.
When discussing his own methods of dealing with abortion murder, Greg Cunningham, and people like him, use such terms as “a detestable abomination”. Paragraphs. But when describing it in relation to Paul Hill’s actions, they see a need to water it down to mere “elective pregnancy terminations”. Para one
Greg Cunningham says in his paragraphs 3 and 4 that the martyr Paul Hill is a murderer. And in papa 4 he states the reason for saying he is – because that’s what the government says. The government also says that abortionists aren’t murderers. They say that they are respectable and responsible people who are providing a necessary and valuable service to the community. So since Greg Cunningham is so willing to mention and accept the government’s word on Paul Hill, why doesn’t he accept their word here too and forget this stuff of producing photos which he says is to convince people that the government is wrong about abortion?
We see Greg Cunningham bring into view for us once again a trait which is so prevalent amongst no-violence anties: a huge tendency to use double standards. They chop and change from this judgment basis to that judgment basis. They say that something is their reason for making a judgment and then reject that reasoning for something else less than a minute later.
Rarely do we see police describe burglars as burglary providers. And rarely do we firemen describe arsonists as fire providers. But in para 2 I note the supposedly anti-abortion GC’s find use of the pro-abortion term for murderers – “abortion providers”. One of the things that can be said for Paul Hill is that we didn’t see him develop a liking for pro-abortion terminology. You didn’t see me develop a liking for it. And you won’t see anyone develop a liking for it who doesn’t have a predilection for sucking up to abortionists.
Paragraph 6 is where Greg Cunning decided to direct his focus onto Romans 13. This is the one we’ve seen people like him mention so many times before. Romans 13 was where the Apostle Paul attempted to tell us that the governments of Nazi Germany, Pol Pot, the Antichrist, and every other government were established by God to do people good and must therefore be obeyed. He said that anyone who disobeys the government is in effect disobeying God and will be condemned. Great public relations stuff for governments, isn’t it? Hitler and Stalin would be pleased. He portrays Hitler as someone who held no fears for those who did right. Some might suggest that the legacy of Romans 13 is that there is no such thing as a democracy. It’s never voters who establish a government, but God. Greg Cunningham says that the Apostle Paul didn’t mention any exceptions to this precept regarding obeying governments, so he says there aren’t any.
Jesus said to preach the gospel and make disciples of all nations. In some countries is it illegal to preach the gospel. So the great prophet, Greg Cunningham, tells us that Jesus got it wrong with this too. That it shouldn’t be preached in all nations as Jesus said. But only in those where the government has been willing to grant its permission for it to be. Well thanks for the correction Greg; I’ll pass that on to Jesus next time I talk to him so he learns what the right thing is.
There have been, and are, places in the world where it is illegal to be a Christian. So the great prophet, Greg Cunningham, is saying that no one in those countries should be a Christian. Or is he saying that the way to be a Christian in such a country is by obeying the government and not being one. Must obey the government. No exceptions says Greg Cunningham.
Not satisfied to leave it at that, the great prophet then went on to say that anyone who is a Christian where Christianity is banned by the government is an anarchist. With that sturdy foundation laid, he then declares “that anarchy is a human teaching”, and, “a product of the fall”. So we’ve managed to journey to the stage now where Christianity in a country where it is banned is a “product of the fall”. That then leads him upward to his next enlightening revelation, that Christianity is not “a fruit of the spirit”. To conclude his fine educational sermon on this subject G.C. taught that Christianity where it is outlawed is “totally antithetical to the Gospel of Jesus Christ”. So let’s all adopt the teachings of the great prophet Greg Cunningham, a director at the “Center of Bioethical Reform”.
I support Paul Hill. Greg Cunningham and a host of irrationals make no sense. Idiots like him condemn Paul Hill. If someone
had asked Greg Cunningham to give him a reason for condemning Paul Hill that would confirm that he is an idiot, then he could hardly come up with a better one to meet the request. But in his letter he didn’t just confirm it once. To cover the possibility that someone might be super tough to convince, he decided the best thing he could do was to give a whole long list of reasons which confirmed it. There are just so many ridiculous and hypocritical statements that people like Greg Cunningham make – the abortionist’s three millionth chance to repent is of prime importance. More important than the lives of his multitude of victims. Therefore, the abortionist should be left unharmed so he can take their lives and be given the three millionth chance.”
Before the pro abortion politicians in this country, I’m undecided to turn Medicare into medimurder. Before they decided to make the cost of abortions claimable on the medi murder system which was provided by their taxes, there were those who said things very much like this – “We abhor abortion and would never support it. We’d rather be burnt alive than give our support to abortion”. So how did the people who said this stack up when the government told them to pay the cost of abortions? Sure, they could make the claim that anti-abortionists were in some regard unhealthier and that bad abortionists were in some way subsidizing them in return, but is that the case? Or was it just one-way traffic when the pro abortion politicians graciously said that it was their intention to force each and every person to help pay the cost of the bad abortionists’ abortions?
So did any of them jack up and refuse to pay? Did they get themselves put into prison where they’d never be asked to pay taxes and pay the cost? Did they even jack up to the extent of going on the dole so that they could at least say that they were not giving the government or the pro abortionists anything that they had not forced them to give to them? No, they couldn’t even do that little bit. Some abhorrence. Some opposition to abortion. Pay the cost of abortions when the government tells you they’d like you to give the abortion industry your help and financial support.
They say such things as – “We should not be complicit in evil”, and then they make themselves fully responsible for the evil
The say such things as –“I cannot fight fire with fire”’ and then they pour petrol on the fire.
They go so far overboard that they say – “If it’s murder for an abortionist to kill thousands, then it’s murder for someone to kill the abortionist to save his victims”.
They even do what Ruben Israel of Los Angeles did, and travel to Florida to be present when Paul Hill was killed so he could stand up and proclaim to everyone what a possessed lunatic he is by saying – “I am a Christian, and I have traveled from the other side of America to say Hill became precisely what he preached against – a murderer”. (tbc)
I hope you save these newsletters so you can reread things like Greg Cunningham’s essay that Peter is attacking here. I am less than a quarter of the way through Peter’s attack on the Gregs.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Kopp sent the following letter to “The Standard” in response to their editorial attacking Scott Roeder:
Dear Editor, How nice! How clear! If it wasn't for the Scott-Readers of this world, life would be so beautiful. The Barack Obama's of this world would say, "Gee, you prolifers are so nice, and quiet and respectful and law-abiding I can't help but be drawn to your civic-mindedness. What is it you want? No more abortion? Well, why didn't you say so! Here.
If only saving a child from dismemberment were this easy:
The problem is not Scott Roeder; the problem is not Barack Obama ("If meat rots, it's not the meat's fault. That's what happens to meat if it has no salt" -- R. Stott)
The problem is not abortionists (some people will do anything for money). The problem is not women. They are surrounded, each one, by a ring of powerful males, each with something
to gain (so much for “choice”).
The core problem is you and me.
We do not do for any child, what we know we would do for our own child if he or she were at risk of being dismembered. The problem is nothing else. It is nothing more – or less. There is no magical cure with “education” or polities, or piety alone, things that we would never do if it were our own kid.
Now here's a strange thing to ponder: considering that Our
Lord commands us to do for any child what we would do for our
own child ( Mt. 5:46; see also Mt 6:32, 7:12 and Is.58), then the
tricky part is not the justification of legitimate, Thomistic force (such as rescue), but rather, the justification for the absence
of same. This absence, when children are being torn up, is
complicit, and sinful, even if it is, sadly, quotidian and universal.
If we willfully allow today's children to be killed in hopes of appeasing the powers-that-be, that one day hypothetically laws may be changed, we lose today's kids and future kids.
Why? Because we show by our actions that some kids are expendable, for any reason. Once you do that, all children are expendable for any reason.
If you want to judge the Roeders of this world, I can't stop
you. But first, look in the mirror, and tell me why you won't work on the mill sidewalk, or in a CPC? We have met the enemy, and he is not Roeder. He is us. IF we all had been doing our job in these less forceful endeavors, it would've never crossed his mind to use more force. Like any good father, his action was directed against outcome, not personal cost. IF it had been
your child, can you blame him? Juries in the Philippines and Middle East, to pick a couple spots, would never have.
In times like these, when people criticize people like Roeder, it always turns out that the core of their concern is not what Roeder did or didn't do. The core of their concern is most certainly not the actual welfare of children who, obviously, can’t be saved by words.
The critics are worried about themselves.
They are more anxious to distance themselves from him than a cockroach scrambles from the light. They have a lot to lose, in our current, debauched culture. Not only will they not risk their lives (an apt risk, looking at the danger), they won't even risk their mortgage, something the Bible never promised.
"A man can gain the world and lose his soul, Richard," said St. Thomas More, "but . . . for Wales?"
Let's be practical, spiritual, adopted mothers and fathers for any child being disarticulated, not just our own. Go to the mill. (Hebr. 13:13; par. Good Sam.) .
Silent time with Our Lord will gently confirm these truths (Ezekiel 20:13; Job 40; Zech. 7:13).
“Many hands make light work.” In the context, the more people obeying the Lord, the less force is necessary. Even one million, of the many alleged millions of prolifers, acting at the Gandhi/MLK level of force, will resoundingly fix the problem.
Until you and I do this, some will always be called to sacrifice to counterbalance our sloth with legitimate Thomistic force.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. John, Greetings to you in the name of Christ Jesus, and praise God for the death of George Tiller! May he burn in the 7th Circle of Hell for all of Eternity.
I don’t know if you’ll have time to print this in any of the upcoming newsletters of skyp/aim...but I wanted to send you a few things. First of all thank you for printing my story! I have found great comfort in knowing that it has reached others, and hopefully it has blessed many. Secondly, and primarily, I saw (as my story and Eric’s book were following each other for several past issues) that Patricia (his mother) requested statements for the back cover of Eric’s book, which she is having printed.
After reading what I have read of Eric’s book, I actually had some comments – and since I am as well serving the next 3-4 decades with Eric, growing old in America’s dungeons for assaulting an abortion clinic, I thought I would add an insightful touch to the board of comments. I give my permission to print the following comment; however, if Patricia needs me to sign something (via mail), she is welcome to write to me.
In the midst of an epoch of endless noise and chaos, where one can barely think because of the noise, Mr. Rudolph brings us a purified piece of literature that screams the truth. Like Ortega Y Gasset or Oswald Spengler, he brings the truth not only to the Christian Right but to anyone intelligent enough to follow along. Praise God for Eric Rudolph.
Well, I do hope that is helpful. I hope all of my friends – Christian DOERS and KNOWERS of the word (from all over) are all well. I have prayed for you all – (you know who you are). Seemingly these next few months, I should pray for the insects who have delayed my mail (as well as many other’, certainly) ever since the laughable demise of the Pig George Tiller. It seems that now all the pro-life soldiers are in bad odor with the Justice Department, yet again.
How unthinkable. I only wish that when they seized (stole) my mail from outgoing envelopes at the 3rd party box it goes to, that they would simply XEROX it and not STEAL it Keen Bible students that they fancy themselves as, they should know that one reaps what he/she sows.
But I must remember to pray for the FBI. How terrible it must be to spend one’s life under a lamp, sweat beading on one’s forehead, while snooping thorough another person’s private belongings rather than seeing Europe, wineglass in hand on a sunny day, or loving a beautiful woman until you are old and gray and smiling with her night and day. The nauseating vermin who perpetrate such acts against Christian patriots, searching thorough their private belongings, will one day discern the discord their slimy fingers create. How amusing. Until next time, Paul Ross Evans
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Abortion is Murder August 2, 2009 7-5
Formerly Stop the Killing of Young People (skyp) and soon, perhaps, Stop Killing Preemies
August 2, 2009, Vol. 7, No.5
PO Box 7424, Reading, PA 19603
Phone – cell--610-809-3388, machine -- 610-396-0332
Email – johndunk@ptd.net
Web – skyp1.blogspot.com
Circulation – 41`
John Dunkle, Editor
Abortion is Murder, a weak, pathetic response to baby murder, is sent out at least once a month. If the gestapo haven’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, maybe even 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, P.O. Box 300., Waymart, PA 18472 (new)
8. McMenemy, David Robert 08168-030, FCI Elkton, P.O. Box 10, Lisbon OH 44432
9. Richardson, Alonzo Lee 12898-021, PO Box 474701, Des Moines, IA 50947
10. Roeder, Scott, Sedgwick County Jail, 141 West Elm, Wichita, KS 67203
11. Rudolph, Eric 18282-058 US Pen. Max, Box 8500, Florence CO 81226-8500
12. Shannon, Rachelle 59755-065, FCI Dublin Unit A, 5701 8th St., Camp Parks, Dublin CA 94568 3/31
13. 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
Paul Ross Evans’ story concludes:
As April 18th arrived, I found myself behind the "XXX Megaplexxx" pornographic movie theater, on South I-35 in Austin. The massive IED that I placed near the corner of the building had a fuse detonator. I lit a cigarette, taking care to keep the butt free of any DNA, and attached it to the fuse. This was a tactic used by Special Forces in the Vietnam war. I hoped to cripple a corner of the building and to rain shrapnel on the cars parked beside it. It did not take, and as I walked back to my car, which I had parked a short distance up the road, a police officer passed by me close. It was very late at night, and upon reflection, I'm certain that had the bomb exploded, I would have been caught immediately.
The next day I returned, planning to light the fuse directly with a cigarette lighter and destroy the building, but when I got there, the bomb was gone. I saw the packaging, but it looked light, and had been moved. Agents later told me that they "think the bomb was stolen by the homeless living in that area" to make fires. That seems rather humorous, but at the time it didn't. My guess is as good as theirs. I was quite surprised to find the bomb disturbed as I approached that day to finish what I had started. Bic lighter in hand, I stood near the scene, frozen for a moment. I could only suspect that a night watchman had discovered the bomb and had called in agents, and that a team of them were now studying me from the nearby forest. I left the scene and spent a paranoid next few days wondering if I were being followed and kept under surveillance.
I was now left impatient. There continued to be no news from around the nation about any bombings on U. S. soil. I was eager for destruction — not out of some sadistic need to hurt others, but to hunt those who had persecuted Christianity for so long. I had struck out against many of them now, but I wanted an explosion to cripple them. I wanted someone to be crushed by it.
After two or three trips to the Austin Women's Health Clinic abortion mill, I was ready to act out against it violently. After purchasing bomb components from all around Texas, I manufactured an explosive device that agents later described as being powerful enough to "kill or injure anyone within a hundred foot radius." I placed it in front of the Austin Women's Health Clinic. A clinic employee tripped over it long after it should have detonated. Agents later told me that something inside that package had obstructed the wiring, causing the timer to stop three to five minutes before the inevitable massive explosion. Agents of the regime in Washington used a robot to tamper with the device and detonate it in the clinic's abandoned parking lot, after removing the accompanying charges of boosters, propellants, and shrapnel.
Although the abortionist and his evil minions slithered away from the bomb unscathed, I still consider my effort to bomb the Austin Women's Health Clinic abortion mill a success. The attention the bombing attempt generated, which I was able to monitor personally until I was arrested, was excellent in accomplishing several of my mission parameters. In weighing terrorist activity, death is not always the primary goal. The mill was closed for a time and children's lives were saved that day. Also, across America and even internationally, many people looked to Austin that day and saw that America's Far Right is still very much alive and well, and far from surrendering Christianity's stronghold in America.
I was still very much experimenting. Eventually, I would have killed people. I was a one-man army, and instead of experimenting on trees in the woods, I experimented on those I despised. It doesn't reflect my deficiency as a bomb maker; it just reflects what one may encounter as a lone bomb maker while learning and cultivating himself, as a process. As well, I didn't live alone in a shack in the woods.
After I had been arrested and had viewed the monster of the case the federal government had stacked against me, I considered accepting a plea agreement. I disclosed information leading agents to the two missing mail bombs, and I admitted that I was the individual responsible for targeting Michael Newdow. After a point, I realized that the two other mail bombs hadn't reached their targets. When a package is returned, it ends up in a postal recovery center, and after ninety days it is opened by postal workers. I wanted to kill Satanists, not postal workers, so I led agents to the mail bombs. They carefully defused the devices, which would have killed anyone who opened them.
I am caged in a federal prison for forty years, with an out date of 2042. Certainly I am left perturbed and angry that, although no one was hurt, I am nevertheless caged for decades for acts that were merely attempted. I feel that this is evidence, more so than many cases, that the government will go to any length to jail those who even attempt to strike against liberal venues.
I feel that the length of my sentence is excessive, but I do not regret any of my actions in the least. I simply feel that people who still live in the fantasy world of believing that they are "living in a free country" should look at my case and wake up.
If I spoke of any regret, it would be in the mention of the regret I feel toward the fact that I did not get to finish what I started.
I am not of the opinion that Roe v. Wade will ever be reversed by legal action. I targeted Washington's agents merely because they protect those I abhor. What I intended to attempt (and actually started) was not any sort of putsch.
I felt, and I still feel, that if abortion mills and other anti-Christian venues are targeted with enough terrorism, eventually the United States government will abandon its protection of them. When the attacks start to eat into Washington's budget (money is Washington's heart), they will step away from protecting the abortionist. It will become pointless to them, and they will look to other means of population control in order to accomplish their goal of subjugation.
Alone, what I was beginning to attempt was the cultivation of my own three main objectives in this conflict, which, in themselves, are very cause-and-effect:
1. To put pressure on abortionists and their staff through the use of a wide variety of terrorist acts, primarily through murder-by-explosive
2. To cause the government to abandon its protection of the abortion industry
3. When #2 objective is accomplished, to kill all abortionists and their staff
Once the money (which is very important to Washington) is being spent in excess to protect the abortion industry to the point where it becomes a burden, the government will abandon it, just as it has abandoned us for liberal money and socialist coin.
I planned an organized strike that could be done alone, after I had obtained a certain amount of the cash needed to finance such ventures. Some would consider targeting all clinics in the South, driving the enemy's operations north toward Canada. Others would consider starting in the North and driving the enemy south toward Mexico.
I had an entirely different idea altogether. Terrorism, as a means to obtain a particular goal, is the instituting of violence in order to confuse, disturb, and addle, filling the targets and their enablers and protectors with nervous apprehension and horror. The North-to-South/South-to-North approach is too predictable to really work. The enemy could ensnare the perpetrators of such acts:
Jeremiah 18 (KJV) 22 Let a cry be heard from their houses, when thou shalt bring a troop suddenly upon them: for they have digged a pit to take me, and hid snares for my feet.
But to cause confusion is a key tool in instituting fear in enemy agents and the general public. Solely targeting the abortion industry, I planned to use the following tactics:
1. Three in a row in California on foot (clinics) in San Diego, San Francisco, and Los Angeles
2. Three in a row on the East Coast, in Providence, RI, Boston, MA, and New York, NY
3. Drive to Little Rock, Arkansas and mail four separate devices in a cross pattern to Cedar Rapids, IA, San Antonio, TX, Miami, FL, and Louisville, KY
4. A single large scale explosion in Washington, DC, at a downtown abortion mill
5. Drive to Phoenix, AZ, and distribute several threatening letters in the mail to Kansas City, Chicago, Portland, and Las Vegas
In future acts I considered several tactics, including dispensing raw meat and animal blood on abortion mill property, in order to draw scavenging animals (primarily vultures) and producing foul smells on the property; using fake mail bombs, (as many as I could purchase the components for); butyric acid attacks, and using manure on property. Arson would be another avenue. I think it's important to draw attention to the death these places cause. Many of these mills are hidden in name and location.
With the accomplishing of these actions to irritate the abortionist (accompanied by actual bombings and death), the media will spread the information like wildfire. I believe that, on a large scale, Washington would abandon its effort to protect the abortionist. After a time, all abortionists could be murdered, and we as Christians could attempt to co-exist with Washington's evil empire.
The accomplishing of this type of task would deter other liberal acts as well (or at least put them on guard), as it displays what the (Far) Right is capable of, modernity. Once certain elements "go underground" again, as they once were, it will be easier for the Christian in modern society to gain ground. After all, human nature will always produce such evil on the earth, where the Evil One has control and power. Wow!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And Eric’s Chapter 2 continues:
The progressives acquired powerful allies in the media. Adolph Ochs purchased The New York Times in the late 1800s, beginning a reign of lies and distortion that has lasted down to the present day. In the hands of the Ochs and Sulzberger families, the Times has been the leading mouthpiece of leftwing culture distortion for over one hundred years. Louis John Jennings was out, Marxists were in. Never moving too fast to outpace the mainstream, the Times has gradually moved the public debate to the left.
The Hearst and McCormick papers were the last major dailies to treat abortion as a moral evil. The New York Times and Henry Luce’s Time Magazine started to portray it as a socio-economic issue. Abortion they argued was only problematic because it was illegal. The anti-abortion statutes drove abortion underground and into the hands of back-alley butchers. Although morally objectionable, the women were not to blame. Poverty and ignorance caused abortions, and illegal practitioners made a bad situation worse. Put abortion in the hands of competent professionals and it would eliminate the ugly side of an ugly business. Until society has addressed the underlying socio-economic causes of abortion, society might as well provide a safe environment to do it in. After all, people were going to do it anyway. I’m sure you’ve heard this argument before. We’re just trying to be reasonable in an unreasonable situation, said the Times. They are past masters at this approach.
Fredrick Taussig’s book Abortion (1936) articulated the new perspective. His book was widely read and had considerable influence on liberal opinion. Medical, psychological, economic reasons trumped moral reasons. Using Marxist mathematics, Taussig estimated that there were “681,600 illegal abortions” annually, and at least “8,000 deaths due to botched procedures.”11
After the socialists seized control of the federal government in 1933, the Dr. Taussigs of America had more allies for the cause. In 1942 the New York Academy of Medicine held a conference on abortion, declaring that the unborn child “has not the self, the relationships, or the consciousness of his personality—save potentiality.”13 Dr. Sophia Kleegman said the only reason for the anti-abortion laws was “the dogma of one particular church.”14
By the time the Sherri Finkbine case came along in 1963, America had been softened up by leftwing propaganda for two decades. They were now ready to hear the argument for abortion, after being treated to the “hard case.” Mrs. Finkbine was a typical suburban housewife: twenty-nine years old, good looking, four children, a handsome husband, and perfectly waxed kitchen floors. But she had unwittingly taken the drug thalidomide, a sleeping pill, during her first trimester of pregnancy. Doctors had recently discovered that 20 percent of babies born to mothers who had taken the drug suffered severe physical deformities, including flipper-like arms.
Using the health of the mother exception in Arizona’s abortion statute, Mrs. Finkbine scheduled an abortion. But after the local papers got wind of the story, the hospital administrators got cold feet and refused to perform her procedure. So she went in search of a doctor who would. Like one of those Anna Nicole Smith sagas, the press followed her odyssey from one state to another, from one country to another. By then, the press was overwhelmingly in sympathy with Mrs. Finkbine. They covered her story with the hope of changing the existing laws. Bemoaning the prospect that she may be forced to give birth to a severely handicapped child, Planned Parenthood’s Alan Guttmacher opined that “the abortion laws have not kept pace with medicine.”15
Finally, Mrs. Finkbine was able to get an abortion in that bastion of progress, Sweden. Measuring the success of their campaign, the media took a Gallup Poll: 52 percent agreed that Finkbine had done the “right thing”; 32 percent were against the abortion; and 16 percent were too busy wondering who would win the World Series.16 Judges know that hard cases make bad law, but propagandists know that they make excellent polemic. Finkbine’s case showed that the hard case was an easy sell to the American people. It was just a matter of obfuscation to sell abortion-on-demand to the public under the banner of the “hard cases”—rape, incest, flipper-armed kids. Talk to any supporters of abortion and they’ll give you the hard case, when the fact of the matter is such cases account for only a small percentage of abortions.
Abortion was still in the hands of state legislatures. Sensing the winds of change blowing in from the Left, several states felt comfortable about legalizing abortion for the hard cases. Between 1966 and 1972 fourteen states changed their laws to allow abortion in cases where a doctor said the pregnancy posed a serious threat to a woman’s physical or mental health, when the child would be born with a grave physical or mental defect, or when pregnancy resulted from rape or incest. In 1970, four other states repealed all of their abortion statutes, legalizing abortion-on-demand. Abortion clinics sprouted up in large cities like New York and did a brisk business servicing the followers of the counterculture.
But most states in the American Heartland retained their abortion statutes. The Heartland was unprepared for Roe v Wade. Roe was the capstone on forty years of social engineering. All of this change was imposed from above; none was the result of actual grass roots efforts or organic change. Lacking effective leadership, Middle America was taken by surprise. They have been trying to get their bearings ever since. Actually these policies, which had reached the local level in the 50s, 60s, and 70s, have their roots all the way back to the Enlightenment. The elites had played with this poison for several generations. Now it was dispensed at the local level.
Using the pseudonym “Jane Roe,” Norma McCorvey brought a class action suit against the state of Texas (1970) for having refused her request for an abortion. McCorvey claimed to have been gang-raped, which later turned out to be a lie. But under the 1857 statute, abortions were permitted only to save the life of the mother. Not having a life threatening condition, McCorvey was refused an abortion. She decided to sue Texas. Her lawyer, Sarah Weddington, thought McCorvey’s case would make a good test for abortion-on-demand, so with the backing of leftwing groups, she prepared for trial.
The federal court in Dallas agreed with Roe. Texas then appealed to the Supreme Court, where it was argued two times, once in ’72, and finally in ’73. Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice White dissented; the rest of the Court upheld Roe, thus overturning all the state anti-abortion statutes. Roe v Wade established abortion-on-demand as a Constitutional right, and touched off the most important conflict of our generation.
Using a pile of convoluted information to support his decision, Blackmun wrote for the majority. Blackmun was an Establishment judge. And like most Establishment judges of that generation, his heroes were former Justices Brandeis and Holmes. From his perspective, the Roe v Wade decision was delivered in the spirit of Holmes’ famous 1905 admonition that the Constitution “is made for people of fundamentally differing views, and the accident of our finding certain opinions natural and familiar, or novel, and even shocking, ought not to conclude our judgments upon the questions whether statutes embodying them conflict with the Constitution of the United States.”17
Blackmun used this hollow quote to scare off the torch-bearing mob. Harry was saying that even though the majority out there in the Heartland might view the disposal of unwanted children as morally repugnant, America is a diverse nation and must accommodate people who regard unborn children as medical waste and impediments to female equality. It didn’t matter that the writers of Constitution would have found such an interpretation of their work as a gross perversion. To keep pace with progress rights had to be crafted and enlightened individuals such as himself were the only ones qualified for the job. Unlike those bigoted Crackers in the Heartland, Harry was progressive. He would deliver a decision inline with “the progressive spirit of the Constitution.” He would pull the Roe decision right out of thin air.
In the history of the Court no other decision was more arbitrary than Roe v Wade. Blackmun’s decision had no basis in common law, history, or the Constitution itself. It was pure invention. Holmes would have been proud. As noted earlier, Blackmun relied heavily on the Amicus brief of Cyril Means. Briefly again, this argument had the “state’s real concern in enacting criminal abortion laws to protect a woman, that is, to restrain her from submitting to a procedure that placed her life in serious jeopardy.” Only secondarily were they concerned for the “potential” life of the child: “In assessing the state’s interest, recognition may be given to the less rigid claim that as long as at least potential life is involved, the state may assert interests beyond the protection of the pregnant women alone.”18 It must be remembered, said Blackmun, that “throughout the major portion of the nineteenth century, abortion was viewed with less disfavor than under most American statutes currently in effect.”19 Then a pack of greedy physicians, who were seeking to cut out the “irregular” competition, pressured the states to pass abortion laws. Overturning Texas’ abortion statute was a return to tradition, Harry insisted.
To ensure that greedy doctors and day-before-yesterday moralists never again forced women to have unwanted children, Blackmun decided to fabricate a new right for women, one impervious to meddling Cracker state legislatures. He called this new construct the “right of privacy.” Harry admitted what he was doing: “The Constitution does not mention any right of
privacy.” Nevertheless, Blackmun believed the Ninth Amendment “broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate a pregnancy.” Letting his guard slip, Harry revealed his true egalitarian motives:
The detriment that the state would impose upon the pregnant
woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. Specific
and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early
pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional
offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and
future. Psychological harm maybe imminent. Mental and
physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the
distress for all concerned associated with the unwanted child,
and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family
already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it.20
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lindsay Says: The prolife argument is actually a good one, and a simple one at that.
At conception there is a organism that by definition is of the human species. After the moment of fertilization when all of the chromosomes are present, they have DNA just like the rest of us.
At some point one becomes a human being, so what is the criterion for this? Logically, I would think when it becomes a part of our species but apparently that is not common sense to all. So, another look… Maybe it should be the most pivotal point of the organism’s life, the time when they change the most. That would be conception.
All that happens after conception is growth. At conception there is the instruction their body needs to develop just like everyone else. Never does an embryo or a fetus turn into a different being.
Breathing air doesn’t turn someone into a human being. Being able to see someone doesn’t turn them into a human being. Size doesn’t decide humanity just as intelligence does not. The way I see it, if we start judging human life based on how developed it is then we subject ourselves to all of the ignorance of Nazi Germany.
The only difference between me and a three week old fetus is that I am able to defend myself, I’m strong enough to live outside of my mother’s womb, and I look different.
Some people think that life begins with the heartbeat (very fallacious considering that actual death is based on brain waves, not a heart beat). Some believe it happens after it is able to live on its own outside of the womb without medical attention. (Apparently you are only viable when you don’t need a doctor.)
Truthfully, I have spoken to a ridiculous number of prochoice people and I have not found one good reason why conception is not the time for the beginning of humanity. I tried to understand this, I asked multiple people, and I was never given a reasonable response. Why would something that is of our species, with our DNA, that has gone through its most pivotal point, and only has to grow not be a human being?
I’m not prolife to be self righteous. I’ve faced the truth. We have been killing babies and we live in an age of technology that allows us to know this. I feel despicable for not standing up for it before
I’ll tell you how America should not work. We shouldn’t say, prove it’s a baby and I won’t kill it. We should say prove it is not a baby and I then I’ll abort it. Since when do we take chances with innocent lives?
I lost a brother to abortion. He was a person. I don’t care what some strangers on an abortion website say. I mourn him.
I love children, I don’t like it when they are ripped limb from limb or burned from the inside out. I’m prolife because I believe that the womb is a place of protection. I am a woman and I respect myself enough to not lie to myself about the truth. If I went out and had sex and got pregnant, then I would have to live with the ramifications of my choice. Sex is giving your body permission to get pregnant. Don’t act like pregnancy is some surprise (this is for consensual sex only of course). The right time for you to not be pregnant is the time before you say ok body here you go, here is all you need to get pregnant. That is like saying that you have the right to abstain from getting a piercing after you asked someone to pierce something… Its a little late isn’t it? You can fix it, but you can’t erase it. Fixing pregnancy is having the baby and finding someone to adopt that baby. And before the foster care argument comes up, don’t put the baby in foster care. FIND A FAMILY yourself
I do have sympathy for women with unplanned pregnancies. I could just as easily be someone like that if my life had worked out differently. Still, I’m not willing for a moment to advocate the death of babies. I know women who have had abortions and I would not wish that heartache on my worst of enemies.
Continue to say that prolife people have no argument as you continue to say that the unborn are not people. You will suffocate yourself in your cocoon of ignorance. Nazis had reasoning for their genocide. They were in their pinnacle of science, remember? America was right there too with negative eugenics, sterilizing people.
btw the people who bomb abortion clinics are not prolife. If they were, then they would value all life. I understand that a lot of prochoice people think that they are supporting a noble cause but abortion is what degrades women. People are making money off of tricking us and lying to hurting women.
By the way people always argue that birthing an unwanted baby is cruel…Who on earth are we to say that death is better than living a hard life?
My life has been incredibly hard but I’m happy that I was blessed to live because even though I’ve gone through traumatizing things I got to see the world. I’m thankful for my life. You can’t judge the value of another’s life for her. The way to care for kids is not by killing them while they are in the womb; it is by making a better world for them.
Fix foster care rather than kill the kid who may go into it. It is sickening to hear this reasoning.
The prolife movement does have major faults. We should be seen working in kids’ lives rather than picketing out front of centers where scared mothers are entering. We should be helping these poor kids who are left alone… But we also should save those who are about to have the chance to live taken away.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Prophylactic Soda
by Aaron Pidel
Here’s an observation about the law of unintended consequences—a law that prevails wherever deeply human problems are given a purely technical solution. For some years now studies have correlated diet soda with weight gain. Though counter-intuitive, the claim has provoked little opposition.
Diet soda has 5 calories or fewer per serving, of course, but
emerging research seems to suggest that drinking sugary-
tasting beverages, even artificially sweetened ones, appears to
develop a preference in the human body for a whole range of
other sweet things. And when we consume sweeter cereals,
snacks, breads and desserts, we tend to consume more calories,
The article additionally claims diet soda can give a false sense of security:
People who are starting to put on weight think choosing diet
soda alone will stop the process. But, the experts say, this is
false logic, because it ignores the true cause of weight gain –
overeating and poor eating.
As a rule, when the technical solution of “safe” consumption replaces the human solution of disciplined consumption, the human person nonetheless finds his way to harm. Animal desire usually finds its limit in pain, and always presses its case with urgency until it butts up against a disincentive of the same order.
As a thought experiment, let’s apply this rule to an issue of greater moment: AIDS in Africa. The rewritten statements would look something like this:
Prophylactic sex greatly reduces contagion, of course, but
emerging research seems to suggest that pursuing sexual
pleasure for its own sake, even artificially protected sex,
appears to develop a preference in the human body for a whole
range of other sexual pleasures/partners. And when we have
sex more often with more partners, we tend to be more
exposed to contagion, and eventually contract HIV/AIDS.
People who are starting to worry about HIV/AIDS think choosing prophylactic sex alone will stop the process. But, the experts say, this is false logic, because it ignores the true cause of HIV/AIDS – sexual excess and infidelity.
As it turns out, experts who follow the problem of AIDS in Africa most closely do claim to see this sort of false logic operative in Western prevention strategies. The false security that condoms provide creates a powerful “disinhibition” to the human libido, thus “disproportionately erasing” any public health benefits of condom use. Note that perspective here is only one of public health–though it does confirm some of the age-old insights of Christian moral psychology.
If the Washington Times blog, applying the same logic, had expressed as much skepticism about the long-term effectiveness of condomitic sex as it had about the long-term effectiveness of diet soda, I wager it would have generated at least a comment or two. Just ask Pope Benedict.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by Jim Kopp:
The Culture of Death holds sway, yet pro-life prayers are never wasted. They even contribute to astonishing conversions of prolific abortionists like this ex-Communist, as recently reported by the American Life League. There are many others besides. So, pray always, with complete confidence!
The Spanish daily La Razon has published an article on the pro-life conversion of a former "champion of abortion." Stojan Adasevic, who performed 48,000 abortions, sometimes up to 35 per day, is now the most important pro-life leader in Serbia, after 26 years as the most renowned abortion doctor in the country. "The medical textbooks of the Communist regime said abortion was simply the removal of a blob of tissue," the newspaper reported. "Ultrasounds allowing the fetus to be seen did not arrive until the 80s, but they did not change his opinion. Nevertheless, he began to have nightmares."
In describing his conversion, Adasevic “dreamed about a beautiful field full of children and young people who were playing and laughing, from 4 to 24 years of age, but who ran away from him in fear. A man dressed in a black and white habit stared at him in silence. The dream was repeated each night and he would wake up in a cold sweat. One night he asked the man in black and white who he was. ‘My name is Thomas Aquinas,’ the man in his dream responded. Adasevic, educated in Communist schools, had never heard of the Dominican genius saint. He didn't recognize the name.”
"Why don't you ask me who these children are?" St. Thomas asked Adasevic in his dream. "They are the ones you killed with your abortions," St. Thomas told him. "Adasevic awoke in amazement and decided not to perform any more abortions," the article stated.
After this experience, Adasevic "told the hospital he would no longer perform abortions. Never before had a doctor in Communist Yugoslavia refused to do so. They cut his salary in half, fired his daughter from her job, and did not allow his son to enter the university." After years of pressure and on the verge of giving up, he had another dream about St. Thomas.
“‘You are my good friend, keep going,’ the man in black and white told him. Adasevic became involved in the pro-life movement and was able to get Yugoslav television to air the film The Silent Scream, by Doctor Bernard Nathanson, two times."
CHRISTIAN ORDER, JANUARY, 2009 63
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: Eugenicist
By George J. Marlin
In an interview published in last Sunday’s New York Times magazine, U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, revealed the purpose for legalized abortion: “Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe [v. Wade] was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” (Emphasis added.)
What a deplorable statement. Unfortunately, the Times reporter failed to ask the obvious follow-up: What populations do we have too many of? Jews? African-Americans? Hispanic-Americans? Catholics? Fundamentalists? The poor? Welfare recipients?
This language about getting rid of “populations that we don’t want to have too many of” – a/k/a undesirables or those “unfit to live” – is the standard endgame of a vile product of the social Darwinist movement: eugenics, the so-called science of good birth.
According to radical social Darwinists, people who are an economic or medical burden on society should be eliminated. To promote their agenda, they founded numerous organizations, including the Eugenics Record Office and the Cold Spring Harbor Eugenics Laboratory (funded by the Rockefellers, Harrimans, and Carnegies), and introduced eugenics legislation throughout the nation.
America’s leading apostle of social Darwinism, William Graham Sumner of Yale (1840-1910), declared: “Let it be understood that we cannot go outside of this alternative: liberty, inequality, survival of the fittest; not liberty, equality, survival of the unfittest. The former carries society forward and favors all its best members; the latter carries society downwards and favors all its worst members.”
Another eugenicist, Herbert Spencer (1820-1903), warned the developed nations not to foster the survival of the unfit by interfering with harsh economic realities. In the name of biology, he opposed free public education, sanitation laws, compulsory vaccinations, and welfare programs for those he called the “hereditary poor.” He feared that these services would encourage the perpetuation of undesirable physical, intellectual, and social traits. Spencer’s social Darwinism made the pseudo-science of eugenics “morally” permissible in the name of preserving “society as a whole.”
Even Theodore Roosevelt caught eugenics fever. “Someday,” wrote Roosevelt in 1913 to Charles Davenport, director of the Eugenics Record Office, “we must realize that the prime duty, the inescapable duty of the good citizen of the right type is to leave his or her blood behind him in the world, and that we have no business permitting the perpetuation of citizens of the wrong type.”
In his work Preface to Eugenics (1940) Frederick Osborne of the American Museum of Natural History called for the segregation of the “hereditary defective” in state institutions; “It is doubtful whether democracy can long continue in any society except one whose operation favors the survival of competent people in every social and occupational group.”
The National Socialists were the first to make eugenics a matter of public policy. The 1933 German Racial legislation signed into law by Chancellor Hitler provided the legal foundation for the Nazi Final Solution of Europe’s Jewish population and approved euthanasia, abortion, artificial insemination, electric-shock experiments, tissue and muscle experiments, fetal experimentation and gas chambers. All these Nazi horrors took place in the name of eugenics. Joseph Goebbels ordered all German organizations to be educated in “the eugenics way of thinking!”
When the Nuremburg trials revealed the horrendous consequences of Nazi eugenics programs, the American movement went underground. The Cold Spring Harbor Eugenics Laboratory, for instance, dropped “Eugenics” from its title in an attempt to maintain respectability. Annals of Eugenics became Annals of Human Genetics. Eugenicists now called themselves “population scientists” or “human geneticists.”
By the 1970s, however, the eugenics movement made a comeback with Roe v. Wade, their biggest victory. Reviewing this . . . success, journalist-philosopher Malcolm Muggeridge, concluded, “For the Guinness Book of Records, you can submit this: that it takes about thirty years in our humane society to transform a war crime into an act of compassion.”
The eugenics movement flourishes because public officials, like Justice Ginsburg, subscribe to an ideology that discards the sanctity of the human person. Believing that man is merely a machine or animal – not a person with a soul and, therefore, unique among God’s creations – makes it easy for them to form a rational justification for getting rid of “populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”
It would be comforting to think that Justice Ginsburg will catch a lot of flack and be compelled to explain her outrageous comment in the Times to the American people. But this is one bit of news – and history – the Times is unlikely to think fit to print.
So let’s at least remind ourselves of G.K. Chesterton’s words back in 1915:
[E]ugenics is chiefly a denial of the Declaration of Independence. It urges that so far from all men being born equal, numbers of them ought not to be born at all. And so far from their being entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, they are to be forbidden a form of liberty and happiness so private that the maddest inquisitor never dreamed of meddling with it before.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I began posting an article by Peter Knight and another by Jim Kopp in the last issue, 7-4. I will continue with those in the next, 7-6
August 2, 2009, Vol. 7, No.5
PO Box 7424, Reading, PA 19603
Phone – cell--610-809-3388, machine -- 610-396-0332
Email – johndunk@ptd.net
Web – skyp1.blogspot.com
Circulation – 41`
John Dunkle, Editor
Abortion is Murder, a weak, pathetic response to baby murder, is sent out at least once a month. If the gestapo haven’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, maybe even 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, P.O. Box 300., Waymart, PA 18472 (new)
8. McMenemy, David Robert 08168-030, FCI Elkton, P.O. Box 10, Lisbon OH 44432
9. Richardson, Alonzo Lee 12898-021, PO Box 474701, Des Moines, IA 50947
10. Roeder, Scott, Sedgwick County Jail, 141 West Elm, Wichita, KS 67203
11. Rudolph, Eric 18282-058 US Pen. Max, Box 8500, Florence CO 81226-8500
12. Shannon, Rachelle 59755-065, FCI Dublin Unit A, 5701 8th St., Camp Parks, Dublin CA 94568 3/31
13. 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
Paul Ross Evans’ story concludes:
As April 18th arrived, I found myself behind the "XXX Megaplexxx" pornographic movie theater, on South I-35 in Austin. The massive IED that I placed near the corner of the building had a fuse detonator. I lit a cigarette, taking care to keep the butt free of any DNA, and attached it to the fuse. This was a tactic used by Special Forces in the Vietnam war. I hoped to cripple a corner of the building and to rain shrapnel on the cars parked beside it. It did not take, and as I walked back to my car, which I had parked a short distance up the road, a police officer passed by me close. It was very late at night, and upon reflection, I'm certain that had the bomb exploded, I would have been caught immediately.
The next day I returned, planning to light the fuse directly with a cigarette lighter and destroy the building, but when I got there, the bomb was gone. I saw the packaging, but it looked light, and had been moved. Agents later told me that they "think the bomb was stolen by the homeless living in that area" to make fires. That seems rather humorous, but at the time it didn't. My guess is as good as theirs. I was quite surprised to find the bomb disturbed as I approached that day to finish what I had started. Bic lighter in hand, I stood near the scene, frozen for a moment. I could only suspect that a night watchman had discovered the bomb and had called in agents, and that a team of them were now studying me from the nearby forest. I left the scene and spent a paranoid next few days wondering if I were being followed and kept under surveillance.
I was now left impatient. There continued to be no news from around the nation about any bombings on U. S. soil. I was eager for destruction — not out of some sadistic need to hurt others, but to hunt those who had persecuted Christianity for so long. I had struck out against many of them now, but I wanted an explosion to cripple them. I wanted someone to be crushed by it.
After two or three trips to the Austin Women's Health Clinic abortion mill, I was ready to act out against it violently. After purchasing bomb components from all around Texas, I manufactured an explosive device that agents later described as being powerful enough to "kill or injure anyone within a hundred foot radius." I placed it in front of the Austin Women's Health Clinic. A clinic employee tripped over it long after it should have detonated. Agents later told me that something inside that package had obstructed the wiring, causing the timer to stop three to five minutes before the inevitable massive explosion. Agents of the regime in Washington used a robot to tamper with the device and detonate it in the clinic's abandoned parking lot, after removing the accompanying charges of boosters, propellants, and shrapnel.
Although the abortionist and his evil minions slithered away from the bomb unscathed, I still consider my effort to bomb the Austin Women's Health Clinic abortion mill a success. The attention the bombing attempt generated, which I was able to monitor personally until I was arrested, was excellent in accomplishing several of my mission parameters. In weighing terrorist activity, death is not always the primary goal. The mill was closed for a time and children's lives were saved that day. Also, across America and even internationally, many people looked to Austin that day and saw that America's Far Right is still very much alive and well, and far from surrendering Christianity's stronghold in America.
I was still very much experimenting. Eventually, I would have killed people. I was a one-man army, and instead of experimenting on trees in the woods, I experimented on those I despised. It doesn't reflect my deficiency as a bomb maker; it just reflects what one may encounter as a lone bomb maker while learning and cultivating himself, as a process. As well, I didn't live alone in a shack in the woods.
After I had been arrested and had viewed the monster of the case the federal government had stacked against me, I considered accepting a plea agreement. I disclosed information leading agents to the two missing mail bombs, and I admitted that I was the individual responsible for targeting Michael Newdow. After a point, I realized that the two other mail bombs hadn't reached their targets. When a package is returned, it ends up in a postal recovery center, and after ninety days it is opened by postal workers. I wanted to kill Satanists, not postal workers, so I led agents to the mail bombs. They carefully defused the devices, which would have killed anyone who opened them.
I am caged in a federal prison for forty years, with an out date of 2042. Certainly I am left perturbed and angry that, although no one was hurt, I am nevertheless caged for decades for acts that were merely attempted. I feel that this is evidence, more so than many cases, that the government will go to any length to jail those who even attempt to strike against liberal venues.
I feel that the length of my sentence is excessive, but I do not regret any of my actions in the least. I simply feel that people who still live in the fantasy world of believing that they are "living in a free country" should look at my case and wake up.
If I spoke of any regret, it would be in the mention of the regret I feel toward the fact that I did not get to finish what I started.
I am not of the opinion that Roe v. Wade will ever be reversed by legal action. I targeted Washington's agents merely because they protect those I abhor. What I intended to attempt (and actually started) was not any sort of putsch.
I felt, and I still feel, that if abortion mills and other anti-Christian venues are targeted with enough terrorism, eventually the United States government will abandon its protection of them. When the attacks start to eat into Washington's budget (money is Washington's heart), they will step away from protecting the abortionist. It will become pointless to them, and they will look to other means of population control in order to accomplish their goal of subjugation.
Alone, what I was beginning to attempt was the cultivation of my own three main objectives in this conflict, which, in themselves, are very cause-and-effect:
1. To put pressure on abortionists and their staff through the use of a wide variety of terrorist acts, primarily through murder-by-explosive
2. To cause the government to abandon its protection of the abortion industry
3. When #2 objective is accomplished, to kill all abortionists and their staff
Once the money (which is very important to Washington) is being spent in excess to protect the abortion industry to the point where it becomes a burden, the government will abandon it, just as it has abandoned us for liberal money and socialist coin.
I planned an organized strike that could be done alone, after I had obtained a certain amount of the cash needed to finance such ventures. Some would consider targeting all clinics in the South, driving the enemy's operations north toward Canada. Others would consider starting in the North and driving the enemy south toward Mexico.
I had an entirely different idea altogether. Terrorism, as a means to obtain a particular goal, is the instituting of violence in order to confuse, disturb, and addle, filling the targets and their enablers and protectors with nervous apprehension and horror. The North-to-South/South-to-North approach is too predictable to really work. The enemy could ensnare the perpetrators of such acts:
Jeremiah 18 (KJV) 22 Let a cry be heard from their houses, when thou shalt bring a troop suddenly upon them: for they have digged a pit to take me, and hid snares for my feet.
But to cause confusion is a key tool in instituting fear in enemy agents and the general public. Solely targeting the abortion industry, I planned to use the following tactics:
1. Three in a row in California on foot (clinics) in San Diego, San Francisco, and Los Angeles
2. Three in a row on the East Coast, in Providence, RI, Boston, MA, and New York, NY
3. Drive to Little Rock, Arkansas and mail four separate devices in a cross pattern to Cedar Rapids, IA, San Antonio, TX, Miami, FL, and Louisville, KY
4. A single large scale explosion in Washington, DC, at a downtown abortion mill
5. Drive to Phoenix, AZ, and distribute several threatening letters in the mail to Kansas City, Chicago, Portland, and Las Vegas
In future acts I considered several tactics, including dispensing raw meat and animal blood on abortion mill property, in order to draw scavenging animals (primarily vultures) and producing foul smells on the property; using fake mail bombs, (as many as I could purchase the components for); butyric acid attacks, and using manure on property. Arson would be another avenue. I think it's important to draw attention to the death these places cause. Many of these mills are hidden in name and location.
With the accomplishing of these actions to irritate the abortionist (accompanied by actual bombings and death), the media will spread the information like wildfire. I believe that, on a large scale, Washington would abandon its effort to protect the abortionist. After a time, all abortionists could be murdered, and we as Christians could attempt to co-exist with Washington's evil empire.
The accomplishing of this type of task would deter other liberal acts as well (or at least put them on guard), as it displays what the (Far) Right is capable of, modernity. Once certain elements "go underground" again, as they once were, it will be easier for the Christian in modern society to gain ground. After all, human nature will always produce such evil on the earth, where the Evil One has control and power. Wow!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And Eric’s Chapter 2 continues:
The progressives acquired powerful allies in the media. Adolph Ochs purchased The New York Times in the late 1800s, beginning a reign of lies and distortion that has lasted down to the present day. In the hands of the Ochs and Sulzberger families, the Times has been the leading mouthpiece of leftwing culture distortion for over one hundred years. Louis John Jennings was out, Marxists were in. Never moving too fast to outpace the mainstream, the Times has gradually moved the public debate to the left.
The Hearst and McCormick papers were the last major dailies to treat abortion as a moral evil. The New York Times and Henry Luce’s Time Magazine started to portray it as a socio-economic issue. Abortion they argued was only problematic because it was illegal. The anti-abortion statutes drove abortion underground and into the hands of back-alley butchers. Although morally objectionable, the women were not to blame. Poverty and ignorance caused abortions, and illegal practitioners made a bad situation worse. Put abortion in the hands of competent professionals and it would eliminate the ugly side of an ugly business. Until society has addressed the underlying socio-economic causes of abortion, society might as well provide a safe environment to do it in. After all, people were going to do it anyway. I’m sure you’ve heard this argument before. We’re just trying to be reasonable in an unreasonable situation, said the Times. They are past masters at this approach.
Fredrick Taussig’s book Abortion (1936) articulated the new perspective. His book was widely read and had considerable influence on liberal opinion. Medical, psychological, economic reasons trumped moral reasons. Using Marxist mathematics, Taussig estimated that there were “681,600 illegal abortions” annually, and at least “8,000 deaths due to botched procedures.”11
After the socialists seized control of the federal government in 1933, the Dr. Taussigs of America had more allies for the cause. In 1942 the New York Academy of Medicine held a conference on abortion, declaring that the unborn child “has not the self, the relationships, or the consciousness of his personality—save potentiality.”13 Dr. Sophia Kleegman said the only reason for the anti-abortion laws was “the dogma of one particular church.”14
By the time the Sherri Finkbine case came along in 1963, America had been softened up by leftwing propaganda for two decades. They were now ready to hear the argument for abortion, after being treated to the “hard case.” Mrs. Finkbine was a typical suburban housewife: twenty-nine years old, good looking, four children, a handsome husband, and perfectly waxed kitchen floors. But she had unwittingly taken the drug thalidomide, a sleeping pill, during her first trimester of pregnancy. Doctors had recently discovered that 20 percent of babies born to mothers who had taken the drug suffered severe physical deformities, including flipper-like arms.
Using the health of the mother exception in Arizona’s abortion statute, Mrs. Finkbine scheduled an abortion. But after the local papers got wind of the story, the hospital administrators got cold feet and refused to perform her procedure. So she went in search of a doctor who would. Like one of those Anna Nicole Smith sagas, the press followed her odyssey from one state to another, from one country to another. By then, the press was overwhelmingly in sympathy with Mrs. Finkbine. They covered her story with the hope of changing the existing laws. Bemoaning the prospect that she may be forced to give birth to a severely handicapped child, Planned Parenthood’s Alan Guttmacher opined that “the abortion laws have not kept pace with medicine.”15
Finally, Mrs. Finkbine was able to get an abortion in that bastion of progress, Sweden. Measuring the success of their campaign, the media took a Gallup Poll: 52 percent agreed that Finkbine had done the “right thing”; 32 percent were against the abortion; and 16 percent were too busy wondering who would win the World Series.16 Judges know that hard cases make bad law, but propagandists know that they make excellent polemic. Finkbine’s case showed that the hard case was an easy sell to the American people. It was just a matter of obfuscation to sell abortion-on-demand to the public under the banner of the “hard cases”—rape, incest, flipper-armed kids. Talk to any supporters of abortion and they’ll give you the hard case, when the fact of the matter is such cases account for only a small percentage of abortions.
Abortion was still in the hands of state legislatures. Sensing the winds of change blowing in from the Left, several states felt comfortable about legalizing abortion for the hard cases. Between 1966 and 1972 fourteen states changed their laws to allow abortion in cases where a doctor said the pregnancy posed a serious threat to a woman’s physical or mental health, when the child would be born with a grave physical or mental defect, or when pregnancy resulted from rape or incest. In 1970, four other states repealed all of their abortion statutes, legalizing abortion-on-demand. Abortion clinics sprouted up in large cities like New York and did a brisk business servicing the followers of the counterculture.
But most states in the American Heartland retained their abortion statutes. The Heartland was unprepared for Roe v Wade. Roe was the capstone on forty years of social engineering. All of this change was imposed from above; none was the result of actual grass roots efforts or organic change. Lacking effective leadership, Middle America was taken by surprise. They have been trying to get their bearings ever since. Actually these policies, which had reached the local level in the 50s, 60s, and 70s, have their roots all the way back to the Enlightenment. The elites had played with this poison for several generations. Now it was dispensed at the local level.
Using the pseudonym “Jane Roe,” Norma McCorvey brought a class action suit against the state of Texas (1970) for having refused her request for an abortion. McCorvey claimed to have been gang-raped, which later turned out to be a lie. But under the 1857 statute, abortions were permitted only to save the life of the mother. Not having a life threatening condition, McCorvey was refused an abortion. She decided to sue Texas. Her lawyer, Sarah Weddington, thought McCorvey’s case would make a good test for abortion-on-demand, so with the backing of leftwing groups, she prepared for trial.
The federal court in Dallas agreed with Roe. Texas then appealed to the Supreme Court, where it was argued two times, once in ’72, and finally in ’73. Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice White dissented; the rest of the Court upheld Roe, thus overturning all the state anti-abortion statutes. Roe v Wade established abortion-on-demand as a Constitutional right, and touched off the most important conflict of our generation.
Using a pile of convoluted information to support his decision, Blackmun wrote for the majority. Blackmun was an Establishment judge. And like most Establishment judges of that generation, his heroes were former Justices Brandeis and Holmes. From his perspective, the Roe v Wade decision was delivered in the spirit of Holmes’ famous 1905 admonition that the Constitution “is made for people of fundamentally differing views, and the accident of our finding certain opinions natural and familiar, or novel, and even shocking, ought not to conclude our judgments upon the questions whether statutes embodying them conflict with the Constitution of the United States.”17
Blackmun used this hollow quote to scare off the torch-bearing mob. Harry was saying that even though the majority out there in the Heartland might view the disposal of unwanted children as morally repugnant, America is a diverse nation and must accommodate people who regard unborn children as medical waste and impediments to female equality. It didn’t matter that the writers of Constitution would have found such an interpretation of their work as a gross perversion. To keep pace with progress rights had to be crafted and enlightened individuals such as himself were the only ones qualified for the job. Unlike those bigoted Crackers in the Heartland, Harry was progressive. He would deliver a decision inline with “the progressive spirit of the Constitution.” He would pull the Roe decision right out of thin air.
In the history of the Court no other decision was more arbitrary than Roe v Wade. Blackmun’s decision had no basis in common law, history, or the Constitution itself. It was pure invention. Holmes would have been proud. As noted earlier, Blackmun relied heavily on the Amicus brief of Cyril Means. Briefly again, this argument had the “state’s real concern in enacting criminal abortion laws to protect a woman, that is, to restrain her from submitting to a procedure that placed her life in serious jeopardy.” Only secondarily were they concerned for the “potential” life of the child: “In assessing the state’s interest, recognition may be given to the less rigid claim that as long as at least potential life is involved, the state may assert interests beyond the protection of the pregnant women alone.”18 It must be remembered, said Blackmun, that “throughout the major portion of the nineteenth century, abortion was viewed with less disfavor than under most American statutes currently in effect.”19 Then a pack of greedy physicians, who were seeking to cut out the “irregular” competition, pressured the states to pass abortion laws. Overturning Texas’ abortion statute was a return to tradition, Harry insisted.
To ensure that greedy doctors and day-before-yesterday moralists never again forced women to have unwanted children, Blackmun decided to fabricate a new right for women, one impervious to meddling Cracker state legislatures. He called this new construct the “right of privacy.” Harry admitted what he was doing: “The Constitution does not mention any right of
privacy.” Nevertheless, Blackmun believed the Ninth Amendment “broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate a pregnancy.” Letting his guard slip, Harry revealed his true egalitarian motives:
The detriment that the state would impose upon the pregnant
woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. Specific
and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early
pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional
offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and
future. Psychological harm maybe imminent. Mental and
physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the
distress for all concerned associated with the unwanted child,
and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family
already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it.20
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lindsay Says: The prolife argument is actually a good one, and a simple one at that.
At conception there is a organism that by definition is of the human species. After the moment of fertilization when all of the chromosomes are present, they have DNA just like the rest of us.
At some point one becomes a human being, so what is the criterion for this? Logically, I would think when it becomes a part of our species but apparently that is not common sense to all. So, another look… Maybe it should be the most pivotal point of the organism’s life, the time when they change the most. That would be conception.
All that happens after conception is growth. At conception there is the instruction their body needs to develop just like everyone else. Never does an embryo or a fetus turn into a different being.
Breathing air doesn’t turn someone into a human being. Being able to see someone doesn’t turn them into a human being. Size doesn’t decide humanity just as intelligence does not. The way I see it, if we start judging human life based on how developed it is then we subject ourselves to all of the ignorance of Nazi Germany.
The only difference between me and a three week old fetus is that I am able to defend myself, I’m strong enough to live outside of my mother’s womb, and I look different.
Some people think that life begins with the heartbeat (very fallacious considering that actual death is based on brain waves, not a heart beat). Some believe it happens after it is able to live on its own outside of the womb without medical attention. (Apparently you are only viable when you don’t need a doctor.)
Truthfully, I have spoken to a ridiculous number of prochoice people and I have not found one good reason why conception is not the time for the beginning of humanity. I tried to understand this, I asked multiple people, and I was never given a reasonable response. Why would something that is of our species, with our DNA, that has gone through its most pivotal point, and only has to grow not be a human being?
I’m not prolife to be self righteous. I’ve faced the truth. We have been killing babies and we live in an age of technology that allows us to know this. I feel despicable for not standing up for it before
I’ll tell you how America should not work. We shouldn’t say, prove it’s a baby and I won’t kill it. We should say prove it is not a baby and I then I’ll abort it. Since when do we take chances with innocent lives?
I lost a brother to abortion. He was a person. I don’t care what some strangers on an abortion website say. I mourn him.
I love children, I don’t like it when they are ripped limb from limb or burned from the inside out. I’m prolife because I believe that the womb is a place of protection. I am a woman and I respect myself enough to not lie to myself about the truth. If I went out and had sex and got pregnant, then I would have to live with the ramifications of my choice. Sex is giving your body permission to get pregnant. Don’t act like pregnancy is some surprise (this is for consensual sex only of course). The right time for you to not be pregnant is the time before you say ok body here you go, here is all you need to get pregnant. That is like saying that you have the right to abstain from getting a piercing after you asked someone to pierce something… Its a little late isn’t it? You can fix it, but you can’t erase it. Fixing pregnancy is having the baby and finding someone to adopt that baby. And before the foster care argument comes up, don’t put the baby in foster care. FIND A FAMILY yourself
I do have sympathy for women with unplanned pregnancies. I could just as easily be someone like that if my life had worked out differently. Still, I’m not willing for a moment to advocate the death of babies. I know women who have had abortions and I would not wish that heartache on my worst of enemies.
Continue to say that prolife people have no argument as you continue to say that the unborn are not people. You will suffocate yourself in your cocoon of ignorance. Nazis had reasoning for their genocide. They were in their pinnacle of science, remember? America was right there too with negative eugenics, sterilizing people.
btw the people who bomb abortion clinics are not prolife. If they were, then they would value all life. I understand that a lot of prochoice people think that they are supporting a noble cause but abortion is what degrades women. People are making money off of tricking us and lying to hurting women.
By the way people always argue that birthing an unwanted baby is cruel…Who on earth are we to say that death is better than living a hard life?
My life has been incredibly hard but I’m happy that I was blessed to live because even though I’ve gone through traumatizing things I got to see the world. I’m thankful for my life. You can’t judge the value of another’s life for her. The way to care for kids is not by killing them while they are in the womb; it is by making a better world for them.
Fix foster care rather than kill the kid who may go into it. It is sickening to hear this reasoning.
The prolife movement does have major faults. We should be seen working in kids’ lives rather than picketing out front of centers where scared mothers are entering. We should be helping these poor kids who are left alone… But we also should save those who are about to have the chance to live taken away.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Prophylactic Soda
by Aaron Pidel
Here’s an observation about the law of unintended consequences—a law that prevails wherever deeply human problems are given a purely technical solution. For some years now studies have correlated diet soda with weight gain. Though counter-intuitive, the claim has provoked little opposition.
Diet soda has 5 calories or fewer per serving, of course, but
emerging research seems to suggest that drinking sugary-
tasting beverages, even artificially sweetened ones, appears to
develop a preference in the human body for a whole range of
other sweet things. And when we consume sweeter cereals,
snacks, breads and desserts, we tend to consume more calories,
The article additionally claims diet soda can give a false sense of security:
People who are starting to put on weight think choosing diet
soda alone will stop the process. But, the experts say, this is
false logic, because it ignores the true cause of weight gain –
overeating and poor eating.
As a rule, when the technical solution of “safe” consumption replaces the human solution of disciplined consumption, the human person nonetheless finds his way to harm. Animal desire usually finds its limit in pain, and always presses its case with urgency until it butts up against a disincentive of the same order.
As a thought experiment, let’s apply this rule to an issue of greater moment: AIDS in Africa. The rewritten statements would look something like this:
Prophylactic sex greatly reduces contagion, of course, but
emerging research seems to suggest that pursuing sexual
pleasure for its own sake, even artificially protected sex,
appears to develop a preference in the human body for a whole
range of other sexual pleasures/partners. And when we have
sex more often with more partners, we tend to be more
exposed to contagion, and eventually contract HIV/AIDS.
People who are starting to worry about HIV/AIDS think choosing prophylactic sex alone will stop the process. But, the experts say, this is false logic, because it ignores the true cause of HIV/AIDS – sexual excess and infidelity.
As it turns out, experts who follow the problem of AIDS in Africa most closely do claim to see this sort of false logic operative in Western prevention strategies. The false security that condoms provide creates a powerful “disinhibition” to the human libido, thus “disproportionately erasing” any public health benefits of condom use. Note that perspective here is only one of public health–though it does confirm some of the age-old insights of Christian moral psychology.
If the Washington Times blog, applying the same logic, had expressed as much skepticism about the long-term effectiveness of condomitic sex as it had about the long-term effectiveness of diet soda, I wager it would have generated at least a comment or two. Just ask Pope Benedict.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by Jim Kopp:
The Culture of Death holds sway, yet pro-life prayers are never wasted. They even contribute to astonishing conversions of prolific abortionists like this ex-Communist, as recently reported by the American Life League. There are many others besides. So, pray always, with complete confidence!
The Spanish daily La Razon has published an article on the pro-life conversion of a former "champion of abortion." Stojan Adasevic, who performed 48,000 abortions, sometimes up to 35 per day, is now the most important pro-life leader in Serbia, after 26 years as the most renowned abortion doctor in the country. "The medical textbooks of the Communist regime said abortion was simply the removal of a blob of tissue," the newspaper reported. "Ultrasounds allowing the fetus to be seen did not arrive until the 80s, but they did not change his opinion. Nevertheless, he began to have nightmares."
In describing his conversion, Adasevic “dreamed about a beautiful field full of children and young people who were playing and laughing, from 4 to 24 years of age, but who ran away from him in fear. A man dressed in a black and white habit stared at him in silence. The dream was repeated each night and he would wake up in a cold sweat. One night he asked the man in black and white who he was. ‘My name is Thomas Aquinas,’ the man in his dream responded. Adasevic, educated in Communist schools, had never heard of the Dominican genius saint. He didn't recognize the name.”
"Why don't you ask me who these children are?" St. Thomas asked Adasevic in his dream. "They are the ones you killed with your abortions," St. Thomas told him. "Adasevic awoke in amazement and decided not to perform any more abortions," the article stated.
After this experience, Adasevic "told the hospital he would no longer perform abortions. Never before had a doctor in Communist Yugoslavia refused to do so. They cut his salary in half, fired his daughter from her job, and did not allow his son to enter the university." After years of pressure and on the verge of giving up, he had another dream about St. Thomas.
“‘You are my good friend, keep going,’ the man in black and white told him. Adasevic became involved in the pro-life movement and was able to get Yugoslav television to air the film The Silent Scream, by Doctor Bernard Nathanson, two times."
CHRISTIAN ORDER, JANUARY, 2009 63
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: Eugenicist
By George J. Marlin
In an interview published in last Sunday’s New York Times magazine, U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, revealed the purpose for legalized abortion: “Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe [v. Wade] was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” (Emphasis added.)
What a deplorable statement. Unfortunately, the Times reporter failed to ask the obvious follow-up: What populations do we have too many of? Jews? African-Americans? Hispanic-Americans? Catholics? Fundamentalists? The poor? Welfare recipients?
This language about getting rid of “populations that we don’t want to have too many of” – a/k/a undesirables or those “unfit to live” – is the standard endgame of a vile product of the social Darwinist movement: eugenics, the so-called science of good birth.
According to radical social Darwinists, people who are an economic or medical burden on society should be eliminated. To promote their agenda, they founded numerous organizations, including the Eugenics Record Office and the Cold Spring Harbor Eugenics Laboratory (funded by the Rockefellers, Harrimans, and Carnegies), and introduced eugenics legislation throughout the nation.
America’s leading apostle of social Darwinism, William Graham Sumner of Yale (1840-1910), declared: “Let it be understood that we cannot go outside of this alternative: liberty, inequality, survival of the fittest; not liberty, equality, survival of the unfittest. The former carries society forward and favors all its best members; the latter carries society downwards and favors all its worst members.”
Another eugenicist, Herbert Spencer (1820-1903), warned the developed nations not to foster the survival of the unfit by interfering with harsh economic realities. In the name of biology, he opposed free public education, sanitation laws, compulsory vaccinations, and welfare programs for those he called the “hereditary poor.” He feared that these services would encourage the perpetuation of undesirable physical, intellectual, and social traits. Spencer’s social Darwinism made the pseudo-science of eugenics “morally” permissible in the name of preserving “society as a whole.”
Even Theodore Roosevelt caught eugenics fever. “Someday,” wrote Roosevelt in 1913 to Charles Davenport, director of the Eugenics Record Office, “we must realize that the prime duty, the inescapable duty of the good citizen of the right type is to leave his or her blood behind him in the world, and that we have no business permitting the perpetuation of citizens of the wrong type.”
In his work Preface to Eugenics (1940) Frederick Osborne of the American Museum of Natural History called for the segregation of the “hereditary defective” in state institutions; “It is doubtful whether democracy can long continue in any society except one whose operation favors the survival of competent people in every social and occupational group.”
The National Socialists were the first to make eugenics a matter of public policy. The 1933 German Racial legislation signed into law by Chancellor Hitler provided the legal foundation for the Nazi Final Solution of Europe’s Jewish population and approved euthanasia, abortion, artificial insemination, electric-shock experiments, tissue and muscle experiments, fetal experimentation and gas chambers. All these Nazi horrors took place in the name of eugenics. Joseph Goebbels ordered all German organizations to be educated in “the eugenics way of thinking!”
When the Nuremburg trials revealed the horrendous consequences of Nazi eugenics programs, the American movement went underground. The Cold Spring Harbor Eugenics Laboratory, for instance, dropped “Eugenics” from its title in an attempt to maintain respectability. Annals of Eugenics became Annals of Human Genetics. Eugenicists now called themselves “population scientists” or “human geneticists.”
By the 1970s, however, the eugenics movement made a comeback with Roe v. Wade, their biggest victory. Reviewing this . . . success, journalist-philosopher Malcolm Muggeridge, concluded, “For the Guinness Book of Records, you can submit this: that it takes about thirty years in our humane society to transform a war crime into an act of compassion.”
The eugenics movement flourishes because public officials, like Justice Ginsburg, subscribe to an ideology that discards the sanctity of the human person. Believing that man is merely a machine or animal – not a person with a soul and, therefore, unique among God’s creations – makes it easy for them to form a rational justification for getting rid of “populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”
It would be comforting to think that Justice Ginsburg will catch a lot of flack and be compelled to explain her outrageous comment in the Times to the American people. But this is one bit of news – and history – the Times is unlikely to think fit to print.
So let’s at least remind ourselves of G.K. Chesterton’s words back in 1915:
[E]ugenics is chiefly a denial of the Declaration of Independence. It urges that so far from all men being born equal, numbers of them ought not to be born at all. And so far from their being entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, they are to be forbidden a form of liberty and happiness so private that the maddest inquisitor never dreamed of meddling with it before.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I began posting an article by Peter Knight and another by Jim Kopp in the last issue, 7-4. I will continue with those in the next, 7-6
Tuesday, July 07, 2009
Abortin is Murder August, 2009, Vol.7, No. 4
Formerly Stop the Killing of Young People (skyp) and soon, perhaps, Stop Killing Preemies
August, 2009, Vol. 7, No. 4
PO Box 7424, Reading, PA 19603
Phone – cell--484-706-4375 (new), machine -- 610-396-0332
Email – johndunk@ptd.net
Web – skyp1.blogspot.com
Circulation – 33`
John Dunkle, Editor
Abortion is Murder, a weak, pathetic response to baby murder, is sent out at least once a month. If the gestapo hasn’t jailed you for defending the innocent realistically, you either have to tell me you want it or go 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 (although “Dear Mr. Dunkle” has me thinking), in our attempt to protect those being tortured to death, I want to hear from people who’ve been forceful. I’d also like to hear from those who disagree with me.
Prisoners of Christ:
1. Evans, Paul Ross 83230-180, USP McCreary, P.O. Box 3000, Pine Knot, KY 42635
2. Gibbons, Linda - Vanier WDC, 655 Martin St. , P.O. Box 1040, Milton, ON, Canada L9T 5E6
3. Griffin, Michael 310249, Okaloosa Correctional Institution, Crestview FL 32539-6708 9/11
4. 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. Roeder, Scott, Sedgwick County Jail, 141 West Elm, Wichita, KS 67203
11. Rudolph, Eric 18282-058 US Pen. Max, Box 8500, Florence CO 81226-8500
12. Shannon, Rachelle 59755-065, FCI Dublin Unit A, 5701 8th St., Camp Parks, Dublin CA 94568 3/31
13. Waagner, Clayton Lee 17258-039, United States Penitentiary, P.O. Box 1000,
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
Dear Mr. Dunkle, I’ve been reading “Abortion is Murder” for several years now. I watch you go back and forth on this question: May one use force to defend the victims in this holocaust? I don’t think so.
The reason we God-fearing folk should not defend young people by attacking their killers comes from the Old Testament. Unbelievers then were eliminated regularly by the Godly, at Yahweh’s command. Just read, as one example, what Moses ordered the sons of Levi to do to heretics, those who were worshiping the golden calf, and then look what he ordered done to pagan Midianites! He ordered all of them killed -- old people, young people, men, and women.
Today, we do not have to kill heretics and pagans because the abortionist does that. Every woman who walks into a killing place has turned away from God. And the young person she is carrying would grow up to be just like her. Thus does the abortionist now kill those whom, earlier, Believers were ordered to kill. (Abortionists are also eliminating many of the killing women themselves as they are three-and-a-half times more likely to die during the following year than women who carry to term.) Therefore, we must not kill baby killers. They are doing what The Chosen People did.
What, then, should we do? First we must try to stop the woman who intends to carry the child into the mill. We must try to turn this woman towards God. Moreover, if she does turn towards God, the boy or girl she is carrying will become her believing son or daughter. Beyond that, we must try to persuade others as well to turn towards God so that the law of the land reflects the will of God, not Satan.
Since your newsletter is written for those who by their actions disagree with the above, I expect some response. God bless the Godly, especially those who are not all-talk, like you and me. Jacob Koch
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Ross Evans’ story continues:
I had business to attend to fifteen miles away in a neighboring town, and I placed the bomb on the passenger's seat and departed. After I had attended the meeting planned for that morning, I drove to the post office and bought a book of stamps. The post office was very crowded, and I needed privacy to arm the explosive and seal the box. There was a gas station across the street, so I drove over to it.
I noticed that the stamps were the sort that need to be moistened before sticking to a surface. I was not about to lick them and leave my DNA on them, not after I had taken such care to wear gloves during construction of the bomb, and to keep the box free of any hair or fibers. So, I went into the gas station and bought a bottle of water. I held the stamps outside of the (ajar) car door, and poured the bottled water over the back of them. Finally, I was able to attach them to the box. I armed the bomb while sitting in the car, using the safe/arm switch, and sealed the box using a large amount of packing tape, while wearing gloves. I then wiped the outside of the package down one more time, to make sure that I hadn't accidentally left any partial fingerprints.
I drove back across the street to the post office, and put on a hooded sweatshirt. Lowering the sleeves to cover my fingers, I picked up the box with an awkward grip and marched into the post office. I mailed the bomb in a drop box and left.
In the following weeks I paid close attention to the media, via the Internet, especially in the San Francisco area.
As I had mailed the package, I had noticed a sign on the drop box which said that packages weighing more than a certain amount could only be mailed in person at a postal counter. I hadn't done that, obviously. I knew that the package would be delivered anyway. I had used an excessive amount of postage. But no news came from the west coast about the bombing. It was as if nothing had ever happened. I became frustrated by the silence, and so I continued to learn more about explosives by reading. I already had a fully functioning hit list. I knew that I could learn from any mistakes in my bombings by monitoring the media. Through trial and error, through hit and miss, eventually I would kill. Whenever I had time alone, I spent it researching future targets and learning more about bomb making.
During this time, I located permanent employment and new housing. I also made some bomb-making purchases, and acquired more chemicals and equipment.
At this time I composed two threatening letters. I sent one to an abortionist in Beverly Hills, an Abraham something-or-other, who murdered children for a living. I told him that he was an easy target, and that, just as easily as he had opened the letter, in security, I could have blown him up with an improvised explosive device. I told him that "The Right" would no longer tolerate such filth in society, and to "watch out." I sent another threatening letter to a pornographer in California, one Robert Zicari, who was in hot water because his pornography company had been distributing videos depicting pseudo-rapes and extreme sadism. I made both letters extremely intimidating, threatening their lives with mail bombs and mocking the smugness they operated in. "Look how easily I could have killed you, moron," I wrote to them.
One day, as I was walking downtown near the capitol building in Austin, smoking cigarettes and drinking espressos, I stumbled upon a tangled ball of human hair of all colors. I picked it up and put it inside the cellophane wrapper of my cigarettes. I included bits of this hair in the letters in order to "throw off" agents working for the regime in Washington.
A few weeks later, I found out about Michael Newdow. Mr. Newdow is an atheist in California who has continued to pester and threaten Christendom in many ways, ranging from objecting to Christian evangelist Franklin Graham giving the invocation at
President Bush's 2001 inauguration, to being plaintiff in a lawsuit to remove the words "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance (Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, which was eventually heard before the U. S. Supreme Court in June, 2004, and dismissed on procedural grounds). I felt that Mr. Newdow was an extremely important target, not only because of what he did, but also because of the arrogance in which he operated. But the more research I did on him, the more I learned about his personal life, and his daily activities. He had children who were often with him. I could not risk hurting his children, so I chose to intimidate and shake him up a little bit by mailing him an inactive bomb.
I assembled the components, leaving out the essential piece — the power source — and secured it all inside of another cardboard mailing box. I also included a bag of pure potassium chlorate, which is primarily used as a component in bombs and pyrotechnical devices, and is not exactly something that one can purchase just anywhere. I did so to send a message to FBI and ATF agents that I knew what I was doing, that I could have killed Mr. Newdow, but had chosen not to.
As it happened, Mr. Newdow opened the package at a post office in California, in the presence of his daughter. The bomb squad was called, the post office was shut down for a time, trepidation caused, end of story, mission accomplished.
No one was hurt.
On that package, I believe the return address I used was that of a pornographic distributor in California, but truly I never expected the package to be opened by anyone other than Mr. Newdow. I knew that in his arrogance he would march right into the post office, and never suspect that someone might object to his actions. And that is what he did. This arrogance of his was the very thing I targeted. I aimed to strike out at the confidence in which these enemies operate; they never expect pacifist and plastic Christians to raise an objection. They are horribly mistaken about a certain segment of the Christian Right, however.
I hope that some of this man's smugness was altered. I believe that Mr. Newdow is simply a sad product of the confidence that this nation has generated publicly for years, encouraging society to act "any old way." Meanwhile, law enforcement officers are baffled as to why urban areas are overrun with drug use and violence.
But if Michael Newdow had not been a father, my bomb would have killed him that day. He knows this, and so do I. His daughter's presence saved his life, and he can thank her for that one day. He would have been eliminated that day, no question.
Meanwhile, back in Austin, I didn't know what had happened with this bomb, or any of them, for that matter. There was no mention of it in the news. The liberal media machine in California had silenced it. As weeks passed, I grew somewhat impatient.
I located two Satanists at this point. My primary target was a man named Bob Ferguson (aka Bob McDonald). This fellow circulated literature instructing people as to how to raise children to be Satan worshippers. I also found information on the Internet about another Satanist (there is a superabundance of them) who was just as guilty as Ferguson of crimes against Christianity.
I created another mail bomb, using the same type of cardboard box and the same type of loop switch detonator. I had recently made an online purchase of some high quality pyrotechnic oxidizers. I had also begun to experiment with using light switches as detonators. I built most of this bomb while sitting in my car in a grocery store parking lot in downtown Austin, on the corner of Oltorf Street and South Congress Avenue. I drove up South Congress to the post office next to McDonald's, bought a book of stamps, and mailed the device to the Satanist. I found it rather amusing at the time that when I purchased the book of stamps from a machine inside the post office, the machine malfunctioned and gave me two books of stamps, one for free.
It was late March, and still I monitored the media. Nothing.
Weeks went by, and as April 19th approached, I planned a bombing to commemorate this notorious date of expression of dissatisfaction against the government of the United States. (Editor note: Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols bombed the Alfred P. Murray Federal Building in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995.)
I wanted to target a sex shop located in downtown Austin. I chose "Sinsations," on South First Street, because of its name, and because it encouraged and profited from sexual promiscuity and perversion, marital infidelity, child molestation, murder, and rape. It also encouraged the degradation of women in many forms.
I was getting bolder in my forceful actions. The bombing at Sinsations was really simply an experiment. I was all alone in my endeavors, with little or no money. I used improvisation in the construction of each device. Each one cost about $100, and propellants and shrapnel were used in each one.
This was the first time I had made a timed detonator. I fashioned it from an alarm clock. The bomb itself was massive. I drove up to the car wash next door to Sinsations at sunset. I had been driving around the area for weeks. Wearing a hooded sweatshirt, I placed the bomb in a trash container outside the side door of the store. I had a feeling that some of the wiring had torn loose when I left it, because the trash can was empty when I placed the bomb in it. I waited for a while, and thought about setting the trash can on fire, or phoning in a bomb threat. It never exploded, and agents seem to think that it was eventually disposed of in an Austin landfill. (tbc)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
And so does Chapter 2 of Eric’s book on abortion:
Slowly these egalitarian ideas captured the intelligentsia and from there filtered into the mainstream. “Educated” people in the early twentieth century came to believe in the inevitability of these ideas. “Progress” was a math formula figured out by Marx and Comte. Socio-economic forces were moving us to socialism. Those who accepted these ideas were “progressive.” Those who opposed them were “reactionary.” Just as the anti-abortion statutes reached their final form, the ideas that would ultimately dismantle them were rising to the surface.
In the nineteenth century tolerance for abortion was not expressed in public. Qualifications were emerging, though. Even though she condemned it, Elizabeth Cady Stanton said abortion was the result of “the degradation of women.” Depriving those husbands of children “who have made the strong-minded women. . .the target of jibes and jeers” was somehow just, she said.1 In public most feminists held views similar to Matilida J. Gage, who said “This crime of child murder, abortion, infanticide lies at the door of the male sex.”2 In the pages of their own newspapers, they were starting to express tolerance. Publicly Victoria Woodhull said she wished abortion was unnecessary, but she “understood” why a woman would get one.
After the turn of the century, the New Women arrived. Margaret Sanger was typical of the new breed of iconoclast. In her Woman Rebel, Sanger gave perfect expression to the egalitarian position on abortion: “The attitude of America law and ‘public opinion’ on the subject of abortion is about 1,000 years behind Turkey. In Turkey abortion is not punished.”3 Sanger’s Comrade Victor Meric stated the position bluntly: “If a woman is to free herself effectively, she must make herself absolute mistress of her body. She must recognize her absolute right. . .to suppress the germ of life.”4
In keeping with the view that man was the slave of material forces, there was a new approach to social relief as well. Older homes such as Erring Women’s Refuge had emphasized Christian charity and individual transformation -- change the person and she will change her environment. Margaret Sanger thought such institutions made “women a traitor to her class and aimed to reform her by means of a scrubbing brush or a club.”5 Material conditions caused social ills. Change those conditions and the social ills would disappear. Judge Ben Lindsey in his book The Companionate Marriage attacked the Christian “teaching about Original Sin and the Fall of Man.” He asked, “Why don’t you drop all that and commit yourself to the thesis that human beings are only too glad to be good if they can see their way to being so? What I say to young people is this: you are free agents. . . .The judge that must judge you is your heart and conscience. . .”6
“Social Worker” was the name given to the new class of reformers. One by one the old homes were closed down, or pushed out of the mainstream of relief work. In Cleveland, Ohio Mirian Morton was happy to see “professional social workers” replace the “benevolent old ladies, who had earlier distributed relief and spiritual salvation.”7 The social workers were morally neutral and saw the plight of the poor as primarily economic, not moral. Morality became utilitarian. By removing unwanted mouths to feed, egalitarians argued that abortion was one way to alleviate poverty. Abortion was now seen as compassionate and progressive, a means for poor women to escape a life of poverty. Abortion was good because that which cures poverty is good. And for the true progressives, abortion was a way of addressing female inequality in general.
Egalitarianism infected doctors as well. As educated “men of science,” they were expected to adopt the new progressive ethics. Just a generation earlier their fathers drove abortion out of the land. But they were “modern,” and had read Darwin, Marx, and Mill at college. They looked down on their fathers as “old fashioned,” and “unscientific.” Rather than using science as a tool, they saw themselves as the servants of science, science as interpreted by materialists such as Marx. Science was leading man somewhere, and they had to follow. Storer thought abortion a crime against God and Nature, the new breed had a different opinion. Dr. Henry Marcy argued in the Journal of the American Medical Association that the “product of early impregnation is of so little importance that abortion should not be established as a serious offense.”8 Dr. Klotz-Forest said, “Legally abortion is a crime. Honestly and scientifically it is not. One can only hope that good sense will triumph in the end, and that abortion performed, by an able practitioner in the best hygienic surroundings will soon come to be regarded as useful, necessary, and humane, even in cases in which the women requests it for no other reason than that she does not wish to have a child, that it is not her pleasure to become a mother.”9 The American Journal of Public Health applauded when the Soviet Union became the first country to legalize abortion in 1921: “legalized abortion is the only means for women’s liberation…”10 How modern.
(tbc)
------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello, folks, As you may know, POC Lee Smart is scheduled to be released from halfway house on June 12, at which time he will have completed his sentence. As far as I know, he is not scheduled to have any restrictions from having contact with folks opposed to childkilling.
As you probably are aware, the transition from imprisonment back to life on the outside can be very stressful, trying to find a decent job in middle age while having a criminal record. If you would like to help Lee out with a few bucks at this time, or know of someone who might wish to help, I'm sure it would mean a lot to Lee.
Lee's address after June 12 is not known, but you can send to Lee's mother, and Lee will be sure to receive what you send. Lee would prefer postal money orders, he says that those are easier for him to cash.
Lee’s mother does not want her address made public. If you can send Lee something, mail it to me and I’ll see he gets it
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
DATE OF CEASE and DESIST ORDER of JULY 1ST, 2009
I (Leland Smart) have been given a Direct Order to Cease and Desist any and all contacts, and/or associations with anyone involved within the christian pro-life community.
FURTHERMORE; I have been given an Order to Cease and Desist any communications, written, and/or e-mail(S), letters, phone calls, etc., from anyone involved within the christian pro-life community.
UPON penalty of further incarceration within the Federal Bureau of Prisons, I Declare that I (Leland Smart) have been issued a Cease and Desist Order, and have been Ordered not to have any associations and/or contacts with anyone within the christian pro-life community. I will not associate and/or communicate with anyone within the christian pro-life community.
ANY MAILINGS, e-mails, AND/OR communications will not
Respectfully Leland Smart
What about the Jewish pro-life community, which is minuscule, and the Muslim pro-Life community, which is humongous?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
.
Vengeance vs. Defensive Action
The shooting of late term abortionist George Tiller has revealed the hearts of pro-lifers: Some are cheered by Tiller’s death, others pull a long face. It should be noted that many who bewail Tiller’s death are secretly glad he is gone.
George Tiller was not your run-of-the-death-mill baby-killer. He was symbolic of the baby-killing industry. He grew in stature as he handily overcame personal obstacles and professional accusations. He made the black art of baby-killing acceptable, perhaps even noble to the public at large.
Tiller represented the baby-killing industry as their point man. He was the face that baby-killing Americans came to love, and pro-lifers love to hate. With legal impunity, wearing a shark-skin suit, Tiller killed the “big babies” with a smile.
Tiller was well connected, especially after the November Republican defeat. He did not squander his fortune, as most baby-killers do, on wine, women, and drugs; he invested wisely in politicians. Pro-choice-to-kill Governor Sebelius kept her protégé from being charged and convicted of a litany of violations of Kansas law. A rising star in Obama’s administration, Sebelius would have taken Tiller along with her. Maybe even as Surgeon General.
Wichita’s perpetual beacon of hope, Troy Newman, promised Tiller’s head on a platter. But every attack on Tiller was thwarted. Hoping against hope Troy petitioned Kansas’s Medical Board to pull Tiller’s license. Poppycock! That simply would not happen. Tiller, acquitted of violating Kansas’s laws, was in no serious trouble with the medical board.
The David and Goliath routine was looking bad for David until an unknown champion appeared on the scene. God’s chosen instrument, with a single bullet to the braincase, slew Goliath. Rather than take courage from this change of fortune, Troy and
his camp ran the other way thinking “Boy, the Philistines are going to be pissed!”
Sweating bullets, Troy was the first to apologize to both the pro-aborts and pro-lifers. “And gee, we were so close to getting Tiller’s medical license pulled!”
Now that we have set the stage, let us examine the pre-text for why Troy and others renounce this shooters brave, unselfish act: Troy tells us that the shooter is a “coward” and a “vigilante.” We all know what a coward is but the definition of a vigilante is “any person who takes the law into his or her own hands, as by avenging a crime.”
We do not know if the shooter's motive was vengeance or if he was acting in defense of the pre-born. The definition for self-defense and defense of others is “the right for civilians acting on their own behalf to engage in violence for the sake of defending one's own life or the lives of others, including the use of deadly force.”
Self defense and the defense of others is justifiable homicide.
This defense is denied Tiller’s shooter as our laws do not recognize the humanity and worth of the pre-born. Those of us who do recognize the person of the Preborn should understand that the use of force is justifiable in protecting the pre-born children, but such is not the case.
In the posts that I have read from Troy and others, they assume the shooter’s motive to be vengeance, rather than defensive
action. Troy was quick to condemn Tiller’s shooter without knowing his true motive. You can stab a man’s character as surely as you shoot his person.
I proffer this fine distinction because it is important to hand-wringing soul-searching theologians sorting through the dainty innuendos, presuppositions, and new and old winds of doctrine.
But I do not believe the shooter’s motive to be important, as it amounts to defensive action no matter what his motive was.
Tiller was a serial killer. He killed the week he was killed, and like the punctual rape of every blessed day, he was scheduled to
kill again. The shooter’s bullet, like David’s stone, stopped Tiller’s bloody hands cold.
But along with the death of George Tiller, is the toppling of the invincible baby-killing idol of aborticide.
Like the Munchkins in the Wizard of Oz, news of Tiller’s death was at first hard to believe. While many of us broke into a joyful song, others broke into a shameful retreat. dan holman
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Let me know if you’d like it made known that you are the author of this because either I never had or I lost that information. Also, does anyone know what IAAP stands for?
I freely admit that I have been "radicalized" by the failed pro-life bowel movement. The use of bloody baby pictures has most assuredly incited me to think of doing violence to clinics, as well as to those who have done those horrible things to womb children. The so called leaders of the bowel movement are guilty of radicalizing people like me and Scott, by insisting on showing the bloody pictures, and calling abortion murder. It is the height of hypocrisy to show bloody children to men of conscience, and then turn around and call them cowards, when such men take actions the picture incited them to do. The current round of self preservation statements by the bowel movement "leaders," have grieved me to the bottom of my soul. I stand in open rebuke of all the pretentious leaders who have condemned Scott Roeder as a coward when it was their actions that have incited him most to act. They show us pictures of dead children, call abortion murder, then condemn anyone who would dare truly to act on the words that were never sincerely meant. I do not care how many collars you put on backwards, if you have done such things, you have sinned against Scott Roeder, and you have condemned the pro-life bowel movement to failure. If it were not for IAAP, I would be sharing a cell with Scott, or a dirt quilt with Paul Hill. IAAP represents the truth, without inciting violence. It has given many a place to take action who have totally rejected the failed tactic of showing dead children in public. Even if the phony leaders of the failed prolife bowel movement haven't the courage to repent of the evil they incited, I publicly do so now. And I publicly apologize to Scott Roeder for my part in this mess. We simply can not have it both ways. I will never condemn people for taking action a failed movement incited them to take. And if these so called leaders were honest, neither would they.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello John I want to thank U again for continuing with Eric's book in your newsletter As U know I am working to put his book in print. I have a graphic artist working on the cover and he needs some statements for the back of the cover from those who have read it there -- two or three sentences of comments.
Since I am not familiar with any of the prolife people other than M. Bray and Don Spitz I would appreciate U sending out this notice or printing it in your July newsletter if it is not too late. Your help is gratefully appreciated.
Thank U. Patricia Rudolph
PS Sorry I could not reach UR son for this book project but a printer here in town has offered to help. It will be printed however on Amazon.com books on demand
---------------------------------------------------------------
These two phone calls of 6/26/2009 are on my answering machine. I told the Reading police about them, 10 a.m., 7/2/09, but I could see the cop behind the window was annoyed with petty stuff like this, so we agreed to drop it and I left.
#1 -- John Dunkle, I have reason to believe that there is going to be counter-terror against right-to-lifers, and I have further reason to believe that you are going to be a target, and I would strongly recommend you take a vacation somewhere outside of the country and that you take your family with you because I don’t think they are safe in the USA. Good luck.
#2 – You should know that even though your website only lists a post office box, your address at 204 South 4th Street in Reading is on the net!
I recognized the voice. It was cruel.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I wrote Robert recently telling him I’d lost these writings. But I just found them.
Mr. Dunkle, Three brief items:
1) I will be released from disciplinary segregation on the 19th. My correct address is (see above)
2) In the most recent issue, Frank Joseph M.D. stated, “Remember, ‘Thou Shalt Not Kill’ applies equally to the killer of Tiller and to the children in the womb.” NO IT DOES NOT!!! Else how could Phinehas’ act (Num. 25:7-8) be “counted unto him for righteousness unto all generations for evermore”? (Ps 106:30-31). Ex. 20:13 applies only to the unjust taking of life.
3) To Tobra Potter, Please send me your address again. The officers “Lost” my address book amongst many other things when they moved me to disciplinary segregation.. Robert Weiler
Robert was segregated for mailing “Ezekiel Letters” like the one below, which was sent to The National Abortion Federation and returned as undeliverable:
Dear Babykillers, I am writing to warn you of the judgment that shall come upon you should you not repent of your abominations immediately. Do not think you can escape justice for violating God’s Law. Do not think he shows mercy to those actively rebelling against him. Nay, he will bring a sword against you. Your blood will be upon your own head. You have sown death, and death you shall reap. Your destruction shall be as Sodom and Gomorrah of old. This is a warning, it may be your last.
This letter is not, nor is it intended to be, a threat. I write to warn you of the actions that God, not I, will execute should you stiff-neckedly continue to disregard His Law.
The Watchman (Robert Weiler)
Now that Tiller the Killer is burning in Hell, “pro-life” organizations are tripping over each other to be the first to condemn Scott Roeder’s righteous act. However, I believe that any truth worth speaking has already been worded better in Scripture. Therefore, I respond to Mr. Roeder’s actions in this manner:
Then stood up [Scott Roeder] and executed judgment . . .
And that was counted unto him for righteousness
Unto all generations for evermore. (Ps. 106:30-31)
I encourage those within the antiabortion movement to stand beside Mr. Roeder and his family. Pray for and with them.
Scott Roeder showed that he has the courage to defend the unborn; he showed that he actually sees the humanity of the unborn. May he be an example to the cowards speaking out against him who affirm the humanity of the pre-born but deny them the rights inherent to humanity.
Organizations like “Operation Rescue,” and “Priests for Life” who have spoken out against Mr. Roeder need to understand that the unborn are entitled to a defense, even if it means the death of the unjust aggressor.
Tiller himself chose his fate. He showed that only death would protect the children from his murderous hands. He did not stop when his abortuary was bombed. He did not stop when Shelley Shannon put the bullets in him. He had the audacity to serve as an usher at a “Christian” church with blood on his hands. Indeed, he proved that the only good abortionist is a dead abortionist.
Sincerely, Robert Weiler
------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe a Little Mouse Angel in Heaven
By James Kopp
I am so sad to have to report that our dear little Breezy has left this miserable vale of tears. She died October 27 or the early hours of the 28th, and thank God Almighty there was a measure of breathing at the end, although she was such a tough guy and a non-complainer that it may be hard to know. But she was not suffocating at the end, an idea too horrible to imagine for me.
You cannot teach an old dog new tricks, and though i chill with the Byzies and hang with the Romans, i cannot ever leave my Evangelical roots learned at my Mother's knee: I must hear a sinner repent and claim Jesus, there's just no other way. But that's me. The Lord can have mercy, and the Holy Spirit can translate stuff. I feel as if I am not permitted to do these things: I must work for the only goal I know. But, the Lord can fill the gap. We can't know for sure, much as we'd like to. Jesus is in the assurance business (Revc.12:5), and I am in the Jesus business. Even for people who do confess Him, and, as He says, that includes many hypocrites, or worse. If it weren't so, abortion would have stopped by now. Jesus is in the assurance business,
and i am in the Jesus business. I can't know, or guarantee. That's His turf.
Still, i wanted to thank you so much, so very, very much for helping to carry this burden these months. I felt it quite clearly, your prayers while she was alive, and i felt quite strongly, and i felt quite strongly that all He was asking us to do is pray and write little letters. (tbc)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now I will begin a long letter from the doyen down under, Peter Knight:
Greetings John, You may possible recall, John, that in December, 2008, you published a letter from someone called Greg Cunningham. Greg Cunningham is a director of an organization which bears the falsehood name – “The Center For Bio-Ethical Reform”. This is an organization which, in a weak effort to convince pro abortionists to change their views, produces and sells images of aborted babies.
Greg Cunningham is one of those who condemn the martyr Paul Hill. And condemn the method he used for addressing the problems of abortion. If you recall the letter, you’ll probably remember that it was nonsense from the first line right through to the last. There was no let-up at all. Unfortunately, though, it is nonsense which is purported to be truth by a number of people.
There are a couple of things which Greg Cunningham mentioned which I don’t think I’ve said anything about before, at least not to you. Greg Cunningham, like Aram Berard, says that he has convinced himself that if similar actions were taken against abortionists to the ones they’ve used millions of times themselves, then that violent reaction would so greatly influence people whose concerns are with other issues, that those people would be driven to resolve those other disputes in what G. C. described as “a wave of simultaneous jihads.” What Greg Cunningham is saying here is – never use violence for a just cause, because someone with a simple mind might be influenced by that to use it for an unjust cause.
There are a large number of very violent incidents mentioned in the Bible. Many people, over many centuries, have been influenced by these to use violence themselves. Almost every Jew and Christian, including Paul Hill, has cited these incidents to justify his own use of violence. So if Greg Cunningham’s reasoning is to remain consistent, reasoning which says that the possible bad influence of violence is a reason for condemning Paul Hill’s actions, then he must say that the Bible should be banned, or at the very least, that its many incidents of well-publicized and influential violence should be edited out. After all, that’s where Paul Hill got his ideas from in the first place. So remove the initial cause. Remove the initial bad influence before it does any further harm and creates any more Paul Hills.
Jesus made a bad mistake and lacked foresight when he flogged the merchants out of the temple. He should have had the wisdom of people like Greg Cunningham and known that those with susceptible minds would be influenced by that and use it to justify acts of violence for many hundreds of years to come. Just how important was it for him to take to them with a whip anyway? In all probability they came straight back in as soon as he left. Why do we need to retain this one in the Bible? Shouldn’t it be taken out so that Jesus’ mistake can be corrected? And if it can’t be edited out completely, then couldn’t it be changed a bit to say that they’d merely been requested to leave, without saying how forceful the request was? After all, if we’d had a wiser man like Greg Cunningham or Aram Berard there, that’s how they would have handled the situation. You’d never find any whips in their hands.
And what of Elijah’s slaying of the 850. Why mention and be concerned about Paul Hill’s puny contribution when you’ve got an incident like that influencing people? Chop chop chop chop chop chop, 850 of them in just one afternoon. Surely that’s one which we simply must get rid of for Greg Cunningham. Or if it can’t be removed completely, why can’t we have a different translation of the Bible for Aram Berard and Greg Cunningham? A translation that says that after being given a stern warning to repent and mend their ways the 850 went home to live happily ever after. After all, that, once again, is how the situation would have been dealt with if we had the wisest of the wise there instead of Elijah. How much better a publication would the Bible have been if we had Greg Cunningham standing there in place of Elijah and Moses and Joshua and David and Jesus and all the rest of them?
Don’t simply judge whether it’s a just cause for using violence. Consider the possible side effects on very simple-minded people. That’s what I think G.C. is saying. And he asserts that the side- effects of a violent reaction to abortionists would be just so catastrophic as to outweigh any advantages.
So what then is a realistic assessment of how the pros and cons stack up as regards what would have happened had there been 200 or so Paul Hills in America – one in each one-and-a-half-million people, and a similar proportion elsewhere? The pros in America alone, over the past four decades, are that there would have been no abortionists around to take the lives of fifty million children from them. Anyone who suggested that that justifies violence would have greatly influenced other people so greatly that their actions would have caused greater loss of life elsewhere, or half as much (twenty-five million) or one tenth as much, or one hundredth as much, or one thousandth as much (fifty thousand) they are a complete rat bag who has or pretends to have paranoid delusional fears – “a wave of simultaneous jihads” no less. (tbc)
August, 2009, Vol. 7, No. 4
PO Box 7424, Reading, PA 19603
Phone – cell--484-706-4375 (new), machine -- 610-396-0332
Email – johndunk@ptd.net
Web – skyp1.blogspot.com
Circulation – 33`
John Dunkle, Editor
Abortion is Murder, a weak, pathetic response to baby murder, is sent out at least once a month. If the gestapo hasn’t jailed you for defending the innocent realistically, you either have to tell me you want it or go 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 (although “Dear Mr. Dunkle” has me thinking), in our attempt to protect those being tortured to death, I want to hear from people who’ve been forceful. I’d also like to hear from those who disagree with me.
Prisoners of Christ:
1. Evans, Paul Ross 83230-180, USP McCreary, P.O. Box 3000, Pine Knot, KY 42635
2. Gibbons, Linda - Vanier WDC, 655 Martin St. , P.O. Box 1040, Milton, ON, Canada L9T 5E6
3. Griffin, Michael 310249, Okaloosa Correctional Institution, Crestview FL 32539-6708 9/11
4. 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. Roeder, Scott, Sedgwick County Jail, 141 West Elm, Wichita, KS 67203
11. Rudolph, Eric 18282-058 US Pen. Max, Box 8500, Florence CO 81226-8500
12. Shannon, Rachelle 59755-065, FCI Dublin Unit A, 5701 8th St., Camp Parks, Dublin CA 94568 3/31
13. Waagner, Clayton Lee 17258-039, United States Penitentiary, P.O. Box 1000,
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
Dear Mr. Dunkle, I’ve been reading “Abortion is Murder” for several years now. I watch you go back and forth on this question: May one use force to defend the victims in this holocaust? I don’t think so.
The reason we God-fearing folk should not defend young people by attacking their killers comes from the Old Testament. Unbelievers then were eliminated regularly by the Godly, at Yahweh’s command. Just read, as one example, what Moses ordered the sons of Levi to do to heretics, those who were worshiping the golden calf, and then look what he ordered done to pagan Midianites! He ordered all of them killed -- old people, young people, men, and women.
Today, we do not have to kill heretics and pagans because the abortionist does that. Every woman who walks into a killing place has turned away from God. And the young person she is carrying would grow up to be just like her. Thus does the abortionist now kill those whom, earlier, Believers were ordered to kill. (Abortionists are also eliminating many of the killing women themselves as they are three-and-a-half times more likely to die during the following year than women who carry to term.) Therefore, we must not kill baby killers. They are doing what The Chosen People did.
What, then, should we do? First we must try to stop the woman who intends to carry the child into the mill. We must try to turn this woman towards God. Moreover, if she does turn towards God, the boy or girl she is carrying will become her believing son or daughter. Beyond that, we must try to persuade others as well to turn towards God so that the law of the land reflects the will of God, not Satan.
Since your newsletter is written for those who by their actions disagree with the above, I expect some response. God bless the Godly, especially those who are not all-talk, like you and me. Jacob Koch
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Ross Evans’ story continues:
I had business to attend to fifteen miles away in a neighboring town, and I placed the bomb on the passenger's seat and departed. After I had attended the meeting planned for that morning, I drove to the post office and bought a book of stamps. The post office was very crowded, and I needed privacy to arm the explosive and seal the box. There was a gas station across the street, so I drove over to it.
I noticed that the stamps were the sort that need to be moistened before sticking to a surface. I was not about to lick them and leave my DNA on them, not after I had taken such care to wear gloves during construction of the bomb, and to keep the box free of any hair or fibers. So, I went into the gas station and bought a bottle of water. I held the stamps outside of the (ajar) car door, and poured the bottled water over the back of them. Finally, I was able to attach them to the box. I armed the bomb while sitting in the car, using the safe/arm switch, and sealed the box using a large amount of packing tape, while wearing gloves. I then wiped the outside of the package down one more time, to make sure that I hadn't accidentally left any partial fingerprints.
I drove back across the street to the post office, and put on a hooded sweatshirt. Lowering the sleeves to cover my fingers, I picked up the box with an awkward grip and marched into the post office. I mailed the bomb in a drop box and left.
In the following weeks I paid close attention to the media, via the Internet, especially in the San Francisco area.
As I had mailed the package, I had noticed a sign on the drop box which said that packages weighing more than a certain amount could only be mailed in person at a postal counter. I hadn't done that, obviously. I knew that the package would be delivered anyway. I had used an excessive amount of postage. But no news came from the west coast about the bombing. It was as if nothing had ever happened. I became frustrated by the silence, and so I continued to learn more about explosives by reading. I already had a fully functioning hit list. I knew that I could learn from any mistakes in my bombings by monitoring the media. Through trial and error, through hit and miss, eventually I would kill. Whenever I had time alone, I spent it researching future targets and learning more about bomb making.
During this time, I located permanent employment and new housing. I also made some bomb-making purchases, and acquired more chemicals and equipment.
At this time I composed two threatening letters. I sent one to an abortionist in Beverly Hills, an Abraham something-or-other, who murdered children for a living. I told him that he was an easy target, and that, just as easily as he had opened the letter, in security, I could have blown him up with an improvised explosive device. I told him that "The Right" would no longer tolerate such filth in society, and to "watch out." I sent another threatening letter to a pornographer in California, one Robert Zicari, who was in hot water because his pornography company had been distributing videos depicting pseudo-rapes and extreme sadism. I made both letters extremely intimidating, threatening their lives with mail bombs and mocking the smugness they operated in. "Look how easily I could have killed you, moron," I wrote to them.
One day, as I was walking downtown near the capitol building in Austin, smoking cigarettes and drinking espressos, I stumbled upon a tangled ball of human hair of all colors. I picked it up and put it inside the cellophane wrapper of my cigarettes. I included bits of this hair in the letters in order to "throw off" agents working for the regime in Washington.
A few weeks later, I found out about Michael Newdow. Mr. Newdow is an atheist in California who has continued to pester and threaten Christendom in many ways, ranging from objecting to Christian evangelist Franklin Graham giving the invocation at
President Bush's 2001 inauguration, to being plaintiff in a lawsuit to remove the words "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance (Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, which was eventually heard before the U. S. Supreme Court in June, 2004, and dismissed on procedural grounds). I felt that Mr. Newdow was an extremely important target, not only because of what he did, but also because of the arrogance in which he operated. But the more research I did on him, the more I learned about his personal life, and his daily activities. He had children who were often with him. I could not risk hurting his children, so I chose to intimidate and shake him up a little bit by mailing him an inactive bomb.
I assembled the components, leaving out the essential piece — the power source — and secured it all inside of another cardboard mailing box. I also included a bag of pure potassium chlorate, which is primarily used as a component in bombs and pyrotechnical devices, and is not exactly something that one can purchase just anywhere. I did so to send a message to FBI and ATF agents that I knew what I was doing, that I could have killed Mr. Newdow, but had chosen not to.
As it happened, Mr. Newdow opened the package at a post office in California, in the presence of his daughter. The bomb squad was called, the post office was shut down for a time, trepidation caused, end of story, mission accomplished.
No one was hurt.
On that package, I believe the return address I used was that of a pornographic distributor in California, but truly I never expected the package to be opened by anyone other than Mr. Newdow. I knew that in his arrogance he would march right into the post office, and never suspect that someone might object to his actions. And that is what he did. This arrogance of his was the very thing I targeted. I aimed to strike out at the confidence in which these enemies operate; they never expect pacifist and plastic Christians to raise an objection. They are horribly mistaken about a certain segment of the Christian Right, however.
I hope that some of this man's smugness was altered. I believe that Mr. Newdow is simply a sad product of the confidence that this nation has generated publicly for years, encouraging society to act "any old way." Meanwhile, law enforcement officers are baffled as to why urban areas are overrun with drug use and violence.
But if Michael Newdow had not been a father, my bomb would have killed him that day. He knows this, and so do I. His daughter's presence saved his life, and he can thank her for that one day. He would have been eliminated that day, no question.
Meanwhile, back in Austin, I didn't know what had happened with this bomb, or any of them, for that matter. There was no mention of it in the news. The liberal media machine in California had silenced it. As weeks passed, I grew somewhat impatient.
I located two Satanists at this point. My primary target was a man named Bob Ferguson (aka Bob McDonald). This fellow circulated literature instructing people as to how to raise children to be Satan worshippers. I also found information on the Internet about another Satanist (there is a superabundance of them) who was just as guilty as Ferguson of crimes against Christianity.
I created another mail bomb, using the same type of cardboard box and the same type of loop switch detonator. I had recently made an online purchase of some high quality pyrotechnic oxidizers. I had also begun to experiment with using light switches as detonators. I built most of this bomb while sitting in my car in a grocery store parking lot in downtown Austin, on the corner of Oltorf Street and South Congress Avenue. I drove up South Congress to the post office next to McDonald's, bought a book of stamps, and mailed the device to the Satanist. I found it rather amusing at the time that when I purchased the book of stamps from a machine inside the post office, the machine malfunctioned and gave me two books of stamps, one for free.
It was late March, and still I monitored the media. Nothing.
Weeks went by, and as April 19th approached, I planned a bombing to commemorate this notorious date of expression of dissatisfaction against the government of the United States. (Editor note: Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols bombed the Alfred P. Murray Federal Building in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995.)
I wanted to target a sex shop located in downtown Austin. I chose "Sinsations," on South First Street, because of its name, and because it encouraged and profited from sexual promiscuity and perversion, marital infidelity, child molestation, murder, and rape. It also encouraged the degradation of women in many forms.
I was getting bolder in my forceful actions. The bombing at Sinsations was really simply an experiment. I was all alone in my endeavors, with little or no money. I used improvisation in the construction of each device. Each one cost about $100, and propellants and shrapnel were used in each one.
This was the first time I had made a timed detonator. I fashioned it from an alarm clock. The bomb itself was massive. I drove up to the car wash next door to Sinsations at sunset. I had been driving around the area for weeks. Wearing a hooded sweatshirt, I placed the bomb in a trash container outside the side door of the store. I had a feeling that some of the wiring had torn loose when I left it, because the trash can was empty when I placed the bomb in it. I waited for a while, and thought about setting the trash can on fire, or phoning in a bomb threat. It never exploded, and agents seem to think that it was eventually disposed of in an Austin landfill. (tbc)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
And so does Chapter 2 of Eric’s book on abortion:
Slowly these egalitarian ideas captured the intelligentsia and from there filtered into the mainstream. “Educated” people in the early twentieth century came to believe in the inevitability of these ideas. “Progress” was a math formula figured out by Marx and Comte. Socio-economic forces were moving us to socialism. Those who accepted these ideas were “progressive.” Those who opposed them were “reactionary.” Just as the anti-abortion statutes reached their final form, the ideas that would ultimately dismantle them were rising to the surface.
In the nineteenth century tolerance for abortion was not expressed in public. Qualifications were emerging, though. Even though she condemned it, Elizabeth Cady Stanton said abortion was the result of “the degradation of women.” Depriving those husbands of children “who have made the strong-minded women. . .the target of jibes and jeers” was somehow just, she said.1 In public most feminists held views similar to Matilida J. Gage, who said “This crime of child murder, abortion, infanticide lies at the door of the male sex.”2 In the pages of their own newspapers, they were starting to express tolerance. Publicly Victoria Woodhull said she wished abortion was unnecessary, but she “understood” why a woman would get one.
After the turn of the century, the New Women arrived. Margaret Sanger was typical of the new breed of iconoclast. In her Woman Rebel, Sanger gave perfect expression to the egalitarian position on abortion: “The attitude of America law and ‘public opinion’ on the subject of abortion is about 1,000 years behind Turkey. In Turkey abortion is not punished.”3 Sanger’s Comrade Victor Meric stated the position bluntly: “If a woman is to free herself effectively, she must make herself absolute mistress of her body. She must recognize her absolute right. . .to suppress the germ of life.”4
In keeping with the view that man was the slave of material forces, there was a new approach to social relief as well. Older homes such as Erring Women’s Refuge had emphasized Christian charity and individual transformation -- change the person and she will change her environment. Margaret Sanger thought such institutions made “women a traitor to her class and aimed to reform her by means of a scrubbing brush or a club.”5 Material conditions caused social ills. Change those conditions and the social ills would disappear. Judge Ben Lindsey in his book The Companionate Marriage attacked the Christian “teaching about Original Sin and the Fall of Man.” He asked, “Why don’t you drop all that and commit yourself to the thesis that human beings are only too glad to be good if they can see their way to being so? What I say to young people is this: you are free agents. . . .The judge that must judge you is your heart and conscience. . .”6
“Social Worker” was the name given to the new class of reformers. One by one the old homes were closed down, or pushed out of the mainstream of relief work. In Cleveland, Ohio Mirian Morton was happy to see “professional social workers” replace the “benevolent old ladies, who had earlier distributed relief and spiritual salvation.”7 The social workers were morally neutral and saw the plight of the poor as primarily economic, not moral. Morality became utilitarian. By removing unwanted mouths to feed, egalitarians argued that abortion was one way to alleviate poverty. Abortion was now seen as compassionate and progressive, a means for poor women to escape a life of poverty. Abortion was good because that which cures poverty is good. And for the true progressives, abortion was a way of addressing female inequality in general.
Egalitarianism infected doctors as well. As educated “men of science,” they were expected to adopt the new progressive ethics. Just a generation earlier their fathers drove abortion out of the land. But they were “modern,” and had read Darwin, Marx, and Mill at college. They looked down on their fathers as “old fashioned,” and “unscientific.” Rather than using science as a tool, they saw themselves as the servants of science, science as interpreted by materialists such as Marx. Science was leading man somewhere, and they had to follow. Storer thought abortion a crime against God and Nature, the new breed had a different opinion. Dr. Henry Marcy argued in the Journal of the American Medical Association that the “product of early impregnation is of so little importance that abortion should not be established as a serious offense.”8 Dr. Klotz-Forest said, “Legally abortion is a crime. Honestly and scientifically it is not. One can only hope that good sense will triumph in the end, and that abortion performed, by an able practitioner in the best hygienic surroundings will soon come to be regarded as useful, necessary, and humane, even in cases in which the women requests it for no other reason than that she does not wish to have a child, that it is not her pleasure to become a mother.”9 The American Journal of Public Health applauded when the Soviet Union became the first country to legalize abortion in 1921: “legalized abortion is the only means for women’s liberation…”10 How modern.
(tbc)
------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello, folks, As you may know, POC Lee Smart is scheduled to be released from halfway house on June 12, at which time he will have completed his sentence. As far as I know, he is not scheduled to have any restrictions from having contact with folks opposed to childkilling.
As you probably are aware, the transition from imprisonment back to life on the outside can be very stressful, trying to find a decent job in middle age while having a criminal record. If you would like to help Lee out with a few bucks at this time, or know of someone who might wish to help, I'm sure it would mean a lot to Lee.
Lee's address after June 12 is not known, but you can send to Lee's mother, and Lee will be sure to receive what you send. Lee would prefer postal money orders, he says that those are easier for him to cash.
Lee’s mother does not want her address made public. If you can send Lee something, mail it to me and I’ll see he gets it
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
DATE OF CEASE and DESIST ORDER of JULY 1ST, 2009
I (Leland Smart) have been given a Direct Order to Cease and Desist any and all contacts, and/or associations with anyone involved within the christian pro-life community.
FURTHERMORE; I have been given an Order to Cease and Desist any communications, written, and/or e-mail(S), letters, phone calls, etc., from anyone involved within the christian pro-life community.
UPON penalty of further incarceration within the Federal Bureau of Prisons, I Declare that I (Leland Smart) have been issued a Cease and Desist Order, and have been Ordered not to have any associations and/or contacts with anyone within the christian pro-life community. I will not associate and/or communicate with anyone within the christian pro-life community.
ANY MAILINGS, e-mails, AND/OR communications will not
Respectfully Leland Smart
What about the Jewish pro-life community, which is minuscule, and the Muslim pro-Life community, which is humongous?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
.
Vengeance vs. Defensive Action
The shooting of late term abortionist George Tiller has revealed the hearts of pro-lifers: Some are cheered by Tiller’s death, others pull a long face. It should be noted that many who bewail Tiller’s death are secretly glad he is gone.
George Tiller was not your run-of-the-death-mill baby-killer. He was symbolic of the baby-killing industry. He grew in stature as he handily overcame personal obstacles and professional accusations. He made the black art of baby-killing acceptable, perhaps even noble to the public at large.
Tiller represented the baby-killing industry as their point man. He was the face that baby-killing Americans came to love, and pro-lifers love to hate. With legal impunity, wearing a shark-skin suit, Tiller killed the “big babies” with a smile.
Tiller was well connected, especially after the November Republican defeat. He did not squander his fortune, as most baby-killers do, on wine, women, and drugs; he invested wisely in politicians. Pro-choice-to-kill Governor Sebelius kept her protégé from being charged and convicted of a litany of violations of Kansas law. A rising star in Obama’s administration, Sebelius would have taken Tiller along with her. Maybe even as Surgeon General.
Wichita’s perpetual beacon of hope, Troy Newman, promised Tiller’s head on a platter. But every attack on Tiller was thwarted. Hoping against hope Troy petitioned Kansas’s Medical Board to pull Tiller’s license. Poppycock! That simply would not happen. Tiller, acquitted of violating Kansas’s laws, was in no serious trouble with the medical board.
The David and Goliath routine was looking bad for David until an unknown champion appeared on the scene. God’s chosen instrument, with a single bullet to the braincase, slew Goliath. Rather than take courage from this change of fortune, Troy and
his camp ran the other way thinking “Boy, the Philistines are going to be pissed!”
Sweating bullets, Troy was the first to apologize to both the pro-aborts and pro-lifers. “And gee, we were so close to getting Tiller’s medical license pulled!”
Now that we have set the stage, let us examine the pre-text for why Troy and others renounce this shooters brave, unselfish act: Troy tells us that the shooter is a “coward” and a “vigilante.” We all know what a coward is but the definition of a vigilante is “any person who takes the law into his or her own hands, as by avenging a crime.”
We do not know if the shooter's motive was vengeance or if he was acting in defense of the pre-born. The definition for self-defense and defense of others is “the right for civilians acting on their own behalf to engage in violence for the sake of defending one's own life or the lives of others, including the use of deadly force.”
Self defense and the defense of others is justifiable homicide.
This defense is denied Tiller’s shooter as our laws do not recognize the humanity and worth of the pre-born. Those of us who do recognize the person of the Preborn should understand that the use of force is justifiable in protecting the pre-born children, but such is not the case.
In the posts that I have read from Troy and others, they assume the shooter’s motive to be vengeance, rather than defensive
action. Troy was quick to condemn Tiller’s shooter without knowing his true motive. You can stab a man’s character as surely as you shoot his person.
I proffer this fine distinction because it is important to hand-wringing soul-searching theologians sorting through the dainty innuendos, presuppositions, and new and old winds of doctrine.
But I do not believe the shooter’s motive to be important, as it amounts to defensive action no matter what his motive was.
Tiller was a serial killer. He killed the week he was killed, and like the punctual rape of every blessed day, he was scheduled to
kill again. The shooter’s bullet, like David’s stone, stopped Tiller’s bloody hands cold.
But along with the death of George Tiller, is the toppling of the invincible baby-killing idol of aborticide.
Like the Munchkins in the Wizard of Oz, news of Tiller’s death was at first hard to believe. While many of us broke into a joyful song, others broke into a shameful retreat. dan holman
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Let me know if you’d like it made known that you are the author of this because either I never had or I lost that information. Also, does anyone know what IAAP stands for?
I freely admit that I have been "radicalized" by the failed pro-life bowel movement. The use of bloody baby pictures has most assuredly incited me to think of doing violence to clinics, as well as to those who have done those horrible things to womb children. The so called leaders of the bowel movement are guilty of radicalizing people like me and Scott, by insisting on showing the bloody pictures, and calling abortion murder. It is the height of hypocrisy to show bloody children to men of conscience, and then turn around and call them cowards, when such men take actions the picture incited them to do. The current round of self preservation statements by the bowel movement "leaders," have grieved me to the bottom of my soul. I stand in open rebuke of all the pretentious leaders who have condemned Scott Roeder as a coward when it was their actions that have incited him most to act. They show us pictures of dead children, call abortion murder, then condemn anyone who would dare truly to act on the words that were never sincerely meant. I do not care how many collars you put on backwards, if you have done such things, you have sinned against Scott Roeder, and you have condemned the pro-life bowel movement to failure. If it were not for IAAP, I would be sharing a cell with Scott, or a dirt quilt with Paul Hill. IAAP represents the truth, without inciting violence. It has given many a place to take action who have totally rejected the failed tactic of showing dead children in public. Even if the phony leaders of the failed prolife bowel movement haven't the courage to repent of the evil they incited, I publicly do so now. And I publicly apologize to Scott Roeder for my part in this mess. We simply can not have it both ways. I will never condemn people for taking action a failed movement incited them to take. And if these so called leaders were honest, neither would they.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello John I want to thank U again for continuing with Eric's book in your newsletter As U know I am working to put his book in print. I have a graphic artist working on the cover and he needs some statements for the back of the cover from those who have read it there -- two or three sentences of comments.
Since I am not familiar with any of the prolife people other than M. Bray and Don Spitz I would appreciate U sending out this notice or printing it in your July newsletter if it is not too late. Your help is gratefully appreciated.
Thank U. Patricia Rudolph
PS Sorry I could not reach UR son for this book project but a printer here in town has offered to help. It will be printed however on Amazon.com books on demand
---------------------------------------------------------------
These two phone calls of 6/26/2009 are on my answering machine. I told the Reading police about them, 10 a.m., 7/2/09, but I could see the cop behind the window was annoyed with petty stuff like this, so we agreed to drop it and I left.
#1 -- John Dunkle, I have reason to believe that there is going to be counter-terror against right-to-lifers, and I have further reason to believe that you are going to be a target, and I would strongly recommend you take a vacation somewhere outside of the country and that you take your family with you because I don’t think they are safe in the USA. Good luck.
#2 – You should know that even though your website only lists a post office box, your address at 204 South 4th Street in Reading is on the net!
I recognized the voice. It was cruel.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I wrote Robert recently telling him I’d lost these writings. But I just found them.
Mr. Dunkle, Three brief items:
1) I will be released from disciplinary segregation on the 19th. My correct address is (see above)
2) In the most recent issue, Frank Joseph M.D. stated, “Remember, ‘Thou Shalt Not Kill’ applies equally to the killer of Tiller and to the children in the womb.” NO IT DOES NOT!!! Else how could Phinehas’ act (Num. 25:7-8) be “counted unto him for righteousness unto all generations for evermore”? (Ps 106:30-31). Ex. 20:13 applies only to the unjust taking of life.
3) To Tobra Potter, Please send me your address again. The officers “Lost” my address book amongst many other things when they moved me to disciplinary segregation.. Robert Weiler
Robert was segregated for mailing “Ezekiel Letters” like the one below, which was sent to The National Abortion Federation and returned as undeliverable:
Dear Babykillers, I am writing to warn you of the judgment that shall come upon you should you not repent of your abominations immediately. Do not think you can escape justice for violating God’s Law. Do not think he shows mercy to those actively rebelling against him. Nay, he will bring a sword against you. Your blood will be upon your own head. You have sown death, and death you shall reap. Your destruction shall be as Sodom and Gomorrah of old. This is a warning, it may be your last.
This letter is not, nor is it intended to be, a threat. I write to warn you of the actions that God, not I, will execute should you stiff-neckedly continue to disregard His Law.
The Watchman (Robert Weiler)
Now that Tiller the Killer is burning in Hell, “pro-life” organizations are tripping over each other to be the first to condemn Scott Roeder’s righteous act. However, I believe that any truth worth speaking has already been worded better in Scripture. Therefore, I respond to Mr. Roeder’s actions in this manner:
Then stood up [Scott Roeder] and executed judgment . . .
And that was counted unto him for righteousness
Unto all generations for evermore. (Ps. 106:30-31)
I encourage those within the antiabortion movement to stand beside Mr. Roeder and his family. Pray for and with them.
Scott Roeder showed that he has the courage to defend the unborn; he showed that he actually sees the humanity of the unborn. May he be an example to the cowards speaking out against him who affirm the humanity of the pre-born but deny them the rights inherent to humanity.
Organizations like “Operation Rescue,” and “Priests for Life” who have spoken out against Mr. Roeder need to understand that the unborn are entitled to a defense, even if it means the death of the unjust aggressor.
Tiller himself chose his fate. He showed that only death would protect the children from his murderous hands. He did not stop when his abortuary was bombed. He did not stop when Shelley Shannon put the bullets in him. He had the audacity to serve as an usher at a “Christian” church with blood on his hands. Indeed, he proved that the only good abortionist is a dead abortionist.
Sincerely, Robert Weiler
------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe a Little Mouse Angel in Heaven
By James Kopp
I am so sad to have to report that our dear little Breezy has left this miserable vale of tears. She died October 27 or the early hours of the 28th, and thank God Almighty there was a measure of breathing at the end, although she was such a tough guy and a non-complainer that it may be hard to know. But she was not suffocating at the end, an idea too horrible to imagine for me.
You cannot teach an old dog new tricks, and though i chill with the Byzies and hang with the Romans, i cannot ever leave my Evangelical roots learned at my Mother's knee: I must hear a sinner repent and claim Jesus, there's just no other way. But that's me. The Lord can have mercy, and the Holy Spirit can translate stuff. I feel as if I am not permitted to do these things: I must work for the only goal I know. But, the Lord can fill the gap. We can't know for sure, much as we'd like to. Jesus is in the assurance business (Revc.12:5), and I am in the Jesus business. Even for people who do confess Him, and, as He says, that includes many hypocrites, or worse. If it weren't so, abortion would have stopped by now. Jesus is in the assurance business,
and i am in the Jesus business. I can't know, or guarantee. That's His turf.
Still, i wanted to thank you so much, so very, very much for helping to carry this burden these months. I felt it quite clearly, your prayers while she was alive, and i felt quite strongly, and i felt quite strongly that all He was asking us to do is pray and write little letters. (tbc)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now I will begin a long letter from the doyen down under, Peter Knight:
Greetings John, You may possible recall, John, that in December, 2008, you published a letter from someone called Greg Cunningham. Greg Cunningham is a director of an organization which bears the falsehood name – “The Center For Bio-Ethical Reform”. This is an organization which, in a weak effort to convince pro abortionists to change their views, produces and sells images of aborted babies.
Greg Cunningham is one of those who condemn the martyr Paul Hill. And condemn the method he used for addressing the problems of abortion. If you recall the letter, you’ll probably remember that it was nonsense from the first line right through to the last. There was no let-up at all. Unfortunately, though, it is nonsense which is purported to be truth by a number of people.
There are a couple of things which Greg Cunningham mentioned which I don’t think I’ve said anything about before, at least not to you. Greg Cunningham, like Aram Berard, says that he has convinced himself that if similar actions were taken against abortionists to the ones they’ve used millions of times themselves, then that violent reaction would so greatly influence people whose concerns are with other issues, that those people would be driven to resolve those other disputes in what G. C. described as “a wave of simultaneous jihads.” What Greg Cunningham is saying here is – never use violence for a just cause, because someone with a simple mind might be influenced by that to use it for an unjust cause.
There are a large number of very violent incidents mentioned in the Bible. Many people, over many centuries, have been influenced by these to use violence themselves. Almost every Jew and Christian, including Paul Hill, has cited these incidents to justify his own use of violence. So if Greg Cunningham’s reasoning is to remain consistent, reasoning which says that the possible bad influence of violence is a reason for condemning Paul Hill’s actions, then he must say that the Bible should be banned, or at the very least, that its many incidents of well-publicized and influential violence should be edited out. After all, that’s where Paul Hill got his ideas from in the first place. So remove the initial cause. Remove the initial bad influence before it does any further harm and creates any more Paul Hills.
Jesus made a bad mistake and lacked foresight when he flogged the merchants out of the temple. He should have had the wisdom of people like Greg Cunningham and known that those with susceptible minds would be influenced by that and use it to justify acts of violence for many hundreds of years to come. Just how important was it for him to take to them with a whip anyway? In all probability they came straight back in as soon as he left. Why do we need to retain this one in the Bible? Shouldn’t it be taken out so that Jesus’ mistake can be corrected? And if it can’t be edited out completely, then couldn’t it be changed a bit to say that they’d merely been requested to leave, without saying how forceful the request was? After all, if we’d had a wiser man like Greg Cunningham or Aram Berard there, that’s how they would have handled the situation. You’d never find any whips in their hands.
And what of Elijah’s slaying of the 850. Why mention and be concerned about Paul Hill’s puny contribution when you’ve got an incident like that influencing people? Chop chop chop chop chop chop, 850 of them in just one afternoon. Surely that’s one which we simply must get rid of for Greg Cunningham. Or if it can’t be removed completely, why can’t we have a different translation of the Bible for Aram Berard and Greg Cunningham? A translation that says that after being given a stern warning to repent and mend their ways the 850 went home to live happily ever after. After all, that, once again, is how the situation would have been dealt with if we had the wisest of the wise there instead of Elijah. How much better a publication would the Bible have been if we had Greg Cunningham standing there in place of Elijah and Moses and Joshua and David and Jesus and all the rest of them?
Don’t simply judge whether it’s a just cause for using violence. Consider the possible side effects on very simple-minded people. That’s what I think G.C. is saying. And he asserts that the side- effects of a violent reaction to abortionists would be just so catastrophic as to outweigh any advantages.
So what then is a realistic assessment of how the pros and cons stack up as regards what would have happened had there been 200 or so Paul Hills in America – one in each one-and-a-half-million people, and a similar proportion elsewhere? The pros in America alone, over the past four decades, are that there would have been no abortionists around to take the lives of fifty million children from them. Anyone who suggested that that justifies violence would have greatly influenced other people so greatly that their actions would have caused greater loss of life elsewhere, or half as much (twenty-five million) or one tenth as much, or one hundredth as much, or one thousandth as much (fifty thousand) they are a complete rat bag who has or pretends to have paranoid delusional fears – “a wave of simultaneous jihads” no less. (tbc)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)