Formerly Stop the Killing of Young People (skyp) and soon, perhaps, Stop Killing Preemies
January, 2011 Vol. 8 No. 11
PO Box 7424, Reading, PA 19603
Phone – 484-706-4375
Email – johndunk@ptd.net
Web – skyp1.blogspot.com
Circulation – 109
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 PFC’s, $1000 for others.
Because I believe we should use every legitimate means, including force, in our attempt to protect those being tortured to death, I want to hear from people who’ve been forceful. I’d also like to hear from those who disagree with me.
Prisoners for Christ:
1. Evans, Paul Ross 83230-180, USP McCreary, P.O. Box 3000, Pine Knot, KY 42635
2. Gibbons, Linda - Vanier WDC, 655 Martin St., P.O. Box 1040, Milton, ON, Canada L9T 5E6
3. Griffin, Michael 310249, Okaloosa Correctional Institution, Crestview FL 32539-6708 9/11
4. Jordi, Stephen 70309-004, FCI P.O. Box 33, Terre Haute IN 47802 6/30
5. Knight, Peter CRN 158589, Port Philip Prison, P.O. Box 376, Laverton, Victoria, Australia
6. Kopp, James 11761-055, USP Canaan, P.O. Box 300, 3057 Easton Tpk., Waymart, PA 18472
7. Little, David SJRCC, 930 Old Black River Road, Saint John, NB E2J 4T3
8. Moose, Justin – Piedmont Regional Jail, PO Drawer 388, Farmville, VA 23901 (new)
9. Richardson, Alonzo Lee 12898-021, PO Box 474701, Des Moines, IA 5094
10. Roeder, Scott P. 65192, PO Box 2, Lansing Kansas 66043 (new)
11. Ross, Michael, Custer County Jail, 1010 Main St., Miles City, Montana 59301
12. Rudolph, Eric 18282-058 US Pen. Max, Box 8500, Florence CO 81226-8500
13. Shannon, Rachelle 59755-065, FCI Waseca, Unit A, P.O. Box 1731, Waseca, MN 56093 3/31
14. Waagner, Clayton Lee 17258-039, United States Penitentiary, P.O. Box 1000, Lewisburg PA 17837 8/25
The Lord has asked people to make sacrifices related to opposing abortion which all but a handful have had too weak a heart to make. And they’ve looked for any pretense they could conjure up to claim that the sacrifice wasn’t required. They even deluded themselves, as people often do, into “believing” the pretense was real . . . When they get what they’ll get, they’ll fully deserve it. Peter Knight
------------------------------------------
Dear John, I learned of Justin Moose's case thanks to your recent newsletter. He is being railroaded. The Government has pulled this stunt before, with the judge exceeding the plea agreement with a stiffer sentence. They pick on small fries and pressure them to sign agreements so they can make it look like they have the right to "convict" people of lawful activities. They tried to do the same thing with Joey Lo, but he was a lawyer and it backfired. It is critical for him to withdraw his guilty plea prior to his scheduled sentencing on March 2, 2011. Below is a copy of the letter I sent the Moose at the Alamance County Jail:
I have learned of your case from John Dunkle's newsletter Abortion is Murder. I have never been to law school, but I have contributed as a "jailhouse" lawyer to others, though I am not behind bars myself. I would like to make a few comments about your case.
ABSTRACT ADVOCACY OF ILLEGAL THINGS IS LEGALLY PROTECTED FREE SPEECH. See Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U. S. 444, 447-448 (1969) (per curiam); see also NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U. S. 886, 928-929 (1982); see also United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. 285 (2008). In Williams, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that statements such as "I believe that child pornography should be legal" or even "I encourage you to obtain child pornography" constitute "abstract advocacy" and neither of them "promotes" illegal activity in and of itself. In your case, perhaps one could substitute "the necessary means to destroy abortion clinics" for "child pornography." Then the statements would read "I believe that the necessary means to destroy abortion clinics should be legal" or even "I encourage you to obtain the necessary means to destroy abortion clinics." Thus, if your statements only went so far as to make abstract advocacy of illegal things, then your speech rights are protected. Indeed, what sort of society would we live in if it was legal to advocate child pornography but not the protection of children?
YOU HAVE THE SAME RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF THE PRESS AS OTHER PUBLISHERS. In a landmark ruling in favor of freedom of the press for everyone, and not just for major players, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the lonely pamphleteer has the same right to freedom of the press under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as the large metropolitan publisher. See Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U. S. 665 (1972), 704 ("liberty of the press is the right of the lonely pamphleteer ... just as much as of the large metropolitan publisher"). Today, Amazon.com offers copies of The Anarchist Cookbook, by William Powell (Ozark Press, LLC, 2002) for sale online, offering access by link (Kindle) and by U.S. Postal Service delivery. According to Wikipedia, "The Anarchist Cookbook, first published in 1971, is a book that contains instructions for the manufacture of explosives, rudimentary telecommunications phreaking devices, and other items." In Williams, supra, the U.S. Supreme Court found that the reputation of online retailer Amazon.com was sufficient to make it implausible for customers to believe that the material it distributes is illegal ("We think it implausible that a reputable distributor of Hollywood movies, such as Amazon.com, believes that one of these films contains actual children engaging in actual or simulated sex on camera; and even more implausible that Amazon.com would intend to make its customers believe such a thing.") Thus, it is legally implausible that the public would believe that instructions for the manufacture of explosives contained in The Anarchist Cookbook are illegal. Consequently, since you have the same right to freedom of the press as other publishers, the First Amendment gives you the right to publish your own versions of similar material, including online. Just the same as anyone can add a link to Amazon.com's webpage for The Anarchist Cookbook, you have a First Amendment right to add links to similar online material.
It sounds to me like you simply combined your First Amendment right to make abstract advocacy of illegal things with your First Amendment right to publish matter that is legal for large metropolitan publishers to publish. If so, YOU DID NOTHING ILLEGAL, no matter how enthusiastic you were. Your rights may have been violated, and YOU SHOULD WITHDRAW YOUR GUILTY PLEA at least until such a time as you are properly counseled on your rights. Sincerely, Cal
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Here’ the first of three letters Eric Rudolph recently wrote home. I feel helpless. I would like to hear from anyone who might have an idea about how we can help this prolife giant:
Dear Dan and Mother, I hope you have received my last three letters. The last one I got from you was dated Sept 19. If you have sent any letters since Sept 19, then it could only mean the prison is deliberately withholding them.
As I mentioned in my last letter, I’ve been confined to the Special Housing Unit (SHU) for the last three weeks. After being attacked on Sept. 28, I was transferred here. They have provided me no due process.. By policy inmates are given a hearing & brought before the DHO to receive sentence within two weeks of transfer to the S.H.U. I have received none of these safe guards. I am currently being housed on the same range with my attacker. Given the total disregard for policy the prison has shown in this matter, I wouldn’t be surprised if they were laying the ground work for another assault. If you hear that I’ve been harmed in any way, then it is not coincidental. Please inform Spitz & as many people as possible of my situation. The government may be planning my demise & I want no one to be fooled by the “official story.” Love you guys, Eric
Eric’s mom, you sent me two copies of the above and it is the only complete letter from Eric that you sent me. You also sent p. 2 of a second of his letters, and your beautiful letter of Oct. 25 to him. I hope you can send me what’s missing so I can put it in the next issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
No Longer an Ally: The New Anti-Catholicism
By Dr. Jeff Mirus
There has been a great deal of anti-Catholicism in various places and various periods of history, but I find particularly interesting the shifts in anti-Catholic prejudice over the past 100 years in America. In that period, we’ve gone from literally murderous hatred of Catholics in some regions, to heart-warmingly positive treatment in films and popular culture, to socio-political acceptance and encouragement, and now back to a vitriolic disdain in the mainstream media so common as to go unnoticed by equally prejudiced media consumers.
In the earliest part of this period, before around 1930, the intense hatred of priests in particular and Catholics in general which had been so common everywhere in the 19th century continued to be nurtured in the Fundamentalist and nativist South. This led to more than one unpunished cold-blooded murder. See again my review of Sharon Davies extraordinary book Rising Road (The Murder of a Priest).
This is all but forgotten, but most people today are at least somewhat familiar with the marked shift in sentiment that occurred after around 1930, at least outside the South, because they’ve seen or heard of the many Hollywood productions which made much of priests, nuns and their contributions to community life. Bing Crosby loomed large in these somewhat bland portrayals of Catholicism, which included such movies as Going My Way and its sequel The Bells of Saint Mary’s in the mid-1940s. Well into the 1950’s, Hollywood cast mainstream popular actors as priests, such as Crosby, Spencer Tracy, Frank Sinatra
At this time, the Church and her clergy were generally perceived as allies of American culture, interested in education, helping people deal with ordinary human problems, and generally expressing well the natural but rather generic American respect for God, faith and family. This would change as the culture shifted in the 1960’s and beyond, and especially as it became sex obsessed. In the 1970's and 1980's the lives of priests were much more likely to be explored from the point of view of passion or sexual deviance, as celibacy became increasingly difficult for the popular culture to understand.
At the same time, however, the treason of the Catholic intellectuals beginning in the 1960s made it appear that the Catholic Church was deeply supportive of many causes held dear by the American cultural elite. The Church had always been a strong force against racial prejudice and in favor of civil rights for racial minorities, of course, but now many of her professors, priests, and nuns became leaders in the movement to rethink morality to justify sexual “liberation”, to sacrifice doctrine for more “relevant” social action, and in general to justify rather than confront the new secularism that was sweeping America.
Here again the Church was generally seen as an ally by our cultural elite. The media was pleased to highlight stories which showed the Church in the vanguard of movements for what “everybody” believes or what “everybody” wants. The 1970’s and 1980’s were boom times for Catholic socio-political acceptance and encouragement. And when some bishops and priests attempted to make the real Catholic position known, nobody worried too much about it, because it was instinctively understood that this “old fashioned” vision of Catholicism posed no threat whatsoever.
In this context, I cannot fail to recall the enthusiasm with which “good Pope John” was greeted in secular circles as he “threw open the windows” and seemed, in his grandfatherly way, to want to make the Church “more like us”. Never was a Catholic pope so wildly popular in the media. But it would be naive to think it was his holiness that attracted the American media rather than the perception that he was a cultural ally. Later, after the “dark years” of Pope Paul VI (who had the temerity to condemn artificial contraception), I also recall the secular enthusiasm that greeted the election and brief pontificate of John Paul I, who was frequently commended for always smiling and for charmingly admitting that his favorite author was Mark Twain.
But since then, the long pontificate of John Paul II slowly and inexorably changed everything. While John Paul II was enormously popular and inspirational among committed Catholics (and his travels proved to innumerable weak local Catholic communities how many of these there still are), he created enormous problems for opinion makers in both the Church and the world, who could not stop talking about his provincial Polish myopia, so out of step with contemporary reality. But what had happened by the 1990’s, or at least by the 2000's, is that Pope John Paul II had managed to strengthen the episcopate and inspire a fresh generation of priests who know the difference between the mind of the culture and the mind of Christ.
This was a critical change. American (and I think European) elites realize once again that they can no longer count on the Church to endorse what “everybody” knows and to favor what “everybody” wants. The Church has ceased to be a reliable ally, and it is instinctively understood that this can only get worse—that the Catholic Church is slowly gearing up for a fight to take back its own.
Those of us who were in the trenches when the Church was loved by the culture have always known that pro-Catholic sentiment would change as soon as the Church became strong enough to be a cultural threat again. Well, now she is strong enough to be a threat—or strong enough, at least, to be a sign of contradiction. You can see the results. Everywhere she is misreported, mocked, dismissed and condemned. Once again, Catholics need not apply. But given what it signifies, this shift back to blatant anti-Catholicism is really a very good thing. It is enormously reassuring, and it inspires hope
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Lahore High Court has ruled that Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari cannot pardon Asia Bibi, the 45-year-old Christian mother of five whose death sentence on blasphemy charges has provoked an international outcry. The president is disputing the ruling of the court, which determined that the president cannot issue a pardon while a case is under appeal.
Bibi, a resident of Ittanwali in the eastern province of Punjab, was working at a local farm when the Muslim women with whom she was working called her an infidel and urged her to convert to Islam. Bibi refused, saying that Christianity was the only true religion.
“The Muslim men working in nearby fields also gathered and attacked Asia Bibi on which she fled to village in her home,” the Pakistan Christian Postreported. “The angry Muslims followed her and took her out of home and started beating her. They tortured her children also, but meanwhile someone informed police.”
Bibi also says that her accusers raped her.
Police then arrested Bibi on blasphemy charges. Following a lengthy trial, she was sentenced to death.
Bibi is fearful she will be killed in prison; her family has gone into hiding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Not sentient? Not so fast...
Dr. Shirley Ward, a renowned Catholic doctor in Europe, points out the different ways in which pre-natal circumstances lead to psychological effects that may last a lifetime. One of her sources is a Canadian, Dr Feldmar, who, with researchers from Loyola University in Chicago, discovered that children who survived abortion attempts by their mothers suffered continued trauma even as adults. But that's not all. They studied persons with repeated or habitual suicide attempts, especially those repeated yearly or every several years at the same date or time of year, and discovered that the date corresponded not to a traumatic event in childhood or adolescence, but to the date their mothers attempted to abort them. In most cases, as well, the method of suicide corresponded to the method of the attempted abortion: suicide by overdose for chemical abortions, suicide by instruments for surgical.
If confirmed, this puts a gaping hole in the "not sentient" theory that pro-choicers use to deny the unborn personhood. It also proves they have more blood on their hands than previously thought: not only the blood of the aborted, but that of the would-be mothers who commit suicide because of abortions they had, and now these survivors who carry their scars of rejection until they become too much to bear. From The Commander
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because of a miscommunication, you’ll have to go back to the July issue (#5) of AIM to see where I last posted Paul Ross Evans’ The Militant Christian. Here begins his chapter 6, “Moral Law and Assorted Laws of Theocracy”:
Moral laws within our government are established for many reasons. They establish a strong foundation which distinguishes us from the heathen, or the savage. They bind us together to uphold value systems which separate us from order-lacking animalistic destruction and chaos. Societies without moral foundations fail. Death, debauchery, and disorder are the inevitable traits which are held for the “future” of apathetic cultures.
Marriage and family, between man and woman, are the cornerstones of our society. In Genesis 1: 27, 29 and Genesis 2: 18, 24 descriptions for such a union and/or foundation are said to be “ordained by God.” This bond is the keystone of our future and as well should serve as the great source of happiness and joy for man and woman, for, together, they populate the earth – and grow/raise God’s people. The solid friendship between man/woman is a priceless gift from our Father in Heaven. The loyalty between those two persons is only completely understood by the Father, in speaking of a functional husband/wife relationship. It should be guarded with one’s life. Our God is a jealous God, and many modern gods presently compete for the allegiance of God’s people today. In many places all over the earth to truly follow the Christian faith means persecution and suffering. Our Messiah condemns externals thus in Matthew 23: 25 -- “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.” Self-indulgence is not allowed, and as Christians we should seek the awareness of our impurities.
Marriage is a bond to respect. Reverence should be shown in every matter concerning one’s partner, and a venerable approach should be taken for appropriateness, mannerisms, and friendships with the opposite sex (on either side).
Adultery is strictly forbidden. Exodus 20: 14 is a distinct command. In Deuteronomy 22: 20-25, the penalty for such behavior is prescribed. This behavior is strictly forbidden in any case. The bonds of marriage are made to be kept, and respected.
Rape, of any human being, is an abomination that God’s soldiers must punish immediately. Responsible parties of a sexual-predatory nature in which are committed acts of rape and molestation are to be punished by the sword. Care and consideration should be shown to the victim of such acts. These matters are covered in Deuteronomy 22: 25, 26.
A woman should behave and project herself in a certain manner. The whore can never be tolerated in a Christian society, and only labors to spread perversion, sickness, disease, and immoral corruption. If a woman turns from prostitution and a sodomite turns from the ways of sodomy, they shall be allowed inside of God’s house and admitted to His kingdom. But until they refrain from such evillness, they shall not be admitted. *Read Deuteronomy 23: 17. 18.
If they be the children of priests, or soldiers in God’s Army, their punishment is described in Lleviticus21: 9. They shall be burnt with fire. Leviticus 20: 13 is clear that the Christian society should never tolerate the practice of sodomy. There is a penalty of death mentioned for those who will not turn away from the sodomite lifestyle, and from committing sodomy. Exodus 22 :19 commands death for the act of bestiality.
Exodus 22: 16, 17 explains that seduction, on either part, is a sin. Restitution shall be set right, especially if the man be at fault, unable to control his desires. This is an abomination. Deuteronomy 22: 28, 29 further explains.
Leviticus 20: 11-21, and Deuteronomy 22: 30 explain to us the extent of the sins of incest, sodomy, as well as bestiality and all manner of perversion.
Marriage is the family unit of society, and the importance of such bonds is explained throughout this text. Genesis 1: 27, 28 as well as Genesis 2: 18, 24 are glaring examples of that importance. This relationship and bond is ordained of God and is to be respected eternally. Polygamy is forbidden and the Christian militant should look to verses such as I Corinthians 7:2 as well as I Timothy 3:2 for further explanations.
The Father has power over the child (see Numbers 30: 3-5) and may arrange for his sons to be married (Genesis 24:4). Children are to honor their parents (Exodus 20:12). Parents are to discipline their children and take great and diligent care in doing so (Ephesians 6:4). These are just the basics in terms of the family unit, and the distribution of authority.
The highest authority belongs to our Father. Worshiping other gods which are false (Exodus 20:1, Exodus 22:20), toleration of sorcerers and sorcery (Leviticus 20:27, Exodus 22:18), and using blasphemy against our Father (Leviticus 24:16) are all major forms of disrespect. We should pay close attention that we not only never engage in such behavior personally but as well that we never tolerate it among us, for this behavior brings forth serious punishments from our Father.
Defiance of the Laws of out Father (Numbers 15: 30, 31; Deuteronomy 17: 12, 13) is an act of rebellion to be guarded against, and as well put to a stop the immediately. Those who pervert of obstruct justice (Exodus 23: 1, 2, 6, 7; Deuteronomy 16: 19, 20) shall be dealt with among us, for that is what is expected of us – as upholders of God’s law.
We are, as God’s army, expected to uphold humane laws. Duties toward persons, mentioned in Leviticus 19: 9, 10, 13, 14, 33, and 34 which continues in Deuteronomy 24: 14, 15 and leads to Exodus 22: 22, 23, are not only extremely important because we are commanded to uphold this Law by God – but are as well a reflection of our overall long-term mission to secure peace and good nature. God Bless Those who make it their mission, and take it upon themselves, to secure such laws which are described in this text. Those who sacrifice in order to ensure such laws are upheld are securing a brighter future for their sons and daughters as well as preparing a place for themselves in our Eternity. May God be with them, surely.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shelley Shannon addressed the following to Abortion is Murder, P.O. Box 7424, Reading, PA 19603, and it was delivered! My return address stamp says skyp because I’d lost some mail addressed to Abortion is Murder to overzealous killers’ helpers. However, now it looks as if that danger is past:
Merry Christmas 2010!
It's hard to believe another year went by already. I still really like MN and hope I can stay here for the remainder of my sentence, which is about 7 more years and then 4-6 months in a half-way house.
As always, I look forward to the Christmas mail, especially everyone's Christmas letters and cards.
In 2010 I went to work at the UNICOR sewing factory in January and worked there for about six months. It was a terrible place to work -- very loud, including radio "music" every day, never on Christian channels. A few things happened while I was there that let me know the time wasn't spent in vain. I'll probably send a copy of part of my diary/notes about my going back to Horticulture. I really like my job again!
The prison diaries are still included in Dave Leach's Prayer and Action News each time.
Last winter I had so much fun here! They have snowshoes we can check out, and I hope to use those a lot again this year.
I will probably be losing all of my good Christian roommates. Two are almost through their sentences, and the other wants to do the dog program, which means she will have to move to the unit where that is. My prayer request is to get good roommates again and continuously for the rest of my sentence. It really helps. We not only have life easier, but we join together to pray, especially when someone comes to the room with problems. I hope you will pray. Thank you.
Have a very blessed holiday season.
Here are Shelley’s “The Diary/Notes:
Aug. 6, AD 2010: Today at work I went up to ask my boss about something, and while I was there, I asked her if there was a possibility I would be laid in (laid off) for a long time. She said there was. I mentioned the possibility I could go to Horticulture, and she seemed to think it was a good idea. I asked, if I didn't go to horticulture, would I just be laid in sometimes and work sometimes, and she said no, that it would be long and I'd be assigned a compound job. Compound jobs are facilities (plumbing and such) and some others that pay practically nothing. So it really seemed best to go to Horticulture. A nice lady went and got me a form, and I asked the boss if I could go at the 9:30 ten-minute-move to get the signature from the horticulture boss, and she let me. I found a horticulture lady, and she said the boss wasn't there (I forgot he's off on Fridays). As it happened, he was working center hall, so I found him and got the signature. Later I found out he only worked there for 2 hours, so that was quite a "coincidence." My sewing factory boss signed the form also and made a copy, after she had me add that I wished to retain my UNICOR status. At lunch I put it under my counselor's door, and asked him a little later when I saw him if I could have it for Monday. He said "maybe." At work things were rough. One lady was telling two others, right in front of me, that I had volunteered to be laid in. I told them no, I was changing jobs. Another said they would get laid in because of me, because now they wouldn't have enough work. That was ridiculous, because two of the elastic people finish early and could make up the slack if they need them to. The other elastic person also just got back from court, and they told her she wouldn't be needed. So she has to find a job, apparently. Also at work one said that the boss told me I was getting laid in, so I decided to go to horticulture (like I would be laid in now). That's close, but all she actually did was answer my questions, which helped me realize it was time for me to go there. There weren't any immediate plans to lay me in. In any case I hope I will soon be back in horticulture, though August isn't my favorite month to be outside. I may miss the money, but I don't mind sacrificing, as long as I have enough for whatever hygiene items and such I need to make sure I don't offend anyone. The change sheet did not have me on it, and I saw the counselor right before 4:00 count. He said maybe Tuesday, because he was waiting for a reply to his email to make sure I would retain my longevities and "prior UNICOR" status. The head of UNICOR already told me I would, and I did through horticulture before, but I guess I'm stuck at the sewing factory until Wednesday, most likely. I'm going to see if they will give me my 5 vacation days though, for the whole week. I'm eager to be back at horticulture, but imagine the timing will be perfect.
Aug. 9, AD 2010: I worked at the sewing factory today (Mon.), but tomorrow I go back to Horticulture. The boss from there called my counselor about it today. My ex-boss from UNICOR told me "good luck" when I left, so I figured it was in the computer.
Aug. 10, AD 2010: I'm on my lunch, which is now much longer, because I'm in Horticulture. I have a tremendous peace today. Wow. How did I ever survive 6 months in the factory? My roommate who still works there came rushing in over her lunch 25 min. break while I was listening to a song on Christian radio that said, "This is a day of new beginnings." Thank You, Lord Jesus. The program looks really great. It's very open, to do a great deal of whatever we want. There are about 15-20 categories, with certain hours in each category, but they allow us to choose what we want in each category. And a lot of the hours are propagation, planning gardens and preparing the soil and planting, lots of great stuff. Today I walked around with the lady who used to collect seeds with me, and looked at the various flower beds and greenhouses. A lot is different than last year. So far I love it. I'll be given a responsibility, like a greenhouse or something. There are two others in the program, and one is in charge of all of the perennials, which is quite a job. (A lot of people got laid off at the sewing factory shortly after this)
If you might be on my email list, please go to Corrlinks.com to see if you have mail from me, or to send to me; or go to info@corrlinks.com for info.
Greetings in Jesus, John! I hope it was a good year for you and yours and that 2011 will be even better. May God richly bless you. Love in Him, Shelley Thanks for Abortion is murder
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Iowa faces new abortion battle
Key Iowa Republicans are drafting legislation mirroring a new, more restrictive Nebraska abortion law in an attempt to derail plans of a Nebraska doctor to open a Council Bluffs clinic where late-term abortions would be performed.
A new law took effect Oct. 15 in Nebraska that bans abortions after 20 weeks of gestation, or roughly five months, except in cases in which the mother’s life is in jeopardy.
The law led Dr. LeRoy Carhart, a Nebraska abortion provider, to announce last month that he plans to open the Iowa clinic.
Iowa law prohibits abortions after the sixth month of pregnancy unless the woman’s doctor believes the procedure is needed to “preserve the life or health” of the woman.
Critics say the wording of Iowa’s law makes its ban on late-term abortions unenforceable, because the definition of health is left to a doctor’s discretion.
Several legislators who oppose abortions say they’re drafting a bill to close what they see as an immoral loophole. They’re motivated by Carhart’s announcement and growth in their allies. Republicans took control of the Iowa House in the November elections, and will have a 60-40 seat edge when the new legislative session convenes in January.
Rep. Matt Windschitl, R-Missouri Valley, a board member of Iowa Right to Life, said, “I’m taking on the fight of Dr. LeRoy Carhart to keep him out of my state.”
The hang-up could be in the Senate, where Democrats hold a slim majority and could block a bill.
Senate Majority Leader Michael Gronstal said Tuesday that it is too early to know whether the Senate would take action on such a bill. He said he would wait to see whether such a bill makes it through the legislative process.
He has previously expressed support for a woman’s right to choose.
Abortion-rights advocates question the constitutionality of Nebraska’s law.
It is based on the idea that fetuses can feel pain after 20 weeks. Research shows nerve endings that form early in development enable the fetus to feel pain.
The law departs from the standard of viability – generally considered to be between 22 and 24 weeks – established by the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Roe vs. Wade.
The Nebraska law could set a national trend and lead to a Supreme Court battle, Windschitl and others acknowledged.
Officials from Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, which is based in Des Moines and serves parts of Nebraska, declined requests from the Register for interviews on the topic. However, the group has no plans to challenge the Nebraska law, according to an Oct. 15 article in the Omaha World-Herald.
Windschitl, who will be an assistant majority leader beginning with January’s legislative session, said he will push to craft legislation similar to Nebraska’s law.
“At the end of the day, my personal agenda, and if I had a magic wand, one of the things I would do is to stop abortion in the state of Iowa, but it is a step-by-step process,” Windschitl said.
Abortion-rights advocates contend any state law that changes the definition of viability raises constitutional questions.
Viability refers to when a fetus can survive outside the womb and marks the point when states can ban abortion.
Jordan Goldberg, the State Advocacy Counsel for the U.S. Legal Program at the Center for Reproductive Rights in Washington, D.C., said her group believes Nebraska’s law is unconstitutional. The group said it might challenge the law.
“While we don’t discuss our litigation strategy in the press, it is important to recognize that that law is unconstitutional, and if it were to be enacted elsewhere it would still be unconstitutional,” Goldberg said.
Carhart did not return a request for an interview Tuesday.
He told reporters in November that he intends to open clinics in Council Bluffs, Indianapolis and the suburbs of Washington, D.C. The Washington Post reported this week that about 300 protesters gathered Monday to protest Carhart’s first day at a Germantown, Md., abortion clinic.
“We don’t want Maryland to become the late-term abortion capital of America,” the Rev. Patrick Mahoney, director of the Christian Defense coalition, told the Post on Monday.
Gov.-elect Terry Branstad said Tuesday that he didn’t know anything about Carhart’s potential move to Iowa.
Branstad, a Republican, was active in his previous four terms in working to limit abortion. His administration, for example, fought a years-long battle to block the opening of a Planned Parenthood clinic in the Quad Cities. A federal court ultimately ruled against him.
“I really don’t know enough about that to comment,” Branstad told the Register on Tuesday.
Senate President Jack Kibbie, D-Emmetsburg, is personally opposed to late-term abortions but said he is unsure whether such a bill would be called up for debate.
“I don’t think we ought to have abortion clinics in Iowa for late-term abortions, but I also think there are a lot more important things we ought to address in the Legislature for middle-income Iowans,” Kibbie said.
House Republican leader Kraig Paulsen, R-Hiawatha, said he is aware that his members are putting together a bill that would mimic Nebraska’s law. House Republicans generally agree on the concept, and such a bill is likely to get close consideration, he said.
Windschitl is working with several Council Bluffs-area Republicans on the bill. Sen. David Johnson, R-Ocheyedan, said he will help House Republicans in any way he can to see that the bill advances.
“I’m concerned about the possibility of an expansion of late-term abortions being done in this state,” Johnson said. “That, to me, is an outrage.”
Dan Holman comments:
While an average of 4000 Americans a day are having their arms, legs, and heads ripped off of them, pro-lifers are arguing over which ones feel pain!
Fetal pain and viability are bogus arguments. 5 year old children are not “viable” as they cannot fend for themselves. What does pain and viability have to do with one’s Right to Life? They all feel pain, and none of them are viable. Nobody cares!
It is largely the fault of the pro-life movement that the battle lines against abortion are drawn where they are.
Bumbling, wrongheaded pro-lifers, taking their cues from Planned Parenthood, focus on what is best for the aborting mother, rather than on her baby.
Like the Charge of the Light Brigade, they charge the enemy with unwinnable nonsensical arguments, in a tragic comedy of errors.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Thursday, December 09, 2010
Monday, November 15, 2010
Abortion is Murder, 8-10, December, 2010
Formerly "Stop the Killing of Young People" (skyp) and soon, perhaps, "Stop Killing Preemies"
December, 2010 Vol. 8 No. 10
PO Box 7424, Reading, PA 19603
Phone – 484-706-4375
Email – jdmd@ptd.net
Web – skyp1.blogspot.com
Circulation – 114
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 PFC’s, $1000 for others.
Because I believe we should use every legitimate means, including force, in our attempt to protect those being tortured to death, I want to hear from people who’ve been forceful. I’d also like to hear from those who disagree with me.
Prisoners for Christ:
1. Gibbons, Linda - Vanier WDC, 655 Martin St., P.O. Box 1040, Milton, ON, Canada L9T 5E6
2. Griffin, Michael 310249, Okaloosa Correctional Institution, Crestview FL 32539-6708 9/11
3. Jordi, Stephen 70309-004, FCI P.O. Box 33, Terre Haute IN 47802 6/30
4. Knight, Peter CRN 158589, Port Philip Prison, P.O. Box 376, Laverton, Victoria, Australia
5. Kopp, James 11761-055, USP Canaan, P.O. Box 300, 3057 Easton Tpk., Waymart, PA 18472
6. Little, David SJRCC, 930 Old Black River Road, Saint John, NB E2J 4T3
7. Moose, Justin – inmate, Alamance County Jail, 109 South Maple Street, Graham NC 27253
8. Richardson, Alonzo Lee 12898-021, PO Box 474701, Des Moines, IA 5094
9. Roeder, Scott P., KDOC#0065192, El Dorado Correctional Facility, P. O. Box 311, El Dorado, KS 67042
10. Ross, Michael, Custer County Jail, 1010 Main St., Miles City, Montana 59301
11. Rudolph, Eric 18282-058 US Pen. Max, Box 8500, Florence CO 81226-8500
12. Shannon, Rachelle 59755-065, FCI Waseca, Unit A, P.O. Box 1731, Waseca, MN 56093 3/31
13. Waagner, Clayton Lee 17258-039, United States Penitentiary, P.O. Box 1000, Lewisburg PA 17837 8/25
14. Weiler Jr., Robert F. 39385-037, FCC - Delaware Hall, Box 1000, Petersburg VA 23804 (new)
15. Whitaker, Vincent , FMC, Box 4500, Lexington, KY 40572
Thank U John for posting my appeal to prolifers about Eric's situation. It is worse than ever -- he feels a set up for his demise. I am sending you copies of his letters that he would appreciate U posting as a public evidence of what he suspects. More later Patricia (Look for this in the next issue.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear John, Well, it looks like I've missed contributing to a couple of issues in a row now. During that time I was busy working on Scotty's habeas corpus appeal and Jimbo's motion attacking sentence. I thought your readers might like to read a few of the (59) grounds in Jimbo's motion. Laws and cases are not added in the motion at this stage, but I have added a few citations for your readers in brackets below.
A. Ground one: Conviction obtained in absence of due process (count 1).
Supporting FACTS: The Emancipation Proclamation fell short of recognizing African Americans in the law as persons in the whole sense, because President Abraham Lincoln still permitted slavery in states that had not declared a succession. Nonetheless, in an Executive Order issued January 1, 1863, Lincoln authorized African Americans to use "violence ... in necessary self-defence." A legal tradition exists, therefore, in authorizing the use of violence in defense of those of us who, for whatever peculiar reasons of bigotry or prejudice, have yet to be formally recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense, including those who are considered so far inferior that they have no rights we are bound to respect. Consequently, the trial court had an obligation of due process to allow the defendant a justification defense on the basis of his actions to equally protect Gestational Americans from homicide. The defendant would have been acquitted had the trial court permitted the justification defense in accord with due process.
B. Ground two: Conviction obtained in absence of due process (count 2).
Supporting FACTS: In its ongoing struggle to maintain childbearing standards among American females, the Supreme Court has repeatedly authorized a program of pregnancy abatement, using such means as: involuntary sterilization (1927) [Buck: 274 U.S. 200 (1927)]; child homicide (1971) [Vuitch: 402 U.S. 62 (1971)]; involuntary abortion (1973) [Roe: 410 U.S. 113 (1973)], including both punitive abortion and abortion by reason of maternal incompetence [Roe: 410 U.S. 113 (1973), 153-154, 159; see also 18 USC 1841(c)(1) ("Laci's Law") authorizing involuntary abortions to be performed upon a woman that are either "on her behalf" or are otherwise "implied by law"]; and, non-consensual abortion for pregnant minors (1979)[Bellotti: 443 U.S. 622 (1979), 647-648]. Faced with a growing struggle to keep females in standards, in 1970 the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists reaffirmed support for involuntary sterilization and flatly reversed its original 1959 policy on abortion, which had prohibited abortion-on-demand. See "College policy on abortion and sterilization," ACOG nurses bulletin, 1970 Fall; 4:2. But regardless of what medical or legal professionals think is necessary or best, homicide is homicide. The coroner is not interested in when life begins; the coroner is interested in how life ended. Regardless of social or political circumstances, once natural, accidental, and self-inflicted causes have been ruled out, the coroner will always rule a cause of death to be homicide. Though homicide may be performed with skill, including medical skill, it is never to be treated as a medical procedure. Thus, the medical need to separate mother and child in a life-threatening pregnancy, such as ectopic pregnancy, should never result in what the coroner would rule homicide. Consequently, a destructive means of ectopic pregnancy management is medically contraindicated as homicide. In contrast, a nondestructive means provides for the continuing care of the child, such that any death that may result from the separation is either natural or accidental. At minimum, the infant is placed in a hospice incubator; ideally, he or she is reimplanted. Either way, the medical need to separate mother and child never results in what the coroner would rule homicide. However, in 1971, opening the door for its more general abortion policy to follow, the Supreme Court authorized child homicide to save the mother's life, rather than instructing physicians to handle the need to separate mother and child within the limits of medical and legal norms. [Vuitch: 402 U.S. 62 (1971).] Then, in 1973, the Supreme Court generalized its abortion policy to include abortion-on-demand, while quietly reserving involuntary abortion as a backup plan to empower pregnancy abatement one way or another. [Roe: 410 U.S. 113 (1973).] In 1979, the Supreme Court prohibited anyone from vetoing a pregnant minor's abortion request, even when both parental and judicial determinations find she is not mature enough to give consent. [Bellotti: 443 U.S. 622 (1979).] Because the Supreme Court breached medical and legal norms to suit social and political pressures in favor of pregnancy abatement, it is fair to say abortion is political. From this it follows that the Government is politically motivated to preserve its abatement policy, and that the prosecution in federal court is politically motivated. Thus, the district court violated due process by precluding the defendant from offering any arguments, questions, or references before the jury to show that the prosecution is politically motivated or that the prosecution in federal court is politically motivated. See Decision and order of the United States district court, entered 12/07/2006, p. 10. The truth must come out in court. It is never the job of the trial court to orchestrate a political blackout in front of the jury, not even to hide the most scandalous Government truths.
Wow! Many of these 59 grounds are even longer than “B”!. Can you imagine what work went into this?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These are the lyrics for the song A Billion Babies in Heaven that you can maybe hear (some browsers play it auto, others you have to download the mp3 file) if you go to http://www.horsleyforgovernor.com/billionbabiessong.html
If you listen to the song, imagine the Gaithers or some other totally amped to the max Christian group singing it like the angels in glory backed up by the best road band in history. Otherwise these are the lyrics.
There's a billon babies in heaven
Weeping round God's throne
A billion casualties in heaven
In the God War going On.
How long, O Lord, How long?
Can you hear the babies cry?
How long, O Lord, how long
Before you make our murderers die,
There's a billion babies in heaven
weeping round God's throne
A billion murdered babies in heaven
From the God War going on.
There's a war going on
A war going on
There's a war going on.
A war going on.
There's a God war going on;
Can you hear the babies’ anger
Can you hear the rage they feel
Can you blame them for their anger?
We left them carrion in the field;
I know you think you didn't murder
If you never aborted your own child
But if you tolerate anyone’s murder
It's like murdering your own child.
There's a billion babies in heaven
weeping round God's throne
A billion murdered babies in heaven
From the God War going on.
There's a war going on
A war going on
There's a war going on.
A war going on.
There's a God war going on;
Read the Revelation story
God's got to dry their tears, you know.
God's gonna make us reap what we sow,
That's what Revelation 7:17 does show.
.
There's only one way to repent now
To Christ Jesus we must go.
We must die in Christ right now
That's how we'll reap what we sow.
That'll keep us alive here below
That's the Justice that can stop the babies' tear flow.
We must die in Christ below.
There's a billion babies in heaven
weeping round God's throne
A billion murdered babies in heaven
From the God War going on.
There's a war going on
A war going on
There's a war going on.
A war going on.
There's a God war going on;
A God War Going ON!
------------------------------------------------
John Arena, RIP
Indeed, may the peace of the Lord be his who ministered to the weakest in the name of mercy and justice. At 89, John died on October 27, 2010, when he was hit by a car while riding his bicycle near his home in Rome, New York. His beloved wife and fellow Christian and anti-abortionist, Anne, had died in 2008.
Below are the regular TV and print media links on reports of the death of John Arena. I have some comments of my own.
John Arena was an anti-abortion associate whose friendship goes back at least to the time of his imprisonment in Madison County Jail in 1995. I have several “jail letters” from him. In one from September of 1995 he inveighs against the local Catholic Sun for its preferential treatment of (religiously apostate and Irish Catholic) prosecutor, William Fitzpatrick, for cozying up the Planned Parenthood, and for calling John an “urban terrorist.” He wrote me both as a fellow convict, a pastor, and as an editor of Capitol Area Christian News in which we reported quarterly on anti-abortion activism. The publication’s uniqueness was in reporting upon and refusing to condemn any action (forceful or otherwise) directed against abortion facilities for the rescue of the innocents. Such defensive action could not be condemned without surrendering the doctrine of the imago Dei – and the particular humanity - of the pre-born child.
In addition to an interest in protecting the innocent, John and I also had a prison in common. Ray Brook F.C.I is located in a small town with the same name near Lake Placid, New York. The Ray Brook prison had been built first to house the Olympian athletes securely for the 1980 Winter Games. (The feds generally like to house their prisoners in a comfortable environment. Greater amounts a “time” are generally meted out by the feds to convicts, but the prisons are relatively clean.)
I entered the “joint” in 1985 and did four years there. John had acquired a federal conviction for violating the FACE Act which had been encoded at about the same time as John’s were being performed in 1995. The feds viewed the administration of butyric acid into an abortion facility as not only an effective way to close down a federally protected facility but a particular violation of their new law which prohibited any interference of a woman’s sacred right to butcher her baby at will. So they handed John a five year sentence for stinking the place up bad.
There was no rehabilitation. John denounced child slaughter and those who supported and protected it to the very end. He joined other rabble at the White Rose Banquet upon release in 1999. The Banquet was held in the D.C. area for five years consecutively starting in 1996 and was sponsored by Reformation Lutheran Church of which I was a co-pastor along with Michael Colvin (Ph.D University of Indiana, classical studies).
My association with John was primarily by mail, as indicated. I am sorry I did not have the opportunity to spend more time with him. But I am expecting to spend eternity with him and many others who have been saved by and lived in the service of our Lord. With fond remembrances, Michael Bray
Thanks, Michael. I have my own John Arena stories. In the early ‘90s he and Anne drove down from Rome, picked me up in Fr. Weslin’s strange mini-bus, and we drove from Long Island to Fargo, North Dakota, collecting a cast of characters you would not believe, the strangest being “metal head.” I then drove John’s Volkswagen to Minnesota to get some papers. John’s little VW had a half million miles on it! .
A year or so later a jar of butyric acid arrived by mail. Being the coward I am and not knowing what else to do with it, I drove to Jones Beach, which is abondoned in January. Along the way the bottle cracked, and when I opened the trunk, the fumes made me gag. I covered the bottle with an old towel, intending to carry it to the nearest trash can when I heard this din and looked up. Remember “The Birds”? Thousands of gulls hovered over me. And then they began to dive.
Requiescat in pace, John
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
How We Failed Justin Moose or How 40 Days For Life Fails Us
By Neal Horsley
Justin Moose is the latest person going to prison for attempting to terrorize abortion providers. Ms. Magazine, the ever vigilant watchdog of the abortion industry, describes Justin this way: "Justin Carl Moose pled guilty late last week to plotting to bomb a North Carolina abortion clinic. Moose was arrested in early September and charged with 'providing information related to the making, use, or manufacture of an explosive,' as stated in his plea agreement. He faces up to 20 years imprisonment and/or a $250,000 fine."
How did we fail Justin Moose? We failed to make certain that Justin knew there was an alternative to abolishing legalized abortion that did not require us to go to prison to make it happen. Justin only knew two ways to fight legalized abortion: the impotent, ineffective and ultimately self-serving way the pro-life movement has fought it for the last 37 years, or the way men like Paul Hill fought it until they were dead or in prison.
Justin Moose has to go to prison because he is a failure in the gene-conditioning program. He has to be removed from the body politic; otherwise he might infect other men around him and move them to do what their instincts tell them to do; namely, protect the women who are having babies. It is those instincts that have to be obliterated and replaced with new instincts that allow us to tolerate the slaughter of people if they are unwanted on this planet by the people in power.
Throughout recorded history, and assumedly throughout unrecorded history, a man and a woman have shared two roles once a child was conceived. The woman bore the baby, the man protected the woman while she bore the baby. Much of that behavior was instinctive, even if social conditioning played a role. It does not take much imagination to see that the multi-thousand year--at the least--duration of those two roles, along with the biological necessity of the woman's role in birth, imprinted some information on the genes of both the male and female, genetic information that rose to the position of instinct in our species.
Since 1973, in the United States of America, we have all been involved in having those gene impressions altered by social--specifically Federal Court--decree. We have been being gene-washed, which is probably the most efficient form of brain-washing since it prevents the brain from ever thinking anything and makes us all gene responsive rather than rational thought responsive. (Did you know that Bill Clinton and his ilk--don't forget to include the Bush's, those ever-present paragons of Christian culture--actually have conversations in private where they talk about things like brain-responsive as opposed to gene-responsive social conditioning programs? I can't prove it, but I betcha they do.)
Back to Justin Moose. Justin Moose became confused because, as my quote from Ms. magazine demonstrates, the women don't want to be protected: they want to kill their babies if they don't want to be pregnant. And therein lies Justin Moose's problem, therein lies why Justin Moose must go to prison, and therein lies how we failed Justin Moose.
We failed to help Justin Moose understand what is happening in a society that is teaching men they no longer have a duty to protect women if they are what they used to call "with child." In fact, if you listen to the government of the United States of America, the duty of a man has become the opposite: help the woman kill her child. In fulfillment of that "duty" male "escorts" station themselves outside every abortion clinic in the country to usher the women in to kill their babies.
Examine the latest pro-life movement abortion resistance and you'll see why Justin Moose acted like he had to take responsibility for protecting the unborn babies. Pro-lifers call it the 40 DAYS FOR LIFE. I call it the.40 Days For Death
The title of this section is no typo. Even though I am focusing on a pro-life campaign called the 40 Days for Life, when you see what's actually happening, it will be easy to see why I call it the 40 Days for Death.
On November 1, 2010, Lifenews.com updated the story above by telling us: 40 Days for Life Campaign Ends With 541 Babies Spared From Abortions
Let me make it clear that I am totally in favor of saving babies from being torn limb from limb. To save one from such barbaric butchery is a good thing. To save 541 is 541 times better than a good thing. I really believe the previous words, which is why I must say what follows.
The 40 Days for Life campaign is the latest proof that the pro-life movement is most hypocritical exercise in phony Christian ministry since antebellum American Christians in the South made it a priority to have laws passed allowing slaves to learn to read and write so they could hear the gospel and be saved slaves. (Actually the comparison is not a good one to legalized abortion because slaves in the South were not being murdered if their Christian masters showed themselves to be hypocrites who loved their neighbors as long as they stayed in their "place" in society; but I can't think of a better comparison. German Christians taking food or Bibles to the Jews in concentration camps would be a good comparison but I can't see that it ever happened.)
Back to 40 Days for Life. If, as the headline states, 541 babies were "spared from abortions" in 40 days, what will anyone who actually thinks about what is going on there learn about Christians and abortion in the United States of America the other 315 days of the year? If there is a winning strategy revealed in the 40 Days for Life tactic, why is the world not being barraged with the news that we've finally figured out a way to abolish legalized abortion? What is going on that people can trumpet the news of a successful tactic in the pro-life movement, then let it languish as if the work is done until every law allowing unborn babies to be butchered is overturned?
This is what we learn from 40 Days for Life: The pro-life movement in America works hard in 40 day increments. And does little or nothing for the rest of the days each year.
If unborn babies are worth stopping people from killing them for 40 days, why wouldn't that same requirement carry over for the next 315 days?
Think about what I'm saying. If soldiers were being killed in Afghanistan, would the troops be on duty 40 days out of the year and on furlough the rest of the year, or what?
You know what. We would be doing in Afghanistan what we're doing in Afghanistan if we thought there was really a war going on in this nation, a war where real people were being butchered, maimed and killed on a daily basis. There are people who think there is a war going on in this nation.
But in America, in the pro-life movement, we see people working in large numbers to stop babies from being butchered for 40 Days at a time. And then crowing like banty roosters about the lives they saved when they were working.
Is it possible for an observer to think we treat unborn babies like they are people in the same way we treat the soldiers in harm's way in Afghanistan as people?
Only pro-lifers would answer in the affirmative, and they would only answer in the affirmative because they have been trained, conditioned and converted to be double-minded Christians who have no duty to deal with the world in a reasonable, logical way.
The fundamental problem with 40 Days for Life and with the entire Christian pro-life movement is it misses the point. The point is not that one person's life is worth saving and must be saved if at all possible (that's obviously true but beside the point at this time in history), the point is it is against God's Law to murder anybody, anytime, anywhere. But the pro-life movement has NEVER tried to make that point. Only the few--you know their names--who have defied the pro-life movement and tried to find ways to make THE POINT have done anything but create confusion in this world.
For proof, look at the way Christian pro-lifers respond to the 40 Days for Life as if some kind of VICTORY was being won, rather than a terrible example of double-standard Christianity being applied right before our eyes. Look at what is actually happening and you will see that Christians have been trained to believe their view of the world can include the most gross inconsistencies imaginable as long as they can enjoy all the benefits of being affluent Christians in affluent America and still think themselves righteous Christians.
Rather than what they are actually doing (evidence of which is seen in the news articles shown earlier) were the leaders of 40 Days for Life to be responsible truth tellers, they would be standing on barricades outside abortion clinics telling the Christians of the world that unless people came and continued saving the babies the way they were saved for the last 40 Days, that everyone claiming to be a Christian was a liar, totally devoid of the Spirit of God and the very child of Satan instead of a child of God.
And the people saying that would be speaking the truth. The babies do deserve 365 Days of service as long as they are in imminent danger of being murdered. But the 40 Days for Life leaders won't stand up and speak the truth because they know that as soon as they started berating the Christians in the USA for standing by and tolerating the slaughter of the unborn, those leaders would lose their jobs. The Christians who support the 40 Days for Life would replace them with new leaders who would shut the fuck up.
And right there, you can see why. I violated a taboo when I allowed the word fuck to enter this article. And, just as the pro-life leaders would be prevented from accessing the minds of the Christians, so too will I be prevented from accessing the minds of the Christians because I violated a taboo, the taboo against saying the F word, throwing the F bomb, lighting the F fuse.
Exactly like it is taboo to say fuck, it is taboo in this nation to speak the truth about abortion. What truth? To say that what babies deserve for 40 Days at a time they deserve all the time; to say that if unborn babies are people, they require us to treat them as people, or, as Paul Hill said, "It's time we started treating unborn babies like they were slaves about to be killed."
Certainly any reasonable person will admit it is not only taboo to begin to treat unborn babies like they are people like you and me, it is against the law. The line between taboo and law is being erased in this nation and perhaps the world. And people like Paul Hill or Justin Moose or Scott Roeder, or the list goes on and on, who violate that taboo are violating more than taboo; they are violating the law.
The line between taboo and law has always been a tenuous one. For most of recorded history there was no line at all. Taboo was the definition of the law, and vice versa. But somewhere along the path of History, people began to see that law should have, ought to have, a reason to it that everyone could see. In fact the difference between taboo and law became defined in those terms. Whereas taboo didn't have to have a reason (a black cat crossing was bad luck because, well, it was taboo), law required a basis in reason for its existence. For this reason, the Founders of the USA declared a self-evident Truth in their attempt to be reasonable men in the eyes of the world. The Founders declared that all men are created equal because they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights. And that was to be the law. Taboo was to be left in the murky fog of history, never to rule again. Now taboo and law are becoming the same again. Instinct is being raised to the voice of law.
You really should read C. S. Lewis's book The Abolition of Man. It puts our society in perspective. Writing from the perspective of the 2nd World War, Lewis could see all this coming because he could see that we were rapidly returning to a time when instinct would be the only basis for law and that time would erase the line that history had drawn between taboo and law.
What C.S. Lewis could not see is that Christians, instead of being deluded into tolerating the abolition of man, would lead it.
Interestingly enough, C.S. Lewis, even in 1944, saw that sexual licentiousness would lead the way to death.
We failed to make sure Justin Moose understood these things. So he has to go to prison without saving one little baby's life.
I tried. How about you?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Recall that I promised Jimbo I’d post the whole “Syllabus of Errors.” These are a hundred or so statements that a former pope said were always wrong. For example, here’s what #56 means: Moral laws do stand in need of the divine sanction, and it is absolutely necessary that human laws should be made conformable to the laws of nature and receive their power of binding from God.
56. Moral laws do not stand in need of the divine sanction, and it is not at all necessary that human laws should be made conformable to the laws of nature and receive their power of binding from God.
57. The science of philosophical things and morals and also civil laws may and ought to keep aloof from divine and ecclesiastical authority.
58. No other forces are to be recognized except those which reside in matter, and all the rectitude and excellence of morality ought to be placed in the accumulation and increase of riches by every possible means, and the gratification of pleasure.
59. Right consists in the material fact. All human duties are an empty word, and all human facts have the force of right.
60. Authority is nothing else but numbers and the sum total of material forces.
61. The injustice of an act when successful inflicts no injury on the sanctity of right
62. The principle of non-intervention, as it is called, ought to be proclaimed and observed.
63. It is lawful to refuse obedience to legitimate princes, and even to rebel against them.
64. The violation of any solemn oath, as well as any wicked and flagitious action repugnant to the eternal law, is not only not blamable but is altogether lawful and worthy of the highest praise when done through love of country.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Invisible Prisons
Flip Benham was recently convicted of “Stalking” abortionists by distributing “Wanted Posters” of Charlotte, NC abortionists. The conviction is a misdemeanor. Mr. Benham is sentenced to 2 years probation.
Probation and parole severely limit personal freedom and cripple ministries like Operation Save America. I speak from personal experience as I was convicted of misdemeanor last year in Michigan and sentenced to 2 years probation. I have absconded (fled) as I view this as an unacceptable infringement to my ministry.
Mr. Benham cannot so easily flee if he chooses for he lives in North Carolina. I live outside of Michigan and refuse to have probation transferred to Iowa. Michigan has issued a warrant for my arrest, but they are unlikely to come for me as long as I am out of their state.
These are the conditions of probation which I find unacceptable:
• Leaving the state without permission (Keokuk, Iowa borders on 3 states)
• Suspension of 2nd Amendment Rights (a toy gun in the house violates probation and leads to new charges which carry penalties of up to 5 years in prison!)
• Paying fines, fees, restitution court costs (mine are over $3500 not counting costs of over $20,000 to fight this bogus case)
• Reporting all police contact (we have police contact almost every time we are on the street!)
• Being subject to unwarranted, unannounced searches of person and property
• Enroll in and pay for godless mental health programs
• Perform community service (ministry hours do not count)
• Getting employment other than ministry
• Paying for probation supervision
• Not associating with people who have a criminal record (My wife has a criminal record!)
The time one spends obeying bond conditions (rules similar to probation) awaiting trial is likewise wasted.
Additional tailor made rules and conditions, such as no contact orders, refrain from physical and verbal abuse, entrap, hinder, postpone, or cripples our kind of ministry. In effect probation places the probation officer in charge of our ministry. Any infraction of any rule or condition leads to more imprisonment and extended probation!
My motion to refuse probation and do straight time was denied. I would rather sit in jail for a year than do 2 years of probation. Behind all this pretense of justice are smiling devils pulling on our strings.
Mr. Benham has one of two choices: abscond from probation as I did, or play the cat and mouse game.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
In Cairns, Queensland, a 20-year-old woman is being prosecuted for intending to terminate her pregnancy. Tegan Leach and her partner, Sergie Brennan, 22, are expected to stand trial on October 12 for importing the abortion drugs RU486 and Misoprostol from Ukraine in order to terminate Leach’s pregnancy (in December 2008). While police did not prove the toxicity of the drugs, the empty packets supposedly proved an intent to miscarry. In the last 25 years, Leach is the first woman to be charged with intent of abortion in Australia.
The last charge of unlawful abortion in the country was in 1986, R v Bayliss and Cullen. Dr. Peter Bayliss and Dr. Dawn Cullen were charged with procuring illegal abortions after the clinic they worked at was raided. They were found not guilty.
In the latest case, Leach could spend up to seven years in jail if convicted, while Brennan would serve a lesser charge of up to three years for supplying the drugs. They say they were unaware that they had broken any laws.
Under Australian law, it is a crime to have an abortion, perform one or have the intent to abort, although it is not a crime in cases when a woman’s health is in danger. Until now, however, the government has turned a blind eye to the abortion law.
Pro-choice groups in Queensland are speaking out against the trial and the effects it could have on abortion legislation. Kathy Newnam, spokeswoman for Pro-Choice Action Collective told The Australian:
This case threatens to set a dangerous new precedent on the abortions laws, and supporters of abortion rights are determined to build a campaign that the Bligh government [for the state of Queensland] cannot ignore.
Even anti-abortion groups are not supporting Leach’s trial. Alan Barker of Cherish Life Queensland stated that this prosecution was a victimization of women who had had an abortion.
Women’s groups globally are rallying around Leach and Brennan in order to get the charges dropped. An online petition from Radical Women of Australia and Radical Women of the United States supporting the couple is asking for signatures by October 1. On October 9, Radical Women Australia will protest at the Parliament House in Melbourne to stop the abortion prosecution and link it to the other inequalities that women are facing. Visit Radical Women for more information and how you can participate.
Imagine what Peter Knight would say to Alan Barker!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
December, 2010 Vol. 8 No. 10
PO Box 7424, Reading, PA 19603
Phone – 484-706-4375
Email – jdmd@ptd.net
Web – skyp1.blogspot.com
Circulation – 114
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 PFC’s, $1000 for others.
Because I believe we should use every legitimate means, including force, in our attempt to protect those being tortured to death, I want to hear from people who’ve been forceful. I’d also like to hear from those who disagree with me.
Prisoners for Christ:
1. Gibbons, Linda - Vanier WDC, 655 Martin St., P.O. Box 1040, Milton, ON, Canada L9T 5E6
2. Griffin, Michael 310249, Okaloosa Correctional Institution, Crestview FL 32539-6708 9/11
3. Jordi, Stephen 70309-004, FCI P.O. Box 33, Terre Haute IN 47802 6/30
4. Knight, Peter CRN 158589, Port Philip Prison, P.O. Box 376, Laverton, Victoria, Australia
5. Kopp, James 11761-055, USP Canaan, P.O. Box 300, 3057 Easton Tpk., Waymart, PA 18472
6. Little, David SJRCC, 930 Old Black River Road, Saint John, NB E2J 4T3
7. Moose, Justin – inmate, Alamance County Jail, 109 South Maple Street, Graham NC 27253
8. Richardson, Alonzo Lee 12898-021, PO Box 474701, Des Moines, IA 5094
9. Roeder, Scott P., KDOC#0065192, El Dorado Correctional Facility, P. O. Box 311, El Dorado, KS 67042
10. Ross, Michael, Custer County Jail, 1010 Main St., Miles City, Montana 59301
11. Rudolph, Eric 18282-058 US Pen. Max, Box 8500, Florence CO 81226-8500
12. Shannon, Rachelle 59755-065, FCI Waseca, Unit A, P.O. Box 1731, Waseca, MN 56093 3/31
13. Waagner, Clayton Lee 17258-039, United States Penitentiary, P.O. Box 1000, Lewisburg PA 17837 8/25
14. Weiler Jr., Robert F. 39385-037, FCC - Delaware Hall, Box 1000, Petersburg VA 23804 (new)
15. Whitaker, Vincent , FMC, Box 4500, Lexington, KY 40572
Thank U John for posting my appeal to prolifers about Eric's situation. It is worse than ever -- he feels a set up for his demise. I am sending you copies of his letters that he would appreciate U posting as a public evidence of what he suspects. More later Patricia (Look for this in the next issue.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear John, Well, it looks like I've missed contributing to a couple of issues in a row now. During that time I was busy working on Scotty's habeas corpus appeal and Jimbo's motion attacking sentence. I thought your readers might like to read a few of the (59) grounds in Jimbo's motion. Laws and cases are not added in the motion at this stage, but I have added a few citations for your readers in brackets below.
A. Ground one: Conviction obtained in absence of due process (count 1).
Supporting FACTS: The Emancipation Proclamation fell short of recognizing African Americans in the law as persons in the whole sense, because President Abraham Lincoln still permitted slavery in states that had not declared a succession. Nonetheless, in an Executive Order issued January 1, 1863, Lincoln authorized African Americans to use "violence ... in necessary self-defence." A legal tradition exists, therefore, in authorizing the use of violence in defense of those of us who, for whatever peculiar reasons of bigotry or prejudice, have yet to be formally recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense, including those who are considered so far inferior that they have no rights we are bound to respect. Consequently, the trial court had an obligation of due process to allow the defendant a justification defense on the basis of his actions to equally protect Gestational Americans from homicide. The defendant would have been acquitted had the trial court permitted the justification defense in accord with due process.
B. Ground two: Conviction obtained in absence of due process (count 2).
Supporting FACTS: In its ongoing struggle to maintain childbearing standards among American females, the Supreme Court has repeatedly authorized a program of pregnancy abatement, using such means as: involuntary sterilization (1927) [Buck: 274 U.S. 200 (1927)]; child homicide (1971) [Vuitch: 402 U.S. 62 (1971)]; involuntary abortion (1973) [Roe: 410 U.S. 113 (1973)], including both punitive abortion and abortion by reason of maternal incompetence [Roe: 410 U.S. 113 (1973), 153-154, 159; see also 18 USC 1841(c)(1) ("Laci's Law") authorizing involuntary abortions to be performed upon a woman that are either "on her behalf" or are otherwise "implied by law"]; and, non-consensual abortion for pregnant minors (1979)[Bellotti: 443 U.S. 622 (1979), 647-648]. Faced with a growing struggle to keep females in standards, in 1970 the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists reaffirmed support for involuntary sterilization and flatly reversed its original 1959 policy on abortion, which had prohibited abortion-on-demand. See "College policy on abortion and sterilization," ACOG nurses bulletin, 1970 Fall; 4:2. But regardless of what medical or legal professionals think is necessary or best, homicide is homicide. The coroner is not interested in when life begins; the coroner is interested in how life ended. Regardless of social or political circumstances, once natural, accidental, and self-inflicted causes have been ruled out, the coroner will always rule a cause of death to be homicide. Though homicide may be performed with skill, including medical skill, it is never to be treated as a medical procedure. Thus, the medical need to separate mother and child in a life-threatening pregnancy, such as ectopic pregnancy, should never result in what the coroner would rule homicide. Consequently, a destructive means of ectopic pregnancy management is medically contraindicated as homicide. In contrast, a nondestructive means provides for the continuing care of the child, such that any death that may result from the separation is either natural or accidental. At minimum, the infant is placed in a hospice incubator; ideally, he or she is reimplanted. Either way, the medical need to separate mother and child never results in what the coroner would rule homicide. However, in 1971, opening the door for its more general abortion policy to follow, the Supreme Court authorized child homicide to save the mother's life, rather than instructing physicians to handle the need to separate mother and child within the limits of medical and legal norms. [Vuitch: 402 U.S. 62 (1971).] Then, in 1973, the Supreme Court generalized its abortion policy to include abortion-on-demand, while quietly reserving involuntary abortion as a backup plan to empower pregnancy abatement one way or another. [Roe: 410 U.S. 113 (1973).] In 1979, the Supreme Court prohibited anyone from vetoing a pregnant minor's abortion request, even when both parental and judicial determinations find she is not mature enough to give consent. [Bellotti: 443 U.S. 622 (1979).] Because the Supreme Court breached medical and legal norms to suit social and political pressures in favor of pregnancy abatement, it is fair to say abortion is political. From this it follows that the Government is politically motivated to preserve its abatement policy, and that the prosecution in federal court is politically motivated. Thus, the district court violated due process by precluding the defendant from offering any arguments, questions, or references before the jury to show that the prosecution is politically motivated or that the prosecution in federal court is politically motivated. See Decision and order of the United States district court, entered 12/07/2006, p. 10. The truth must come out in court. It is never the job of the trial court to orchestrate a political blackout in front of the jury, not even to hide the most scandalous Government truths.
Wow! Many of these 59 grounds are even longer than “B”!. Can you imagine what work went into this?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These are the lyrics for the song A Billion Babies in Heaven that you can maybe hear (some browsers play it auto, others you have to download the mp3 file) if you go to http://www.horsleyforgovernor.com/billionbabiessong.html
If you listen to the song, imagine the Gaithers or some other totally amped to the max Christian group singing it like the angels in glory backed up by the best road band in history. Otherwise these are the lyrics.
There's a billon babies in heaven
Weeping round God's throne
A billion casualties in heaven
In the God War going On.
How long, O Lord, How long?
Can you hear the babies cry?
How long, O Lord, how long
Before you make our murderers die,
There's a billion babies in heaven
weeping round God's throne
A billion murdered babies in heaven
From the God War going on.
There's a war going on
A war going on
There's a war going on.
A war going on.
There's a God war going on;
Can you hear the babies’ anger
Can you hear the rage they feel
Can you blame them for their anger?
We left them carrion in the field;
I know you think you didn't murder
If you never aborted your own child
But if you tolerate anyone’s murder
It's like murdering your own child.
There's a billion babies in heaven
weeping round God's throne
A billion murdered babies in heaven
From the God War going on.
There's a war going on
A war going on
There's a war going on.
A war going on.
There's a God war going on;
Read the Revelation story
God's got to dry their tears, you know.
God's gonna make us reap what we sow,
That's what Revelation 7:17 does show.
.
There's only one way to repent now
To Christ Jesus we must go.
We must die in Christ right now
That's how we'll reap what we sow.
That'll keep us alive here below
That's the Justice that can stop the babies' tear flow.
We must die in Christ below.
There's a billion babies in heaven
weeping round God's throne
A billion murdered babies in heaven
From the God War going on.
There's a war going on
A war going on
There's a war going on.
A war going on.
There's a God war going on;
A God War Going ON!
------------------------------------------------
John Arena, RIP
Indeed, may the peace of the Lord be his who ministered to the weakest in the name of mercy and justice. At 89, John died on October 27, 2010, when he was hit by a car while riding his bicycle near his home in Rome, New York. His beloved wife and fellow Christian and anti-abortionist, Anne, had died in 2008.
Below are the regular TV and print media links on reports of the death of John Arena. I have some comments of my own.
John Arena was an anti-abortion associate whose friendship goes back at least to the time of his imprisonment in Madison County Jail in 1995. I have several “jail letters” from him. In one from September of 1995 he inveighs against the local Catholic Sun for its preferential treatment of (religiously apostate and Irish Catholic) prosecutor, William Fitzpatrick, for cozying up the Planned Parenthood, and for calling John an “urban terrorist.” He wrote me both as a fellow convict, a pastor, and as an editor of Capitol Area Christian News in which we reported quarterly on anti-abortion activism. The publication’s uniqueness was in reporting upon and refusing to condemn any action (forceful or otherwise) directed against abortion facilities for the rescue of the innocents. Such defensive action could not be condemned without surrendering the doctrine of the imago Dei – and the particular humanity - of the pre-born child.
In addition to an interest in protecting the innocent, John and I also had a prison in common. Ray Brook F.C.I is located in a small town with the same name near Lake Placid, New York. The Ray Brook prison had been built first to house the Olympian athletes securely for the 1980 Winter Games. (The feds generally like to house their prisoners in a comfortable environment. Greater amounts a “time” are generally meted out by the feds to convicts, but the prisons are relatively clean.)
I entered the “joint” in 1985 and did four years there. John had acquired a federal conviction for violating the FACE Act which had been encoded at about the same time as John’s were being performed in 1995. The feds viewed the administration of butyric acid into an abortion facility as not only an effective way to close down a federally protected facility but a particular violation of their new law which prohibited any interference of a woman’s sacred right to butcher her baby at will. So they handed John a five year sentence for stinking the place up bad.
There was no rehabilitation. John denounced child slaughter and those who supported and protected it to the very end. He joined other rabble at the White Rose Banquet upon release in 1999. The Banquet was held in the D.C. area for five years consecutively starting in 1996 and was sponsored by Reformation Lutheran Church of which I was a co-pastor along with Michael Colvin (Ph.D University of Indiana, classical studies).
My association with John was primarily by mail, as indicated. I am sorry I did not have the opportunity to spend more time with him. But I am expecting to spend eternity with him and many others who have been saved by and lived in the service of our Lord. With fond remembrances, Michael Bray
Thanks, Michael. I have my own John Arena stories. In the early ‘90s he and Anne drove down from Rome, picked me up in Fr. Weslin’s strange mini-bus, and we drove from Long Island to Fargo, North Dakota, collecting a cast of characters you would not believe, the strangest being “metal head.” I then drove John’s Volkswagen to Minnesota to get some papers. John’s little VW had a half million miles on it! .
A year or so later a jar of butyric acid arrived by mail. Being the coward I am and not knowing what else to do with it, I drove to Jones Beach, which is abondoned in January. Along the way the bottle cracked, and when I opened the trunk, the fumes made me gag. I covered the bottle with an old towel, intending to carry it to the nearest trash can when I heard this din and looked up. Remember “The Birds”? Thousands of gulls hovered over me. And then they began to dive.
Requiescat in pace, John
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
How We Failed Justin Moose or How 40 Days For Life Fails Us
By Neal Horsley
Justin Moose is the latest person going to prison for attempting to terrorize abortion providers. Ms. Magazine, the ever vigilant watchdog of the abortion industry, describes Justin this way: "Justin Carl Moose pled guilty late last week to plotting to bomb a North Carolina abortion clinic. Moose was arrested in early September and charged with 'providing information related to the making, use, or manufacture of an explosive,' as stated in his plea agreement. He faces up to 20 years imprisonment and/or a $250,000 fine."
How did we fail Justin Moose? We failed to make certain that Justin knew there was an alternative to abolishing legalized abortion that did not require us to go to prison to make it happen. Justin only knew two ways to fight legalized abortion: the impotent, ineffective and ultimately self-serving way the pro-life movement has fought it for the last 37 years, or the way men like Paul Hill fought it until they were dead or in prison.
Justin Moose has to go to prison because he is a failure in the gene-conditioning program. He has to be removed from the body politic; otherwise he might infect other men around him and move them to do what their instincts tell them to do; namely, protect the women who are having babies. It is those instincts that have to be obliterated and replaced with new instincts that allow us to tolerate the slaughter of people if they are unwanted on this planet by the people in power.
Throughout recorded history, and assumedly throughout unrecorded history, a man and a woman have shared two roles once a child was conceived. The woman bore the baby, the man protected the woman while she bore the baby. Much of that behavior was instinctive, even if social conditioning played a role. It does not take much imagination to see that the multi-thousand year--at the least--duration of those two roles, along with the biological necessity of the woman's role in birth, imprinted some information on the genes of both the male and female, genetic information that rose to the position of instinct in our species.
Since 1973, in the United States of America, we have all been involved in having those gene impressions altered by social--specifically Federal Court--decree. We have been being gene-washed, which is probably the most efficient form of brain-washing since it prevents the brain from ever thinking anything and makes us all gene responsive rather than rational thought responsive. (Did you know that Bill Clinton and his ilk--don't forget to include the Bush's, those ever-present paragons of Christian culture--actually have conversations in private where they talk about things like brain-responsive as opposed to gene-responsive social conditioning programs? I can't prove it, but I betcha they do.)
Back to Justin Moose. Justin Moose became confused because, as my quote from Ms. magazine demonstrates, the women don't want to be protected: they want to kill their babies if they don't want to be pregnant. And therein lies Justin Moose's problem, therein lies why Justin Moose must go to prison, and therein lies how we failed Justin Moose.
We failed to help Justin Moose understand what is happening in a society that is teaching men they no longer have a duty to protect women if they are what they used to call "with child." In fact, if you listen to the government of the United States of America, the duty of a man has become the opposite: help the woman kill her child. In fulfillment of that "duty" male "escorts" station themselves outside every abortion clinic in the country to usher the women in to kill their babies.
Examine the latest pro-life movement abortion resistance and you'll see why Justin Moose acted like he had to take responsibility for protecting the unborn babies. Pro-lifers call it the 40 DAYS FOR LIFE. I call it the.40 Days For Death
The title of this section is no typo. Even though I am focusing on a pro-life campaign called the 40 Days for Life, when you see what's actually happening, it will be easy to see why I call it the 40 Days for Death.
On November 1, 2010, Lifenews.com updated the story above by telling us: 40 Days for Life Campaign Ends With 541 Babies Spared From Abortions
Let me make it clear that I am totally in favor of saving babies from being torn limb from limb. To save one from such barbaric butchery is a good thing. To save 541 is 541 times better than a good thing. I really believe the previous words, which is why I must say what follows.
The 40 Days for Life campaign is the latest proof that the pro-life movement is most hypocritical exercise in phony Christian ministry since antebellum American Christians in the South made it a priority to have laws passed allowing slaves to learn to read and write so they could hear the gospel and be saved slaves. (Actually the comparison is not a good one to legalized abortion because slaves in the South were not being murdered if their Christian masters showed themselves to be hypocrites who loved their neighbors as long as they stayed in their "place" in society; but I can't think of a better comparison. German Christians taking food or Bibles to the Jews in concentration camps would be a good comparison but I can't see that it ever happened.)
Back to 40 Days for Life. If, as the headline states, 541 babies were "spared from abortions" in 40 days, what will anyone who actually thinks about what is going on there learn about Christians and abortion in the United States of America the other 315 days of the year? If there is a winning strategy revealed in the 40 Days for Life tactic, why is the world not being barraged with the news that we've finally figured out a way to abolish legalized abortion? What is going on that people can trumpet the news of a successful tactic in the pro-life movement, then let it languish as if the work is done until every law allowing unborn babies to be butchered is overturned?
This is what we learn from 40 Days for Life: The pro-life movement in America works hard in 40 day increments. And does little or nothing for the rest of the days each year.
If unborn babies are worth stopping people from killing them for 40 days, why wouldn't that same requirement carry over for the next 315 days?
Think about what I'm saying. If soldiers were being killed in Afghanistan, would the troops be on duty 40 days out of the year and on furlough the rest of the year, or what?
You know what. We would be doing in Afghanistan what we're doing in Afghanistan if we thought there was really a war going on in this nation, a war where real people were being butchered, maimed and killed on a daily basis. There are people who think there is a war going on in this nation.
But in America, in the pro-life movement, we see people working in large numbers to stop babies from being butchered for 40 Days at a time. And then crowing like banty roosters about the lives they saved when they were working.
Is it possible for an observer to think we treat unborn babies like they are people in the same way we treat the soldiers in harm's way in Afghanistan as people?
Only pro-lifers would answer in the affirmative, and they would only answer in the affirmative because they have been trained, conditioned and converted to be double-minded Christians who have no duty to deal with the world in a reasonable, logical way.
The fundamental problem with 40 Days for Life and with the entire Christian pro-life movement is it misses the point. The point is not that one person's life is worth saving and must be saved if at all possible (that's obviously true but beside the point at this time in history), the point is it is against God's Law to murder anybody, anytime, anywhere. But the pro-life movement has NEVER tried to make that point. Only the few--you know their names--who have defied the pro-life movement and tried to find ways to make THE POINT have done anything but create confusion in this world.
For proof, look at the way Christian pro-lifers respond to the 40 Days for Life as if some kind of VICTORY was being won, rather than a terrible example of double-standard Christianity being applied right before our eyes. Look at what is actually happening and you will see that Christians have been trained to believe their view of the world can include the most gross inconsistencies imaginable as long as they can enjoy all the benefits of being affluent Christians in affluent America and still think themselves righteous Christians.
Rather than what they are actually doing (evidence of which is seen in the news articles shown earlier) were the leaders of 40 Days for Life to be responsible truth tellers, they would be standing on barricades outside abortion clinics telling the Christians of the world that unless people came and continued saving the babies the way they were saved for the last 40 Days, that everyone claiming to be a Christian was a liar, totally devoid of the Spirit of God and the very child of Satan instead of a child of God.
And the people saying that would be speaking the truth. The babies do deserve 365 Days of service as long as they are in imminent danger of being murdered. But the 40 Days for Life leaders won't stand up and speak the truth because they know that as soon as they started berating the Christians in the USA for standing by and tolerating the slaughter of the unborn, those leaders would lose their jobs. The Christians who support the 40 Days for Life would replace them with new leaders who would shut the fuck up.
And right there, you can see why. I violated a taboo when I allowed the word fuck to enter this article. And, just as the pro-life leaders would be prevented from accessing the minds of the Christians, so too will I be prevented from accessing the minds of the Christians because I violated a taboo, the taboo against saying the F word, throwing the F bomb, lighting the F fuse.
Exactly like it is taboo to say fuck, it is taboo in this nation to speak the truth about abortion. What truth? To say that what babies deserve for 40 Days at a time they deserve all the time; to say that if unborn babies are people, they require us to treat them as people, or, as Paul Hill said, "It's time we started treating unborn babies like they were slaves about to be killed."
Certainly any reasonable person will admit it is not only taboo to begin to treat unborn babies like they are people like you and me, it is against the law. The line between taboo and law is being erased in this nation and perhaps the world. And people like Paul Hill or Justin Moose or Scott Roeder, or the list goes on and on, who violate that taboo are violating more than taboo; they are violating the law.
The line between taboo and law has always been a tenuous one. For most of recorded history there was no line at all. Taboo was the definition of the law, and vice versa. But somewhere along the path of History, people began to see that law should have, ought to have, a reason to it that everyone could see. In fact the difference between taboo and law became defined in those terms. Whereas taboo didn't have to have a reason (a black cat crossing was bad luck because, well, it was taboo), law required a basis in reason for its existence. For this reason, the Founders of the USA declared a self-evident Truth in their attempt to be reasonable men in the eyes of the world. The Founders declared that all men are created equal because they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights. And that was to be the law. Taboo was to be left in the murky fog of history, never to rule again. Now taboo and law are becoming the same again. Instinct is being raised to the voice of law.
You really should read C. S. Lewis's book The Abolition of Man. It puts our society in perspective. Writing from the perspective of the 2nd World War, Lewis could see all this coming because he could see that we were rapidly returning to a time when instinct would be the only basis for law and that time would erase the line that history had drawn between taboo and law.
What C.S. Lewis could not see is that Christians, instead of being deluded into tolerating the abolition of man, would lead it.
Interestingly enough, C.S. Lewis, even in 1944, saw that sexual licentiousness would lead the way to death.
We failed to make sure Justin Moose understood these things. So he has to go to prison without saving one little baby's life.
I tried. How about you?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Recall that I promised Jimbo I’d post the whole “Syllabus of Errors.” These are a hundred or so statements that a former pope said were always wrong. For example, here’s what #56 means: Moral laws do stand in need of the divine sanction, and it is absolutely necessary that human laws should be made conformable to the laws of nature and receive their power of binding from God.
56. Moral laws do not stand in need of the divine sanction, and it is not at all necessary that human laws should be made conformable to the laws of nature and receive their power of binding from God.
57. The science of philosophical things and morals and also civil laws may and ought to keep aloof from divine and ecclesiastical authority.
58. No other forces are to be recognized except those which reside in matter, and all the rectitude and excellence of morality ought to be placed in the accumulation and increase of riches by every possible means, and the gratification of pleasure.
59. Right consists in the material fact. All human duties are an empty word, and all human facts have the force of right.
60. Authority is nothing else but numbers and the sum total of material forces.
61. The injustice of an act when successful inflicts no injury on the sanctity of right
62. The principle of non-intervention, as it is called, ought to be proclaimed and observed.
63. It is lawful to refuse obedience to legitimate princes, and even to rebel against them.
64. The violation of any solemn oath, as well as any wicked and flagitious action repugnant to the eternal law, is not only not blamable but is altogether lawful and worthy of the highest praise when done through love of country.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Invisible Prisons
Flip Benham was recently convicted of “Stalking” abortionists by distributing “Wanted Posters” of Charlotte, NC abortionists. The conviction is a misdemeanor. Mr. Benham is sentenced to 2 years probation.
Probation and parole severely limit personal freedom and cripple ministries like Operation Save America. I speak from personal experience as I was convicted of misdemeanor last year in Michigan and sentenced to 2 years probation. I have absconded (fled) as I view this as an unacceptable infringement to my ministry.
Mr. Benham cannot so easily flee if he chooses for he lives in North Carolina. I live outside of Michigan and refuse to have probation transferred to Iowa. Michigan has issued a warrant for my arrest, but they are unlikely to come for me as long as I am out of their state.
These are the conditions of probation which I find unacceptable:
• Leaving the state without permission (Keokuk, Iowa borders on 3 states)
• Suspension of 2nd Amendment Rights (a toy gun in the house violates probation and leads to new charges which carry penalties of up to 5 years in prison!)
• Paying fines, fees, restitution court costs (mine are over $3500 not counting costs of over $20,000 to fight this bogus case)
• Reporting all police contact (we have police contact almost every time we are on the street!)
• Being subject to unwarranted, unannounced searches of person and property
• Enroll in and pay for godless mental health programs
• Perform community service (ministry hours do not count)
• Getting employment other than ministry
• Paying for probation supervision
• Not associating with people who have a criminal record (My wife has a criminal record!)
The time one spends obeying bond conditions (rules similar to probation) awaiting trial is likewise wasted.
Additional tailor made rules and conditions, such as no contact orders, refrain from physical and verbal abuse, entrap, hinder, postpone, or cripples our kind of ministry. In effect probation places the probation officer in charge of our ministry. Any infraction of any rule or condition leads to more imprisonment and extended probation!
My motion to refuse probation and do straight time was denied. I would rather sit in jail for a year than do 2 years of probation. Behind all this pretense of justice are smiling devils pulling on our strings.
Mr. Benham has one of two choices: abscond from probation as I did, or play the cat and mouse game.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
In Cairns, Queensland, a 20-year-old woman is being prosecuted for intending to terminate her pregnancy. Tegan Leach and her partner, Sergie Brennan, 22, are expected to stand trial on October 12 for importing the abortion drugs RU486 and Misoprostol from Ukraine in order to terminate Leach’s pregnancy (in December 2008). While police did not prove the toxicity of the drugs, the empty packets supposedly proved an intent to miscarry. In the last 25 years, Leach is the first woman to be charged with intent of abortion in Australia.
The last charge of unlawful abortion in the country was in 1986, R v Bayliss and Cullen. Dr. Peter Bayliss and Dr. Dawn Cullen were charged with procuring illegal abortions after the clinic they worked at was raided. They were found not guilty.
In the latest case, Leach could spend up to seven years in jail if convicted, while Brennan would serve a lesser charge of up to three years for supplying the drugs. They say they were unaware that they had broken any laws.
Under Australian law, it is a crime to have an abortion, perform one or have the intent to abort, although it is not a crime in cases when a woman’s health is in danger. Until now, however, the government has turned a blind eye to the abortion law.
Pro-choice groups in Queensland are speaking out against the trial and the effects it could have on abortion legislation. Kathy Newnam, spokeswoman for Pro-Choice Action Collective told The Australian:
This case threatens to set a dangerous new precedent on the abortions laws, and supporters of abortion rights are determined to build a campaign that the Bligh government [for the state of Queensland] cannot ignore.
Even anti-abortion groups are not supporting Leach’s trial. Alan Barker of Cherish Life Queensland stated that this prosecution was a victimization of women who had had an abortion.
Women’s groups globally are rallying around Leach and Brennan in order to get the charges dropped. An online petition from Radical Women of Australia and Radical Women of the United States supporting the couple is asking for signatures by October 1. On October 9, Radical Women Australia will protest at the Parliament House in Melbourne to stop the abortion prosecution and link it to the other inequalities that women are facing. Visit Radical Women for more information and how you can participate.
Imagine what Peter Knight would say to Alan Barker!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Monday, October 25, 2010
Abortion is Murder, 8-9, November, 2010
Formerly Stop the Killing of Young People (skyp) and soon, perhaps, Stop Killing Preemies
November, 2010 Vol. 8 No. 9
PO Box 7424, Reading, PA 19603
Phone – 484-706-4375
Email – johndunk@ptd.net
Web – skyp1.blogspot.com
Circulation – 121
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 PFC’s, $1000 for others.
Because I believe we should use every legitimate means, including force, in our attempt to protect those being tortured to death, I want to hear from people who’ve been forceful. I’d also like to hear from those who disagree with me.
Prisoners for Christ:
1. Gibbons, Linda - Vanier WDC, 655 Martin St., P.O. Box 1040, Milton, ON, Canada L9T 5E6
2. Griffin, Michael 310249, Okaloosa Correctional Institution, Crestview FL 32539-6708 9/11
3. Jordi, Stephen 70309-004, FCI P.O. Box 33, Terre Haute IN 47802 6/30
4. Knight, Peter CRN 158589, Port Philip Prison, P.O. Box 376, Laverton, Victoria, Australia
5. Kopp, James 11761-055, USP Canaan, P.O. Box 300, 3057 Easton Tpk., Waymart, PA 18472
6. Little, David SJRCC, 930 Old Black River Road, Saint John, NB E2J 4T3
7. Moose, Justin – inmate, Alamance County Jail, 109 South Maple Street, Graham NC 27253
8. Richardson, Alonzo Lee 12898-021, PO Box 474701, Des Moines, IA 5094
9. Scott P. Roeder KDOC#0065192, El Dorado Correctional Facility, P. O. Box 311, El Dorado, KS 67042
10. Ross, Michael, Custer County Jail, 1010 Main St., Miles City, Montana 59301
11. Rudolph, Eric 18282-058 US Pen. Max, Box 8500, Florence CO 81226-8500
12. Shannon, Rachelle 59755-065, FCI Waseca, Unit A, P.O. Box 1731, Waseca, MN 56093 3/31
13. Waagner, Clayton Lee 17258-039, United States Penitentiary, P.O. Box 1000, Lewisburg PA 17837 8/25
14. Weiler Jr., Robert F. 39385-037, FCC - Delaware Hall, Box 1000, Petersburg VA 23804 (new)
15. Whitaker, Vincent , FMC, Box 4500, Lexington, KY 40572
"I'm prepared to die in jail, if necessary. I can no longer cope with the hypocrisy of praying for life ... and paying for death." David Little
T
his concludes Chapter 3, “The Debate,” of Eric Rudolph’s book on child killing, Abortion, the Irrepressible Conflict. It is the best I’ve ever read.
In their wildest dreams the Founders couldn’t have imagined that in 200 years time a value system would evolve in America that looks upon pregnancy as a shackle used to keep women in subjection to men. And in order to break free of the shackle, women need contraception, abortion, and even infanticide. The writers of the Constitution would later witness the birth of these ideas in Jacobin France (1790s). The more responsible among them—Washington, Hamilton—condemned these ideas as incendiary. Thomas Jefferson was initially supportive of the French Revolution, but withdrew his support when it turned bloody. Only a few fools like Thomas Paine, who would actually become a deputy in the French Convention and would almost lose his empty head, supported the French Revolution. But even after witnessing the French Revolution the Founders could never have imagined these Jacobin ideas mutating into a value system that now regards the annual murder of 1.5 million children as a necessary price to pay for women’s liberation. In their day, there was no diversity of opinion on abortion. There were no “pro-choice” delegates in Philadelphia in 1787. Transported in a time machine to present day America, the Founders would think that a pack of Baal worshipers had landed on America’s shores and taken over the government. A tour of University of California Berkley’s campus would confirm their supposition.
“We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins,” wrote Blackmun. When life begins is a religious-philosophical question that you must answer for yourself. In a diverse society, your view of when life begins must never be imposed on another person who holds a different view. “By adopting one theory of life,” the Texas legislature overrode a woman’s right to an abortion, said Blackmun.57 Justice Stevens emphasized this same approach in Webster v Reproductive Health Services: “The Missouri legislature [which said that life begins at conception] may not inject its endorsement of a particular religious tradition in this debate, for the Establishment Clause does not allow the public to foment such a disagreement.” 58
Let’s take Blackmun’s and Steven’s arguments to their logical end. What if our Baal worshippers set down roots in Arkansas, and according to their “theory of life,” children less than two years of age are not persons. But they do make excellent sacrifices to Baal. If the Court forbade the Baal worshipers from sacrificing their toddlers, but allowed pregnant mothers to abort their unborn children, then the Court would be adopting a “theory of life,” one that says life begins after birth.
And Stevens’ ham-handed attempt to discount the pro-life position merely because it finds some of its philosophical support in the Christian religion is typical leftist tripe. If we discounted all the laws that were also found in the Bible, then murder, rape and robbery would have to be tolerated. As noted earlier, all laws impose a moral perspective. Those who are pro-abortion, for instance, advocate a whole host of laws and social engineering schemes that impose a moral perspective: civil rights, hate crimes laws, income redistribution, environmental laws, universal healthcare, gun control, affirmative action, sex education. The list is endless. Leftist activism always adopts a moralistic stance. Their basic world view is moralistic: According to them, “bad” racist, capitalist, bourgeois, sexist pigs have been hogging all the wealth and power in the world, and it’s only moral that the “good” non-white, poor, proletarians, take it back—“Power to the People!” All their talk about “scientific determinism” cloaks the heart of a world improver. Their “libertarian” “pro-choice” rhetoric disguises egalitarian collectivist morality: They believe women have been kept barefoot and pregnant since the beginning of time; abortion is their only means of escape; denying them abortion is immoral. Ask any NOW member whether it is moral to make abortion illegal and be prepared to wipe the spittle off your face as she screams out moral indignation.
So the pro-abortion lobby is correct when it says that pro-lifers are trying to impose their morality on others. But those who are pro-abortion are also trying to impose their morality on others:
All rights imply obligations on the part of others, and all obligations impose a moral perspective on others, to make them act in a certain way. Thus, the abortion rights advocate, by saying that the pro-lifer is obligated not to interfere with the free choice of the pregnant mother to kill her unborn offspring, is imposing his moral perspective on the pro-lifer who believes it is her duty to rescue the unborn because those beings are fully human and hence deserve, like all human beings, our society’s protection. Therefore, every right, whether it is the right to life or the right to an abortion, imposes some moral perspective on others to either act or not act in a certain way 59
Everything depends on which value system you subscribe to.
Once you get through the camouflaging polemics, what is clear about the abortion debate is that the two positions are irreconcilable. Put simply, those who are pro-abortion are saying, “If you don’t like abortion, don’t have one.” But to pro-lifers this sounds like, “If you don’t like murder, don’t commit one.” At that level of the debate, there can be no compromises. This is what happened 150 years ago when half of America was saying, “If you don’t like slavery, don’t own one.” On such a fundamental question like abortion or slavery there is room for only one position within one system of laws. America will either be all pro-life, or all pro-abortion. Lincoln was smart enough to see the fundamental disjunction over slavery in the 1850s. Unfortunately, conservatives refuse to see the fundamental disjunction over abortion today. The egalitarians are not so blind, or so cowardly. They are making plans for an America without conservatives. Listen to Peter Singer: “During the next thirty-five years the traditional view of the sanctity of human life will collapse under the pressure from scientific, technological, and demographic developments. By 2040, it may be that only a rump of hard-core, know-nothing, religious fundamentalists will defend the view that every human life, from conception to death, is sacrosanct.”60 If present trends continue, Singer is exactly correct.
Chapter 3 References
1. James McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988) pp. 465-466
2. George E. Baker, ed. The Works of William H. Seward, 5 vols. (New York, 1853-84) IV, pp. 282-292
3. John Locke, Two Treatises on Government, (1690) e.d. (London: J.M. Dent, 1993) pp 116, 117, 226, 227, 158
4. Ibid., p. 194
5. Michael J. Sandel, Liberalism and the Limits of Justice, (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1982, 1998) p. 29
6. John Stuart Mill, Autobiography, (Penguin Classics, 1989) pp. 66-69
7. Judith Jarvis Thomson, “A Defense of Abortion,” in The Abortion Controversy: Twenty-Five Years After Roe v. Wade, (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing, 1998) Poijman And Beckwith pp. 117-118
8. Ibid., p 119
9. Ibid., p 120
10. Ibid., p 121
11. Ibid., p 121
12. Ibid., p 123
13. Ibid. p. 125
14. Ibid. p.125
15. Ibid., pp 129-130
16. Ibid., p 130
17. Mary Ann Warren, “On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion,” in The Ethics of Abortion, (New York: Prometheus Books, 2001) Baird and Rosenbaum
18. Ibid.
19. Ibid.
20. Michael Tooley, “In Defense of Abortion and Infanticide,” in The Ethics of Abortion, (New York: Prometheus Books, 2001) Baird and Rosenbaum
21. Ibid.
22. Francis J. Beckwith, Politically Correct Death: Answering the Argument for Abortion Rights (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1993) Chapter 7
23. Catherine MacKinnon, “Roe v. Wade: A Study in Male Ideology,” in The Abortion Controversy: Twenty-Five Years After Roe v. Wade, Poijman And Beckwith p.98
24. Ibid., pp 96-97
25. Sally Markowitz, “A Feminist Defense of Abortion,” in The Abortion Controversy: Twenty-Five Years After Roe v. Wade, Poijman And Beckwith, pp. 394-398
26.Naomi Wolf, “Our Bodies, Our Souls,” in The New Republic, 16 Oct 1995
27. Ibid.
28. Ibid.
29. Mortimer J. Adler, Haves Without Have-Nots: Essays for the 20th Century on Democracy and Socialism, (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1991) p. 210
30. Laurence H. Tribe, Abortion: The Clash of Absolutes, (Norton, 1992) p.210
31. Ibid.
32. Dr. Bernard Nathanson, The Abortion Papers: Inside the Abortion Mentality, (New York, Frederick Fell, Inc. 1983) p. 150
33. Ibid. pp. 150-151
34. Tooley, “A Defense of Abortion and Infanticide”
35. Warren, “On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion”
36. Pollack Petchesky, Abortion and Women’s Choice, (Boston, Northeastern University Press, 1990) p. 350
37. Stephen Swartz, “Personhood Begins at Conception,” in The Moral Question of Abortion, (Sophia Institute Press, 1990), p. 265
38. Warren, “On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion”
39. Don Marquis, “Why Abortion is Immoral,” in The Abortion Controversy: Twenty-Five Years After Roe v. Wade, Poijman And Beckwith, p341
40. Ibid., pp. 339-354
41. Constitutional Commentary 2, (Summer 1986) p. 519
42. John T. Noonan, "How to Argue About Abortion," in Morality in Practice (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing, 1998) p. 150
43. Thomson, “A Defense of Abortion”, p. 125
44. Cardinal John Henry Newman, Apologia pro vita sua, (1864) in The Ethics of Abortion, (New York, Prometheus Books, 2001) Baird and Rosenbaum
45. McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom, pp. 598-599
46. Dent v. West Virginia, 129 U.S. 144 (1889)
47. Preface to the Chapter “Due Process,” in Corpus Jurus Secundum
48. Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972)
49. Kramer v. Union Free School District, 395 U.S. 621 (1969)
50. L. Powell Belanger, Prisoner’s Survival Guide, p. 209 (P.S.I. Publishing, 2001)
51. Roe v. Wade
52. Ibid.
53. Sandel, Liberalism and the Limits of Justice, p. 175
54. Ibid. p. 179
55. Ibid. pp. 179-180
56. Lochner v. New York
57. Roe v. Wade
58. Webster v. Reproductive Health Services
59. Francis J. Beckwith, “Pluralism, Tolerance, and Abortion Rights,” in Politically Correct Death: Answering the Arguments For Abortion Rights, Chapter 5 (1993)
60. National Review, (March 9, 2007)
I’ve now posted the introduction and the first three chapters of this incredible work. I urge you to get copies to reread the posted material and read chapters 4-6. I will get a copy of Abortion, the Irrepressible Conflict to any PFC who asks for it.
HELLO JOHN i HAVE JUST RETURNED FROM NC AFTER 3 MONTHS WITH FAMILY TO RECEIVE A LETTER FROM ERIC THAT HE WAS ATTACKED BY ANOTHER INMATE AND HE IS IN THE HOLE AWAITING A HEARING THIS INMAE THREW FECES IN HIS FACE WHILE HE WAS ON HIS RECREATIONAL DOG RUN AND TRIED TO BLIND HIM WITH A MAKESHIFT SPEAR WITH A SHARP NAIL ON ONE END AND A STRING ON THE OTHER. ERIC GRABBED THE STRING AND WRESTLED IT FROM HIM AND FINALLY A GUARD BROKE IT UP BUT ERIC IS BEING DISCIPLINED FOR DEFENDING HIMSELF. i HAVE WRITTEN TO THE wZARDEN SINCE U CAN NEVER GET THRU BY PHIONE. I HAVE CALLED REPEATEDLY AND THEY LEA VE U HANGING AD RINGING AND NO ONE ANSWERS. I AM AT MY WITS END SINCE I HAVE NOT TALKED TO ERIC IN 5 MONTHS SINCE THEY REFUSE TO BRING HIM THE PHONE. I DONT KNOW WHO OR WHAT IS GOING ON. I CANNOT GET HIS
EXLAWYERS SINCE MY COMPUTER HAS CRASHED AND THIS IS ONBE I AM USING IN MY COMPLEX OFFICE. PLEASE PASS THIS INFO ON FOR PRAYER AND ANY HELP ANYONE CAN GIVE. PEACE AND BLESSING PATRICIA
Dear God, and others, please help this pro-life giant.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
And here ends the long letter Peter Knight sent me years ago. Eric tells us what happened and Peter tells us why it happened:
And, that’s the way it is with corrupt people and corrupt governments. They ask you for a finger, and if you’re stupid enough to chop it off and give it to them, they ask you for a hand. Then an arm. Then a leg. And eventually if you’re the sucker so many are, when they ask you for your heart and head, you’ll give that to them too. How could anyone be so bloody stupid as to believe that a bunch of immoral pro-abortion politicians and judges were God’s servants and deserved anything better than total contempt? How could anyone who did believe that they had an obligation to obey pro murder politicians ever think that was the highest law there was? How could they ever think that that overrode the requirement not to participate in murder, their duty not to pay murderers to kill?
People have demonstrated their capacity for selfish uncaring behavior right through history. But nowhere has it been demonstrated near so much and near so clearly as it has in this present age with abortion. Nowhere else has their selfish uncaring behavior brought destruction on such a scale, nowhere else has destruction been directed at victims who were more helpless and defenseless. The weakest the perpetrators could lay their hands on. Nowhere else has their destruction been so widely approved and accepted. Nowhere, and at no time, have there been so many murderers amongst the population. And nowhere, and at no time, have they been opposed by such feeble resistance. My God demands that that response be given. And maybe the problem will eventually sort itself out in 50 years time. Let’s sit back and be patient and gutless and hope that it does.
There is one, and only one, fit and proper response to give to mass murderers when they have been given the support and protection of the government and its agencies. My God demands that that response be given. And maybe the problem will eventually sort itself out in 50 year’ time. The “let’s sit back and be patient and gutless and hope that it does” response is not only entirely inappropriate, has not only been responsible for the slayings of countless millions, but is a response that only will ever be given by someone who really doesn’t give a damn.
When God decides to eradicate abortion, if He does it through the agency of people who have rejected and condemned the only proper response, then God is the god of 4th rate people, not me. Equally, however, if He does it through the agency of a more fit person, one who has given the response they rejected and condemned, then it is clear the God has the same utmost contempt for them and their fake excuses as I do.
There’s no doubt that in some respects my God is a fairly tough God. He doesn’t have an endless supply of mercy and forgiveness. He’s an intelligent God who makes some very serious demands. And I’m glad He does, I’d never want a God who’d accept me if I turned in trash. I’d never want a God who’d accept me if I turned a blind eye to murderers and paid them to do their thing. Seems there’s a far more popular God that’s around on planet earth though. A God who gives his permission for you to abandon helpless victims to their fate. A God who doesn’t just give his permission, but demands that you forsake them, demands that you ignore the victims’ pleas for help. And then calls you a murderer if you don’t. A God that demands that you pay the murderer to do the deed. Now that’s what I call a real tough God. I can only be grateful that I don’t have a God who is that tough. I used to think that only Satan, or only pro-murder politicians, or someone of that kind could be so tough.
Somehow though it’s obvious that people don’t find this sort of God tough. Somehow they can put the victims’ plight right out their mind. When god placed them into a world where these abominations were continually carried out, somehow they believed they were in a real great world, a real great country. Somehow they came to believe that abominable was good. Somehow they came to believe that Satan was God. When the real God steps into the boxing ring, that’s a world and that’s a people who are headed for a very big fall.
It didn’t require an army of millions to put a stop to abortionists. If there had been one person in each million who took their responsibility seriously, it would have been sufficient to do the job. There wasn’t one person in a million who was up to doing their duty. Instead, they preferred to accept the consequences of a 30-year plus delay. They have therefore made themselves responsible for those consequences. All the consequences. Maybe when God gives them the final consequence, then they’ll learn that there’s no such thing as a God who accepts trash.
It takes less than 5 minutes consideration of the issue of abortion to say – “why has there not been the one person in a million that was required to put a stop to abortionists by Paul Hill’s methods? I’ll take the action, the action that says to those worthless creeps, this is what you would have done if you were not totally worthless. This is what you would have done if you even had so much as two cents worth of humanity left in you.
It’s been 15 years since Paul Hill stood up and told the people of North America what their responsibility was. Many people have bad memories and soon forget. Maybe it’s time that another Paul Hill stood up and reminded them what pathetic failures they are.
Always go as strong as you can.
..Peter S. Knight (signed in script. The 22 page text was printed meticulously in tiny caps.)
No other prolifer or killers’ helper attacks us more powerfully than Peter Knight, not us of the “pray and vote-only” variety but we who visit the mills to plead with women to save babies’ lives. I posted Peter’s big argument, the one that has me still upset, in October’s “Abortion is Murder.” Peter there charges us with helping rather than hurting the killer because the mother of the baby we are able to save is the one who would cause him the most grief. She is the woman who would be most likely to attack him emotionally and financially. Here’s how Peter put it:
How much could any abortionist care if someone removed a paltry one percent of his clients? And would he care at all if the few that were removed out of the way were the ones who were far and away most likely to sue him? Once again they’ve only performed a free of charge beneficial service for the abortionist. Once again they’ve only been sucked into doing the abortionist a favour. This is the type of poker machine which hands the abortionists a million dollar jackpot without them needing to put any pennies into it. “Do us the favour suckers.”
If you were an abortionist what better friends and what more helpful friends could you have than these? What better plan could you come up with than to get some of your friends to take over the top positions at so-called anti-abortion organizations; then have them do as much as possible to suck their members into removing from your premises as many of the people as they could who were most likely to sue you.
I have a brilliant friend who disagrees with Peter. I hope he will put his disagreement into writing.
Meanwhile, if you think that Peter’s on to something, two courses of action remain, one of them illegal. Since for me doing something illegal is not an option, I have only one: increase the intensity of the attacks against both killers and their helpers. That means visiting their homes and challenging them in public, and, of course, that means preparing for their visits to us. In other words, we must expand this war between Life and Death from the streets near the mills to all streets. Do you see anything else?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Palin is right, the killing of unborn children should be an essential issue in the 2010 elections. However Palin made one mistake, she should have said, "the killing of unborn children" instead of "abortions."
Why the pro-life candidates continue to say "abortions" is a mystery to me. Is it because they don't want to hurt the feelings of Democrats? That anyone who supports baby killing just might be considered an ogre by the general public.
I just don't get it, especially, since the latest polls find that the percentage of people who are pro-life is greater than those who claim to be pro-choice (to kill unborn children).
Wouldn't it be great if a pro-life Republican candidate would say, "my opponent supports the killing of unborn children. If you want to be a party to the killing of 1.3 million children every year, then vote for him. I support the sanctity of human life and if you do too, than vote for me. Besides, when we all arrive at the 'Pearly Gates,' shouldn't our slates be clean?"
Frank Joseph M.D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
My Picture Bible
By James Kopp
When I was a boy, I had a Bible with beautiful color paintings in the back, about a dozen of them – Jesus heals the leper, Jesus feeds the five thousand, Jesus turns water to wine. There is something about pictures, isn’t there? Worth more than a million words, if you try to explain something to someone who hasn't seen it; otherwise, Our Lord could have just left the whole eye-thing, and just issued us all CD scriptures at birth. But He didn't.
In jail, or if you are confined to a hospital, or, I must add, in our modern world, if you live in an ugly stinking, shrill city surrounded by concrete, or, still, I must add, in our accursed generation, if you spend too much time looking at the Devil's Box . . . it can be hard to see any ting beautiful, to use our eyes for what they were made for.
Jesus said to Thomas, See the wound in My side? He also said, consider the lilies of field. Wait, that's it. Let me stop there, just there. Sometimes it’s just one word that gives the game away.
Jesus said consider the lilies. . . Why didn't He say "Look at the lilies” and let it go at that? Because looking wasn't enough. He wants us to look at the lilies and then think something too, on top of just looking.
The massive marvelous events of the life of Jesus, are just too darn important to only read and then go on.
To dwell, to muse, to ponder, to hold an idea or picture in your mind gently, so it sinks in so deep it becomes a well, a well so fruitful, life giving water can come back out.
I must muse upon your law day and night Psalm 119
There are 15 “pictures” I look at every day, and ponder.
Here they are.
(a little note about location, location, location, the three-most, important points about God's real estate, the backdrop in the pictures in my Bible. Even so, for those fortunate enough to make the Christian hajj, even they have a problem. The holy places ain’t the same as they were. Gotta swap out jets, cars and modern buildings with camels, donkeys, little boats and campfires.
This is why I carry around my bible pictures in my head, a good trick to know, with guards and nurses (if you’re in a hospital ) always clearing away "fire hazards."
Years ago I got tired of looking at the Bible pictures What was it really like? What did the air smel like? What's behind that stable? What's that sound, behind that hill?
I said to myself, wait I can do this. If I can’t go to the Holy Land (except. . . later, you know? DV Upstairs) then, by golly, let's bring the Holy Land here, to a place I know like the back of my hand.
South Pasadena Mojave Desert
It’s not my fault Jesus was born and lived so far away. But He could have just as easily been born where I grew up or where you grew up. Why not? We could have been a little shepherd boy or shepherd girl, growing up in the shadow of the Bethlehem stable, or Mount Calvlary.
So I decided that I did. Jailbirds and hospital patients get special privileges! Yay ! Jello on Wednesdays, and a blessed, sacred slide show every night "in the cool, cool, cool of the evening."
Farmer, on a bleak plain? You too, when the animals are fed and the sun goes down. Commuters? hustling home confined to thin prisons of concrete road, surrounded by Corbusier excretions?
Longsuffering moms, in a cramped suburban space, keeping the kids from running in the street? Factory worker, watching a robot all day? Make him a camel. Boring office? It’s Palestine.
Is there a point here? Please!
In my mind’s eye, during Bible musing time, I “set” the scenes of the Life of Our Lord, right where it takes no imagination at all: the town I grew up in. Then, it all becomes alive and real.
Jesus could’ve been born near where I grew up, just as surely as I could’ve been born near where He grew up. I’ve never to Palestine but I know my hometown my own “Palestine.” You can too. Let’s go!
Jimbo puts tbc (to be continued) here, so I’ll wait.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jimbo also says to post the Syllabus of Errors, so I’ll continue:
33. It does not appertain exclusively to the power of ecclesiastical jurisdiction by right, proper and innate, to direct the teaching of theological questions.
34. The teaching of those who compare the Sovereign Pontiff to a prince, free and acting in the universal Church, is a doctrine which prevailed in the Middle Ages.
35. There is nothing to prevent the decree of a general council, or the act of all peoples, from transferring the supreme pontificate from the bishop and city of Rome to another bishop and another city.
36. The definition of a national council does not admit of any subsequent discussion, and the civil authority can assume this principle as the basis of its acts.
37. National churches, withdrawn from the authority of the Roman pontiff and altogether separated, can be established.
38. The Roman pontiffs have, by their too arbitrary conduct, contributed to the division of the Church into Eastern and Western.
39. The State, as being the origin and source of all rights, is endowed with a certain right not circumscribed by any limits.
40. The teaching of the Catholic Church is hostile to the well- being and interests of society.
41. The civil government, even when in the hands of an infidel sovereign, has a right to an indirect negative power over religious affairs. It therefore possesses not only the right called that of "exsequatur," but also that of appeal, called "appellatio ab abusu."
42. In the case of conflicting laws enacted by the two powers, the civil law prevails.
43. The secular Dower has authority to rescind, declare and render null, solemn conventions, commonly called concordats, entered into with the Apostolic See, regarding the use of rights appertaining to ecclesiastical immunity, without the consent of the Apostolic See, and even in spite of its protest.
44. The civil authority may interfere in matters relating to religion, morality and spiritual government: hence, it can pass judgment on the instructions issued for the guidance of consciences, conformably with their mission, by the pastors of the Church. Further, it has the right to make enactments regarding the administration of the divine sacraments, and the dispositions necessary for receiving them.
45. The entire government of public schools in which the youth- of a Christian state is educated, except (to a certain extent) in the case of episcopal seminaries, may and ought to appertain to the civil power, and belong to it so far that no other authority whatsoever shall be recognized as having any right to interfere in the discipline of the schools, the arrangement of the studies, the conferring of degrees, in the choice or approval of the teachers.
46. Moreover, even in ecclesiastical seminaries, the method of studies to be adopted is subject to the civil authority.
47. The best theory of civil society requires that popular schools open to children of every class of the people, and, generally, all public institutes intended for instruction in letters and philosophical sciences and for carrying on the education of youth, should be freed from all ecclesiastical authority, control and interference, and should be fully subjected to the civil and political power at the pleasure of the rulers, and according to the standard of the prevalent opinions of the age.
48. Catholics may approve of the system of educating youth unconnected with Catholic faith and the power of the Church, and which regards the knowledge of merely natural things, and only, or at least primarily, the ends of earthly social life.
49. The civil power may prevent the prelates of the Church and the faithful from communicating freely and mutually with the Roman pontiff.
50. Lay authority possesses of itself the right of presenting bishops, and may require of them to undertake the administration of the diocese before they receive canonical institution, and the Letters Apostolic from the Holy See.
51. And, further, the lay government has the right of deposing bishops from their pastoral functions, and is not bound to obey the Roman pontiff in those things which relate to the institution of bishoprics and the appointment of bishops.
52. Government can, by its own right, alter the 5age prescribed by the Church for the religious profession of women and men; and may require of all religious orders to admit no person to take solemn vows without its permission.
53. The laws enacted for the protection of religious orders and regarding their rights and duties ought to be abolished; nay, more, civil Government may lend its assistance to all who desire to renounce the obligation which they have undertaken of a religious life, and to break their vows. Government may also suppress the said religious orders, as likewise collegiate churches and simple benefices, even those of advowson and subject their property and revenues to the administration and pleasure of the civil power.
54. Kings and princes are not only exempt from the jurisdiction of the Church, but are superior to the Church in deciding questions of jurisdiction.
55. The Church ought to be separated from the .State, and the State from the Church. (tbc)
---------------------------------------------------------------.
November, 2010 Vol. 8 No. 9
PO Box 7424, Reading, PA 19603
Phone – 484-706-4375
Email – johndunk@ptd.net
Web – skyp1.blogspot.com
Circulation – 121
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 PFC’s, $1000 for others.
Because I believe we should use every legitimate means, including force, in our attempt to protect those being tortured to death, I want to hear from people who’ve been forceful. I’d also like to hear from those who disagree with me.
Prisoners for Christ:
1. Gibbons, Linda - Vanier WDC, 655 Martin St., P.O. Box 1040, Milton, ON, Canada L9T 5E6
2. Griffin, Michael 310249, Okaloosa Correctional Institution, Crestview FL 32539-6708 9/11
3. Jordi, Stephen 70309-004, FCI P.O. Box 33, Terre Haute IN 47802 6/30
4. Knight, Peter CRN 158589, Port Philip Prison, P.O. Box 376, Laverton, Victoria, Australia
5. Kopp, James 11761-055, USP Canaan, P.O. Box 300, 3057 Easton Tpk., Waymart, PA 18472
6. Little, David SJRCC, 930 Old Black River Road, Saint John, NB E2J 4T3
7. Moose, Justin – inmate, Alamance County Jail, 109 South Maple Street, Graham NC 27253
8. Richardson, Alonzo Lee 12898-021, PO Box 474701, Des Moines, IA 5094
9. Scott P. Roeder KDOC#0065192, El Dorado Correctional Facility, P. O. Box 311, El Dorado, KS 67042
10. Ross, Michael, Custer County Jail, 1010 Main St., Miles City, Montana 59301
11. Rudolph, Eric 18282-058 US Pen. Max, Box 8500, Florence CO 81226-8500
12. Shannon, Rachelle 59755-065, FCI Waseca, Unit A, P.O. Box 1731, Waseca, MN 56093 3/31
13. Waagner, Clayton Lee 17258-039, United States Penitentiary, P.O. Box 1000, Lewisburg PA 17837 8/25
14. Weiler Jr., Robert F. 39385-037, FCC - Delaware Hall, Box 1000, Petersburg VA 23804 (new)
15. Whitaker, Vincent , FMC, Box 4500, Lexington, KY 40572
"I'm prepared to die in jail, if necessary. I can no longer cope with the hypocrisy of praying for life ... and paying for death." David Little
T
his concludes Chapter 3, “The Debate,” of Eric Rudolph’s book on child killing, Abortion, the Irrepressible Conflict. It is the best I’ve ever read.
In their wildest dreams the Founders couldn’t have imagined that in 200 years time a value system would evolve in America that looks upon pregnancy as a shackle used to keep women in subjection to men. And in order to break free of the shackle, women need contraception, abortion, and even infanticide. The writers of the Constitution would later witness the birth of these ideas in Jacobin France (1790s). The more responsible among them—Washington, Hamilton—condemned these ideas as incendiary. Thomas Jefferson was initially supportive of the French Revolution, but withdrew his support when it turned bloody. Only a few fools like Thomas Paine, who would actually become a deputy in the French Convention and would almost lose his empty head, supported the French Revolution. But even after witnessing the French Revolution the Founders could never have imagined these Jacobin ideas mutating into a value system that now regards the annual murder of 1.5 million children as a necessary price to pay for women’s liberation. In their day, there was no diversity of opinion on abortion. There were no “pro-choice” delegates in Philadelphia in 1787. Transported in a time machine to present day America, the Founders would think that a pack of Baal worshipers had landed on America’s shores and taken over the government. A tour of University of California Berkley’s campus would confirm their supposition.
“We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins,” wrote Blackmun. When life begins is a religious-philosophical question that you must answer for yourself. In a diverse society, your view of when life begins must never be imposed on another person who holds a different view. “By adopting one theory of life,” the Texas legislature overrode a woman’s right to an abortion, said Blackmun.57 Justice Stevens emphasized this same approach in Webster v Reproductive Health Services: “The Missouri legislature [which said that life begins at conception] may not inject its endorsement of a particular religious tradition in this debate, for the Establishment Clause does not allow the public to foment such a disagreement.” 58
Let’s take Blackmun’s and Steven’s arguments to their logical end. What if our Baal worshippers set down roots in Arkansas, and according to their “theory of life,” children less than two years of age are not persons. But they do make excellent sacrifices to Baal. If the Court forbade the Baal worshipers from sacrificing their toddlers, but allowed pregnant mothers to abort their unborn children, then the Court would be adopting a “theory of life,” one that says life begins after birth.
And Stevens’ ham-handed attempt to discount the pro-life position merely because it finds some of its philosophical support in the Christian religion is typical leftist tripe. If we discounted all the laws that were also found in the Bible, then murder, rape and robbery would have to be tolerated. As noted earlier, all laws impose a moral perspective. Those who are pro-abortion, for instance, advocate a whole host of laws and social engineering schemes that impose a moral perspective: civil rights, hate crimes laws, income redistribution, environmental laws, universal healthcare, gun control, affirmative action, sex education. The list is endless. Leftist activism always adopts a moralistic stance. Their basic world view is moralistic: According to them, “bad” racist, capitalist, bourgeois, sexist pigs have been hogging all the wealth and power in the world, and it’s only moral that the “good” non-white, poor, proletarians, take it back—“Power to the People!” All their talk about “scientific determinism” cloaks the heart of a world improver. Their “libertarian” “pro-choice” rhetoric disguises egalitarian collectivist morality: They believe women have been kept barefoot and pregnant since the beginning of time; abortion is their only means of escape; denying them abortion is immoral. Ask any NOW member whether it is moral to make abortion illegal and be prepared to wipe the spittle off your face as she screams out moral indignation.
So the pro-abortion lobby is correct when it says that pro-lifers are trying to impose their morality on others. But those who are pro-abortion are also trying to impose their morality on others:
All rights imply obligations on the part of others, and all obligations impose a moral perspective on others, to make them act in a certain way. Thus, the abortion rights advocate, by saying that the pro-lifer is obligated not to interfere with the free choice of the pregnant mother to kill her unborn offspring, is imposing his moral perspective on the pro-lifer who believes it is her duty to rescue the unborn because those beings are fully human and hence deserve, like all human beings, our society’s protection. Therefore, every right, whether it is the right to life or the right to an abortion, imposes some moral perspective on others to either act or not act in a certain way 59
Everything depends on which value system you subscribe to.
Once you get through the camouflaging polemics, what is clear about the abortion debate is that the two positions are irreconcilable. Put simply, those who are pro-abortion are saying, “If you don’t like abortion, don’t have one.” But to pro-lifers this sounds like, “If you don’t like murder, don’t commit one.” At that level of the debate, there can be no compromises. This is what happened 150 years ago when half of America was saying, “If you don’t like slavery, don’t own one.” On such a fundamental question like abortion or slavery there is room for only one position within one system of laws. America will either be all pro-life, or all pro-abortion. Lincoln was smart enough to see the fundamental disjunction over slavery in the 1850s. Unfortunately, conservatives refuse to see the fundamental disjunction over abortion today. The egalitarians are not so blind, or so cowardly. They are making plans for an America without conservatives. Listen to Peter Singer: “During the next thirty-five years the traditional view of the sanctity of human life will collapse under the pressure from scientific, technological, and demographic developments. By 2040, it may be that only a rump of hard-core, know-nothing, religious fundamentalists will defend the view that every human life, from conception to death, is sacrosanct.”60 If present trends continue, Singer is exactly correct.
Chapter 3 References
1. James McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988) pp. 465-466
2. George E. Baker, ed. The Works of William H. Seward, 5 vols. (New York, 1853-84) IV, pp. 282-292
3. John Locke, Two Treatises on Government, (1690) e.d. (London: J.M. Dent, 1993) pp 116, 117, 226, 227, 158
4. Ibid., p. 194
5. Michael J. Sandel, Liberalism and the Limits of Justice, (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1982, 1998) p. 29
6. John Stuart Mill, Autobiography, (Penguin Classics, 1989) pp. 66-69
7. Judith Jarvis Thomson, “A Defense of Abortion,” in The Abortion Controversy: Twenty-Five Years After Roe v. Wade, (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing, 1998) Poijman And Beckwith pp. 117-118
8. Ibid., p 119
9. Ibid., p 120
10. Ibid., p 121
11. Ibid., p 121
12. Ibid., p 123
13. Ibid. p. 125
14. Ibid. p.125
15. Ibid., pp 129-130
16. Ibid., p 130
17. Mary Ann Warren, “On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion,” in The Ethics of Abortion, (New York: Prometheus Books, 2001) Baird and Rosenbaum
18. Ibid.
19. Ibid.
20. Michael Tooley, “In Defense of Abortion and Infanticide,” in The Ethics of Abortion, (New York: Prometheus Books, 2001) Baird and Rosenbaum
21. Ibid.
22. Francis J. Beckwith, Politically Correct Death: Answering the Argument for Abortion Rights (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1993) Chapter 7
23. Catherine MacKinnon, “Roe v. Wade: A Study in Male Ideology,” in The Abortion Controversy: Twenty-Five Years After Roe v. Wade, Poijman And Beckwith p.98
24. Ibid., pp 96-97
25. Sally Markowitz, “A Feminist Defense of Abortion,” in The Abortion Controversy: Twenty-Five Years After Roe v. Wade, Poijman And Beckwith, pp. 394-398
26.Naomi Wolf, “Our Bodies, Our Souls,” in The New Republic, 16 Oct 1995
27. Ibid.
28. Ibid.
29. Mortimer J. Adler, Haves Without Have-Nots: Essays for the 20th Century on Democracy and Socialism, (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1991) p. 210
30. Laurence H. Tribe, Abortion: The Clash of Absolutes, (Norton, 1992) p.210
31. Ibid.
32. Dr. Bernard Nathanson, The Abortion Papers: Inside the Abortion Mentality, (New York, Frederick Fell, Inc. 1983) p. 150
33. Ibid. pp. 150-151
34. Tooley, “A Defense of Abortion and Infanticide”
35. Warren, “On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion”
36. Pollack Petchesky, Abortion and Women’s Choice, (Boston, Northeastern University Press, 1990) p. 350
37. Stephen Swartz, “Personhood Begins at Conception,” in The Moral Question of Abortion, (Sophia Institute Press, 1990), p. 265
38. Warren, “On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion”
39. Don Marquis, “Why Abortion is Immoral,” in The Abortion Controversy: Twenty-Five Years After Roe v. Wade, Poijman And Beckwith, p341
40. Ibid., pp. 339-354
41. Constitutional Commentary 2, (Summer 1986) p. 519
42. John T. Noonan, "How to Argue About Abortion," in Morality in Practice (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing, 1998) p. 150
43. Thomson, “A Defense of Abortion”, p. 125
44. Cardinal John Henry Newman, Apologia pro vita sua, (1864) in The Ethics of Abortion, (New York, Prometheus Books, 2001) Baird and Rosenbaum
45. McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom, pp. 598-599
46. Dent v. West Virginia, 129 U.S. 144 (1889)
47. Preface to the Chapter “Due Process,” in Corpus Jurus Secundum
48. Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972)
49. Kramer v. Union Free School District, 395 U.S. 621 (1969)
50. L. Powell Belanger, Prisoner’s Survival Guide, p. 209 (P.S.I. Publishing, 2001)
51. Roe v. Wade
52. Ibid.
53. Sandel, Liberalism and the Limits of Justice, p. 175
54. Ibid. p. 179
55. Ibid. pp. 179-180
56. Lochner v. New York
57. Roe v. Wade
58. Webster v. Reproductive Health Services
59. Francis J. Beckwith, “Pluralism, Tolerance, and Abortion Rights,” in Politically Correct Death: Answering the Arguments For Abortion Rights, Chapter 5 (1993)
60. National Review, (March 9, 2007)
I’ve now posted the introduction and the first three chapters of this incredible work. I urge you to get copies to reread the posted material and read chapters 4-6. I will get a copy of Abortion, the Irrepressible Conflict to any PFC who asks for it.
HELLO JOHN i HAVE JUST RETURNED FROM NC AFTER 3 MONTHS WITH FAMILY TO RECEIVE A LETTER FROM ERIC THAT HE WAS ATTACKED BY ANOTHER INMATE AND HE IS IN THE HOLE AWAITING A HEARING THIS INMAE THREW FECES IN HIS FACE WHILE HE WAS ON HIS RECREATIONAL DOG RUN AND TRIED TO BLIND HIM WITH A MAKESHIFT SPEAR WITH A SHARP NAIL ON ONE END AND A STRING ON THE OTHER. ERIC GRABBED THE STRING AND WRESTLED IT FROM HIM AND FINALLY A GUARD BROKE IT UP BUT ERIC IS BEING DISCIPLINED FOR DEFENDING HIMSELF. i HAVE WRITTEN TO THE wZARDEN SINCE U CAN NEVER GET THRU BY PHIONE. I HAVE CALLED REPEATEDLY AND THEY LEA VE U HANGING AD RINGING AND NO ONE ANSWERS. I AM AT MY WITS END SINCE I HAVE NOT TALKED TO ERIC IN 5 MONTHS SINCE THEY REFUSE TO BRING HIM THE PHONE. I DONT KNOW WHO OR WHAT IS GOING ON. I CANNOT GET HIS
EXLAWYERS SINCE MY COMPUTER HAS CRASHED AND THIS IS ONBE I AM USING IN MY COMPLEX OFFICE. PLEASE PASS THIS INFO ON FOR PRAYER AND ANY HELP ANYONE CAN GIVE. PEACE AND BLESSING PATRICIA
Dear God, and others, please help this pro-life giant.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
And here ends the long letter Peter Knight sent me years ago. Eric tells us what happened and Peter tells us why it happened:
And, that’s the way it is with corrupt people and corrupt governments. They ask you for a finger, and if you’re stupid enough to chop it off and give it to them, they ask you for a hand. Then an arm. Then a leg. And eventually if you’re the sucker so many are, when they ask you for your heart and head, you’ll give that to them too. How could anyone be so bloody stupid as to believe that a bunch of immoral pro-abortion politicians and judges were God’s servants and deserved anything better than total contempt? How could anyone who did believe that they had an obligation to obey pro murder politicians ever think that was the highest law there was? How could they ever think that that overrode the requirement not to participate in murder, their duty not to pay murderers to kill?
People have demonstrated their capacity for selfish uncaring behavior right through history. But nowhere has it been demonstrated near so much and near so clearly as it has in this present age with abortion. Nowhere else has their selfish uncaring behavior brought destruction on such a scale, nowhere else has destruction been directed at victims who were more helpless and defenseless. The weakest the perpetrators could lay their hands on. Nowhere else has their destruction been so widely approved and accepted. Nowhere, and at no time, have there been so many murderers amongst the population. And nowhere, and at no time, have they been opposed by such feeble resistance. My God demands that that response be given. And maybe the problem will eventually sort itself out in 50 years time. Let’s sit back and be patient and gutless and hope that it does.
There is one, and only one, fit and proper response to give to mass murderers when they have been given the support and protection of the government and its agencies. My God demands that that response be given. And maybe the problem will eventually sort itself out in 50 year’ time. The “let’s sit back and be patient and gutless and hope that it does” response is not only entirely inappropriate, has not only been responsible for the slayings of countless millions, but is a response that only will ever be given by someone who really doesn’t give a damn.
When God decides to eradicate abortion, if He does it through the agency of people who have rejected and condemned the only proper response, then God is the god of 4th rate people, not me. Equally, however, if He does it through the agency of a more fit person, one who has given the response they rejected and condemned, then it is clear the God has the same utmost contempt for them and their fake excuses as I do.
There’s no doubt that in some respects my God is a fairly tough God. He doesn’t have an endless supply of mercy and forgiveness. He’s an intelligent God who makes some very serious demands. And I’m glad He does, I’d never want a God who’d accept me if I turned in trash. I’d never want a God who’d accept me if I turned a blind eye to murderers and paid them to do their thing. Seems there’s a far more popular God that’s around on planet earth though. A God who gives his permission for you to abandon helpless victims to their fate. A God who doesn’t just give his permission, but demands that you forsake them, demands that you ignore the victims’ pleas for help. And then calls you a murderer if you don’t. A God that demands that you pay the murderer to do the deed. Now that’s what I call a real tough God. I can only be grateful that I don’t have a God who is that tough. I used to think that only Satan, or only pro-murder politicians, or someone of that kind could be so tough.
Somehow though it’s obvious that people don’t find this sort of God tough. Somehow they can put the victims’ plight right out their mind. When god placed them into a world where these abominations were continually carried out, somehow they believed they were in a real great world, a real great country. Somehow they came to believe that abominable was good. Somehow they came to believe that Satan was God. When the real God steps into the boxing ring, that’s a world and that’s a people who are headed for a very big fall.
It didn’t require an army of millions to put a stop to abortionists. If there had been one person in each million who took their responsibility seriously, it would have been sufficient to do the job. There wasn’t one person in a million who was up to doing their duty. Instead, they preferred to accept the consequences of a 30-year plus delay. They have therefore made themselves responsible for those consequences. All the consequences. Maybe when God gives them the final consequence, then they’ll learn that there’s no such thing as a God who accepts trash.
It takes less than 5 minutes consideration of the issue of abortion to say – “why has there not been the one person in a million that was required to put a stop to abortionists by Paul Hill’s methods? I’ll take the action, the action that says to those worthless creeps, this is what you would have done if you were not totally worthless. This is what you would have done if you even had so much as two cents worth of humanity left in you.
It’s been 15 years since Paul Hill stood up and told the people of North America what their responsibility was. Many people have bad memories and soon forget. Maybe it’s time that another Paul Hill stood up and reminded them what pathetic failures they are.
Always go as strong as you can.
..Peter S. Knight (signed in script. The 22 page text was printed meticulously in tiny caps.)
No other prolifer or killers’ helper attacks us more powerfully than Peter Knight, not us of the “pray and vote-only” variety but we who visit the mills to plead with women to save babies’ lives. I posted Peter’s big argument, the one that has me still upset, in October’s “Abortion is Murder.” Peter there charges us with helping rather than hurting the killer because the mother of the baby we are able to save is the one who would cause him the most grief. She is the woman who would be most likely to attack him emotionally and financially. Here’s how Peter put it:
How much could any abortionist care if someone removed a paltry one percent of his clients? And would he care at all if the few that were removed out of the way were the ones who were far and away most likely to sue him? Once again they’ve only performed a free of charge beneficial service for the abortionist. Once again they’ve only been sucked into doing the abortionist a favour. This is the type of poker machine which hands the abortionists a million dollar jackpot without them needing to put any pennies into it. “Do us the favour suckers.”
If you were an abortionist what better friends and what more helpful friends could you have than these? What better plan could you come up with than to get some of your friends to take over the top positions at so-called anti-abortion organizations; then have them do as much as possible to suck their members into removing from your premises as many of the people as they could who were most likely to sue you.
I have a brilliant friend who disagrees with Peter. I hope he will put his disagreement into writing.
Meanwhile, if you think that Peter’s on to something, two courses of action remain, one of them illegal. Since for me doing something illegal is not an option, I have only one: increase the intensity of the attacks against both killers and their helpers. That means visiting their homes and challenging them in public, and, of course, that means preparing for their visits to us. In other words, we must expand this war between Life and Death from the streets near the mills to all streets. Do you see anything else?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Palin is right, the killing of unborn children should be an essential issue in the 2010 elections. However Palin made one mistake, she should have said, "the killing of unborn children" instead of "abortions."
Why the pro-life candidates continue to say "abortions" is a mystery to me. Is it because they don't want to hurt the feelings of Democrats? That anyone who supports baby killing just might be considered an ogre by the general public.
I just don't get it, especially, since the latest polls find that the percentage of people who are pro-life is greater than those who claim to be pro-choice (to kill unborn children).
Wouldn't it be great if a pro-life Republican candidate would say, "my opponent supports the killing of unborn children. If you want to be a party to the killing of 1.3 million children every year, then vote for him. I support the sanctity of human life and if you do too, than vote for me. Besides, when we all arrive at the 'Pearly Gates,' shouldn't our slates be clean?"
Frank Joseph M.D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
My Picture Bible
By James Kopp
When I was a boy, I had a Bible with beautiful color paintings in the back, about a dozen of them – Jesus heals the leper, Jesus feeds the five thousand, Jesus turns water to wine. There is something about pictures, isn’t there? Worth more than a million words, if you try to explain something to someone who hasn't seen it; otherwise, Our Lord could have just left the whole eye-thing, and just issued us all CD scriptures at birth. But He didn't.
In jail, or if you are confined to a hospital, or, I must add, in our modern world, if you live in an ugly stinking, shrill city surrounded by concrete, or, still, I must add, in our accursed generation, if you spend too much time looking at the Devil's Box . . . it can be hard to see any ting beautiful, to use our eyes for what they were made for.
Jesus said to Thomas, See the wound in My side? He also said, consider the lilies of field. Wait, that's it. Let me stop there, just there. Sometimes it’s just one word that gives the game away.
Jesus said consider the lilies. . . Why didn't He say "Look at the lilies” and let it go at that? Because looking wasn't enough. He wants us to look at the lilies and then think something too, on top of just looking.
The massive marvelous events of the life of Jesus, are just too darn important to only read and then go on.
To dwell, to muse, to ponder, to hold an idea or picture in your mind gently, so it sinks in so deep it becomes a well, a well so fruitful, life giving water can come back out.
I must muse upon your law day and night Psalm 119
There are 15 “pictures” I look at every day, and ponder.
Here they are.
(a little note about location, location, location, the three-most, important points about God's real estate, the backdrop in the pictures in my Bible. Even so, for those fortunate enough to make the Christian hajj, even they have a problem. The holy places ain’t the same as they were. Gotta swap out jets, cars and modern buildings with camels, donkeys, little boats and campfires.
This is why I carry around my bible pictures in my head, a good trick to know, with guards and nurses (if you’re in a hospital ) always clearing away "fire hazards."
Years ago I got tired of looking at the Bible pictures What was it really like? What did the air smel like? What's behind that stable? What's that sound, behind that hill?
I said to myself, wait I can do this. If I can’t go to the Holy Land (except. . . later, you know? DV Upstairs) then, by golly, let's bring the Holy Land here, to a place I know like the back of my hand.
South Pasadena Mojave Desert
It’s not my fault Jesus was born and lived so far away. But He could have just as easily been born where I grew up or where you grew up. Why not? We could have been a little shepherd boy or shepherd girl, growing up in the shadow of the Bethlehem stable, or Mount Calvlary.
So I decided that I did. Jailbirds and hospital patients get special privileges! Yay ! Jello on Wednesdays, and a blessed, sacred slide show every night "in the cool, cool, cool of the evening."
Farmer, on a bleak plain? You too, when the animals are fed and the sun goes down. Commuters? hustling home confined to thin prisons of concrete road, surrounded by Corbusier excretions?
Longsuffering moms, in a cramped suburban space, keeping the kids from running in the street? Factory worker, watching a robot all day? Make him a camel. Boring office? It’s Palestine.
Is there a point here? Please!
In my mind’s eye, during Bible musing time, I “set” the scenes of the Life of Our Lord, right where it takes no imagination at all: the town I grew up in. Then, it all becomes alive and real.
Jesus could’ve been born near where I grew up, just as surely as I could’ve been born near where He grew up. I’ve never to Palestine but I know my hometown my own “Palestine.” You can too. Let’s go!
Jimbo puts tbc (to be continued) here, so I’ll wait.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jimbo also says to post the Syllabus of Errors, so I’ll continue:
33. It does not appertain exclusively to the power of ecclesiastical jurisdiction by right, proper and innate, to direct the teaching of theological questions.
34. The teaching of those who compare the Sovereign Pontiff to a prince, free and acting in the universal Church, is a doctrine which prevailed in the Middle Ages.
35. There is nothing to prevent the decree of a general council, or the act of all peoples, from transferring the supreme pontificate from the bishop and city of Rome to another bishop and another city.
36. The definition of a national council does not admit of any subsequent discussion, and the civil authority can assume this principle as the basis of its acts.
37. National churches, withdrawn from the authority of the Roman pontiff and altogether separated, can be established.
38. The Roman pontiffs have, by their too arbitrary conduct, contributed to the division of the Church into Eastern and Western.
39. The State, as being the origin and source of all rights, is endowed with a certain right not circumscribed by any limits.
40. The teaching of the Catholic Church is hostile to the well- being and interests of society.
41. The civil government, even when in the hands of an infidel sovereign, has a right to an indirect negative power over religious affairs. It therefore possesses not only the right called that of "exsequatur," but also that of appeal, called "appellatio ab abusu."
42. In the case of conflicting laws enacted by the two powers, the civil law prevails.
43. The secular Dower has authority to rescind, declare and render null, solemn conventions, commonly called concordats, entered into with the Apostolic See, regarding the use of rights appertaining to ecclesiastical immunity, without the consent of the Apostolic See, and even in spite of its protest.
44. The civil authority may interfere in matters relating to religion, morality and spiritual government: hence, it can pass judgment on the instructions issued for the guidance of consciences, conformably with their mission, by the pastors of the Church. Further, it has the right to make enactments regarding the administration of the divine sacraments, and the dispositions necessary for receiving them.
45. The entire government of public schools in which the youth- of a Christian state is educated, except (to a certain extent) in the case of episcopal seminaries, may and ought to appertain to the civil power, and belong to it so far that no other authority whatsoever shall be recognized as having any right to interfere in the discipline of the schools, the arrangement of the studies, the conferring of degrees, in the choice or approval of the teachers.
46. Moreover, even in ecclesiastical seminaries, the method of studies to be adopted is subject to the civil authority.
47. The best theory of civil society requires that popular schools open to children of every class of the people, and, generally, all public institutes intended for instruction in letters and philosophical sciences and for carrying on the education of youth, should be freed from all ecclesiastical authority, control and interference, and should be fully subjected to the civil and political power at the pleasure of the rulers, and according to the standard of the prevalent opinions of the age.
48. Catholics may approve of the system of educating youth unconnected with Catholic faith and the power of the Church, and which regards the knowledge of merely natural things, and only, or at least primarily, the ends of earthly social life.
49. The civil power may prevent the prelates of the Church and the faithful from communicating freely and mutually with the Roman pontiff.
50. Lay authority possesses of itself the right of presenting bishops, and may require of them to undertake the administration of the diocese before they receive canonical institution, and the Letters Apostolic from the Holy See.
51. And, further, the lay government has the right of deposing bishops from their pastoral functions, and is not bound to obey the Roman pontiff in those things which relate to the institution of bishoprics and the appointment of bishops.
52. Government can, by its own right, alter the 5age prescribed by the Church for the religious profession of women and men; and may require of all religious orders to admit no person to take solemn vows without its permission.
53. The laws enacted for the protection of religious orders and regarding their rights and duties ought to be abolished; nay, more, civil Government may lend its assistance to all who desire to renounce the obligation which they have undertaken of a religious life, and to break their vows. Government may also suppress the said religious orders, as likewise collegiate churches and simple benefices, even those of advowson and subject their property and revenues to the administration and pleasure of the civil power.
54. Kings and princes are not only exempt from the jurisdiction of the Church, but are superior to the Church in deciding questions of jurisdiction.
55. The Church ought to be separated from the .State, and the State from the Church. (tbc)
---------------------------------------------------------------.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)