Formerly Stop the Killing of Young People (skyp) and soon, perhaps, Stop Killing Preemies
April, 2010 Vol. 7 No. 18
PO Box 7424, Reading, PA 19603
Phone – cell—484-706-4375, machine -- 610-396-0332
Email – johndunk@ptd.net
Web – skyp1.blogspot.com
Circulation – 102
John Dunkle, Editor
Abortion is Murder, a weak, pathetic response to baby murder, is sent out at least once a month. If the gestapo hasn’t jailed you for defending the innocent realistically, you either have to tell me you want it or go the website. Faxes and emails are free but snail-mail is free only for POC’s, $100 for others.
Because I believe we should use every legitimate means, including force, in our attempt to protect those being tortured to death, I want to hear from people who’ve been forceful. I’d also like to hear from those who disagree with me.
Prisoners of Christ:
1. Evans, Paul Ross 83230-180, USP McCreary, P.O. Box 3000, Pine Knot, KY 42635
2. Gibbons, Linda - Vanier WDC, 655 Martin St., P.O. Box 1040, Milton, ON, Canada L9T 5E6
3. Griffin, Michael 310249, Okaloosa Correctional Institution, Crestview FL 32539-6708 9/11
4. Howard, Peter Andrew 57760-097, FCI, Box 900, Safford, AZ 85546
5. Jordi, Stephen 70309-004, FCI P.O. Box 33, Terre Haute IN 47802 6/30
6 Knight, Peter CRN 158589, Port Philip Prison, P.O. Box 376, Laverton, Victoria, Australia
7. Kopp, James 11761-055, USP Canaan, 3057 Easton Tpk., Waymart, PA 18472
8. McMenemy, David Robert 08168-030, FCI Elkton, P.O. Box 10, Lisbon OH 44432
9. Richardson, Alonzo Lee 12898-021, PO Box 474701, Des Moines, IA 5094
10. Roeder, Scott, Sedgewick county Jail, 141 West Elm, Wichita, KS 67203
11. Rudolph, Eric 18282-058 US Pen. Max, Box 8500, Florence CO 81226-8500
12. Shannon, Rachelle 59755-065, FCI Waseca, Unit A, P.O. Box 1731, Waseca, MN 56093 3/31
13. Waagner, Clayton Lee 17258-039, United States Penitentiary, P.O. Box 1000, Lewisburg PA 17837 8/25
14. Weiler Jr., Robert F. 39385-037, FCC - Delaware Hall, Box 1000, Petersburg VA 23804 (new)
15. Whitaker, Vincent, FCI, Box 699, Estill SC 29918
The Lord has asked people to make sacrifices related to opposing abortion which all but a handful have had too weak a heart to make. And they’ve looked for any pretense they could conjure up to claim that the sacrifice wasn’t required. They even deluded themselves, as people often do, into “believing” the pretense was real . . . When they get what they’ll get, they’ll fully deserve it. Peter Knight
----------------------------------------
April, the end of Volume 7 of “Abortion is Murder.” Now there might be an April 2 or even an April 3 but in May I begin Volume 8. Hard to believe that it’s been eight long years since I got kicked out of “Pro-Life Berks“ and had to change the name of this newsletter from that to “skyp.” I’m tired of starting from scratch every year; so, everyone who gets it now will continue to get it, unless he asks me to stop.
----------------------------------------------------
Rev Lee Roy's Good Doctor Gunned Down
Yes Sireee folks
We have composed a short little email
To honor Good Doctor George
Recalling his final moments shortly before
His tail
Hit the carpet
For george was
The Best
Doctor for publicizing his latterm baby killing business
Witicha had ever seen
Well until SCOTT ROEDER
Entered the hallowed halls of
Reformation Lutheran & sent good doctor
To an eternal conference
With other good doctor killers
Good doctor tiller
Was going about his christian service & duty
Ushering in those for sunday services
In the soon to be very merry month of may
Smiling to those he met
Not knowing his final breath
Was only minutes away
Not realizing this would be the day
Good doctor tiller
Would meet the Lord in an extremely close up & personal way
Months later good doctor tiller's killer
Would appear
Here in sedgewick county courthouse
Judge wilbert
Learnt
Of his internationally famous case
And put a bright smile on his lying face
Let's give the media something to write about
And let's give the media something that will give
Good judge wilbert as much publicity as
Good doctor george & vile vile
Evil evil antiabortionist
SCOTT ROEDER
So good judge wilbert’s
Decree
Went throughout the land
Invol manslaughter
NOW COWS had a hissy fit
With good judge wilbert's writ
Good doctors could more easily be gunned down
In the american land
Good proscetutor nola
Played to the cameras well
Swell she said
We will just proceed
And prove invol manslaughter is not right
While good judge wilbert gave an off camera out of sight
Slap to her right thigh
We will ride high
They both knew
Let's just change directions out west
And let the nation believe
A man can shoot a good doctor
And not do life
In the pen
Then after the first degree murder verdict comes in
We can begin
More lucrative careers
Here or abroad
The world will know our name
Why should good doctor tiller & good shot
SCOTT
Get all the fame
And that's just what happened
Year of our Lord Twenty & Ten
A miscarriage of justice
Brought about by a lying evil man
Claiming to represent justice
In the matter of
The state of kansas v SCOTT ROEDER
Tobra (of course)
-----------------------------------------------------------
More from Abortion, the Irrepressible Conflict:
If you think the violinist example is strange, try this one. Thomson asks you to imagine being “trapped in a tiny house with a growing child.” Not just any house or growing child, no, she means a really tiny house and a “rapidly growing child.” If you don’t get out quick, the fat kid will crush you to death. What do you do? The fat punk is safe; he’ll walk away from the rubble without a scratch. But you’re going to die unless you do something to stop Blimpy from crushing you.10
Thomson finds it understandable if a bystander responded to your cries for help, saying, “we cannot choose between your life and the child’s, we cannot be the ones to decide who is to live, we cannot intervene.” But she also insists that the woman should not have to sit “passively” waiting for the fat kid to crush her. She has the “right of self-defense.”11
Thomson then gives her justification for abortion-on-demand. Does a child’s right to life obligate the mother to give him the use of her body to keep him alive? To answer this, Thomson calls on Henry Fonda, the actor. Imagine that you are sick with a rare fever and the only thing that can save you is the “cool touch of Henry Fonda on your fevered brow.” You live on the East Coast; Henry lives on the West Coast. Are you entitled to Mister Roberts’ touch? Should Henry feel obligated to fly out and lay hands on you? No, of course not, says Thomson: “It would be frightfully nice of him to fly in from the West Coast to provide it... .but I have no right at all against anybody that he should do this for me.”12
Thomson is not arguing that the fevered patient in need of Henry Fonda’s touch, or the violinist, or the unborn child, have no right to life. They do. But they don’t have a right to use another person’s body to secure their life unless that person gives her voluntary consent. We are all little sovereign autonomous entities with no prior social obligation. We dole out rights on a voluntary basis. But we don’t owe anybody anything, says Thomson.
Even in cases where sex was consensual, the child’s right to use his mother’s body is still dependent on the mother’s consent. Many people engage in casual sex solely for pleasure, says Thomson. They use birth control not expecting or wanting a pregnancy. But pregnancies occur anyway. Are these women obligated to carry the child to term? Not at all. If you opened your window “to let the air in” (had sex for pleasure) and a burglar (baby) climbed in instead, are you obligated to let him stay? What if you “installed burglar bars” (contraception) on your windows and a burglar came through anyway? A mother is no more obligated to let the unwanted child stay in her womb than the homeowner is obligated to let the burglar stay in his home.13
Try this one: “Suppose,” says Thomson, “people-seeds drift about on the air like pollen,” and they can “take root in your carpet and upholstery” if you let them float through your window. Naturally, you don’t want any “people-seeds” taking root in your lovely new carpets, so you install screens on your windows (contraception), designed to keep out the obnoxious seeds. But despite the screens, a seed gets through. Are you obligated to let the little “people-seed” (baby) grow in your brand new Stainmaster carpet? asks Thomson. No. You can’t help it if these “people-seeds” are floating around. It’s normal for people to open their windows to breath air (sex). You even took the precaution of installing screens (contraception) to keep the “people-seeds” out, but still one got through. They are your carpets; you didn’t invite the “people-seed” to take root. Thomson believes you have every right to spray the little seedling with Roundup (abortion).14
A woman’s body is her private property, says Thomson. The unborn child is a trespasser. “Minimally Decent Samaritanism” may cause the mother to allow the trespasser to stay, but she has no obligations to a trespasser who has violated her property. Even in cases where pregnancy was intended, the unborn child’s right to life doesn’t trump the mother’s right to kick him out of her property. At best the unborn child is a guest. But if for whatever reason the mother decides that he has worn out his welcome, she is well within her right to show him the door—vacuum aspirator. It may be “indecent and self-centered” to deny the child the use of her body “for one hour,” but it’s not “unjust.”15
No one is required to be a Good Samaritan, insists Thomson. Kitty Genovese was murdered in a New York City street, while thirty-eight people watched and heard her cries for help. Yet no one tried to intervene, or stopped to call the police. Their indifference to Kitty’s plight may have been “immoral,” but it was not illegal. Same with abortion; even in those cases that outrage the moral conscience: “It would be indecent in the woman to request an abortion, and indecent in a doctor to perform it, if a fetus is in her seventh month, and she wants the abortion just to avoid the nuisance of postponing a trip abroad.”16 Such an abortion would be immoral. The state, however, has no legal basis to interfere.
Thomson’s complete disregard for babies grates on the consciences of many liberals. So the personhood argument was invented for those liberals who are not prepared to accept the humanity of their victims. In his decision, Blackmun emphasized that fetuses were not persons in the constitutional sense. Mary Ann Warren’s essay “On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion” takes this position as well. Warren defines personhood as,
(1) Consciousness (of objects and events, external and internal to the being, and the capacity to feel pain); (2) reasoning (the developed capacity to solve new and relatively complex problems); (3) self-motivated activity (activity that is relatively independent of either genetic or direct external control); (4) the capacity to communicate, by whatever means, messages of indefinite variety of types, that is not just with an indefinite number of possible contexts, but of many possible topics; (5) the presence of self-concepts, self-awareness, either individual or racial, or both.17
Don’t let the little buggers fool you, says Warren. The “eight-month-old fetus” may look like a human being, but he can’t “communicate messages,” can’t “reason,” can’t engage in “self-motivated activity.” The unborn child, “even a fully developed one, is considerably less person-like than is the average mature mammal, indeed the average fish.” The fetus has no more “right to life than a new born guppy.” Such an insignificant claim should “never override a woman’s right to obtain an abortion, at any stage of her pregnancy.” Refusing to give her reactionary enemies the slightest traction, Warren castigates Comrade Thomson for allowing that some abortions may be “indecent,” if sought for frivolous reasons, such as a trip to Europe: “Whether or not it would be indecent (whatever that means) for a woman in her seventh month to obtain an abortion just to avoid having to postpone a trip to Europe, it would not, in itself, be immoral, and therefore it ought to be permitted.”18
Like Thomson, Warren has a penchant for bizarre examples. She asks the reader to imagine a human spaceman, who has been taken prisoner by space aliens. The aliens want to use his cells to clone “enumerable” humans. If the space traveler doesn’t try to escape, thousands of humans can be cloned using his cells. Does he have the right to escape? asks Warren. Certainly:
Regardless of how he got captured, he is not morally obligated to remain in captivity for any period of time for the sake of permitting any number of potential people to come into existence, so great is the margin by which one actual person’s right to liberty outweighs whatever right to life even a hundred thousand potential persons have. . .Consequently, a woman’s right to protect her health, happiness, freedom, even her life, by terminating an unwanted pregnancy, will always override whatever right to life it may be appropriate to ascribe to a fetus, even a fully developed one.19 (tbc)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
From The Abortioneeers:
Dr. Tiller had a whole bunch of sayings that he said guided his behavior, temperament and advice to others....
* The great battles of life are fought between our ears and not any other fields of contact.
* Don't let the protesters live rent free in your head.
* Solutions...not problems.
* Always say thank you personally.
* A life of reaction is a life of spiritual and emotional slavery.
* If there is plenty, take plenty; if there is none, take it all. (great grandad Romney - quoted by Stanley Tiller '91)
* An infinite amount of quality can be added to any service.
* It's nice to be important but it's more important to be nice.
* It's not going to change until you change.
* When you have to eat crow - chew rapidly, swallow quickly and it doesn't taste too bad.
* It is better to do a good deal poorly than a bad deal well.
* If you are going to bet on someone, bet on yourself first.
* It never pays to dance on someone else's grave.
* You can change the world - if you do not have to take credit for it.
* If it's too hot in the kitchen, DON'T COOK.
* A man has got to know his limitations.
* You cannot be all things to all people.
* Ego trips are expensive.
* It is never the wrong time to do the next right thing.
* Paddle your own canoe. - Grandma Tiller '59
* Glory may be fleeting BUT mediocrity is forever.
* The only requirement for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
The Abortioneers forgot one: you can shoot me but you can’t stop me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Neocutis, a company based in San Francisco, sells a skin cream that it says can "turn back time to create flawless baby skin again." Valerie Richardson, reporting for the Washington Times, quotes its website: "Inspired by fetal skin's unique properties, Neocutis's proprietary technology uses cultured fetal skin cells to obtain an optimal, naturally balanced mixture of skin nutrients." The cell line was developed using the skin of an aborted human fetus. Richardson also quoted the company's statement in response to critics: "Our view—which is shared by most medical professionals and patients—is that the limited, prudent and responsible use of donated fetal skin tissue can continue to ease suffering, speed healing, save lives and improve the well-being of many patients around the globe." And who can doubt that people with dry skin are, in their own way, suffering? It is a relief to learn that Neocutis is not exercising its legal rights thoughtlessly.
Sent in by Jim Kopp
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Theocratic Law and Its Function
Chapter III of Paul Ross Evans’ The Militant Christian
How does apocalyptic preparation and Christian unity violate God’s Law? It doesn’t. God has, in fact, instructed us repeatedly to mind both of those chores closely. But if there was ever a way that the mass man of this epoch has violated God’s Law, many times unknowingly, and adhered to God’s Law in other arenas, it has been through following corrupt governments Romans 13 now comes to the forefront of every pacifist Christian’s mind. Can you not see, my brothers and sisters, that this instruction was intended for the upright seat of government? Throughout the entire Bible, did not God bring to the ground governments which followed idols and were corrupted morally, sexually, and spiritually – even His own people?
As the perspective of the books of Chronicles (Old Testament) is theocratic, so should the body of Christ analyze and interpret the affairs of the United States in modern times. The author(s) of Chronicles analyzes Judah’s affairs, and more importantly whether or not the reigning king in certain time periods faithfully executed God’s law and will upon the nation. Do we do that today? When examining such books of our Bible, it is clear that the Lord greatly blesses His people when the people serve him and promote, enforce, and protect His will, all the while looking out closely for His best interests. As well, it is apparent that when the nation forsakes Him and follows idols or abandons His Love and Will, it is punished severely. Christ’s church will, no doubt, never prosper unless it chooses to abandon evilness, and associations with evil, and walk upright in the ways of righteousness.
In studying the books of Kings (I/II) in the Old Testament, we learn several lessons as well that can be applied to the theocratic mission of Militant Christianity:
* The modern political process can never be trusted in establishing godliness for our people as a Church or a nation.
* The only way to achieve righteousness and establish righteous social order is to meticulously follow God’s Law from Sinai (barring sacrifices and various laws) and fundamentally follow Christ’s laws, and His spirit of struggling against an evil world.
* Genuine realization of the fact that a diminishing code of morals throughout and within a civilization demonstrates a path that leads to harsh divine punishments.
Let us remember the things that God hates, and which are an abomination unto Him:
Proverbs 6:16-19 These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: a proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, a false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.
As well, let us remember what exactly it is that we follow:
Proverbs 8:13 The fear of the Lord is to hate evil, pride, and arrogancy, and the evil way, and the froward mouth, do I hate.
Nearly every modern government strays from the Christian mission. Some were true for short periods, but were eventually corrupted. Many have projected themselves as anti-Christian in every measure for quite a while. The Christian militant does not recognize such a government’s sovereignty or validity. The Bible is law, not those “law makers” who have abandoned God’s moral codes. Morally-neutral indifference is the present mind-frame for most Americans. It is an attempt to smother moral uprightness, such as those codes held by Christian militants, and it must be recognized and disintegrated.
As well, in present times, we find ourselves battling modern media who press ultra-liberal acceptance of anything non-traditional. As a nation, mass man grasps anything non-Christian. Codes previously mentioned such as Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, or atheism aren’t necessarily anti-Christian to the point of violence in many cases; however, they have been used large-scale by enemy media groups, in order to leave Christianity largely inundated.
Negative references have been made toward any Christian group lately, and have left the mass man with a false perception of Christianity. Christ’s teachings and the fact that he was MURDERED by the “authority” of that time have been forgotten, as evil governments have intended from the beginning.
Largely a subculture has emerged, through the disguise of “musical taste” in which it has become popular to worship modern crime and criminals. Most of the mass man, sadly, has no idea what the modern criminal faces on the long term, either. Drug-dealing, theft, random violence, and rape have all been elevated to the position of glamour and pizzazz. The idol of money is surely at the center of such a venture; however, the idols of sexual “satisfaction” and pride play a large role in this mostly usufruct ideology. The nihilist has succeeded in this venture, in portraying modern man and life in general as a pointless and senseless existence. He screams that traditional values and beliefs are unfounded (such as ours) and people should simply enjoy themselves now, before “it’s too late.”
Juridically, we can never let these types of values penetrate our Christian body. The theocratic stance will be an edifice that such nonsense cannot break or destroy. As long as the officials are divinely inspired and/or chosen by a body of Christian voters, this approach will be most unsuccessful. The “values” mentioned above, the basis for the nihilistic approach, is the foundation of modern Satanism and everything that the Evil One promotes. Certain governments have taken to promoting such beliefs and we should work as a body to prevent such beliefs from penetrating the body of our nation and church. Such mendacious self-centeredness has no room or place with those who are loyal to the Father and the Son. Large-scale, the theocracy works as a sound structure that the Church and nation can stand on in the face of such treacherous codes.
Several laws were given for the theocratic nation and it falls on each generation to sort though those laws and apply them to modern living. Practically, these laws may be sometimes interpreted quite simply, and in other cases, with some difficulty. The importance in these matters, as hopefully the readers of this text have derived thus far, lies in establishing a solid foundation to build upon. Indispensably, the manner of our construction upon these keystones is not through human wisdom, rather with God-willed inspiration. That being said, the following principles have been set down.
First of all, the Father is the head of the household, is the authority, and the power over life and death. These rules are backed by Exodus 12: 26, 27; Deuteronomy 6:7, and as well, Job 1:5 just to name a few. This IS NOT (in any shape or form) a manner in which men use God’s Law to bully or mistreat women. Yes, the woman should submit to her husband. She answers to him as the head of the household. The husband answers to the Father as well, submitting to His will. The wife is surely the husband’s subordinate. Her importance to the family and to civilization, however, is indispensable. She is the center of life, and as a woman, who fulfills her obligation to the family in terms of fidelity, loyalty, faith to God, and the giver of love and compassion, every respect should be rightly hers. (And don’t forget Christ’s directive to the husband,”Love your wife.” Love has always seemed to me a more powerful command than obey.)
The husband and father answers to God, as we just mentioned. There is a definite chain of commands. When this chain of commands is followed, the family unit runs smoothly and is the center piece of creation.
God’s Law is equally applied among aliens, as citizens living among a Christian nation. Such verses back this equality of law structure, as those who journey and/or remain living in a Christian land. They are subject to the Laws and Regulations of that land:
I will continue Paul’s Chapter III with these verses next issue
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
More from Peter’s long excoriation of Greg Cunningham and those like Greg:
Jesus’ concern for those people, his willingness to lay down his life so that they too would be drawn to him and receive life, has made all his true followers love him so much the more. More than anything else could have. “That they might have life and have it more abundantly” Jn 10:10. His suffering and death were not just the lure which has attracted many people to him, they are the crown jewel and crowning glory in all his people’s love of the Lord. It makes no difference to their love that a portion may have been drawn to him in some other way,
Some people, especially those who seek and desire an easy life for themselves and their families, would see this as placing a very harsh burden on Jesus. Maybe even an unjust burden. Why not see to it that the Gospel was promulgated by an easier means which asked less of Jesus, and which allowed his people to love him less? But God, wiser and more knowledgeable, knew that this was the necessary way for things to be done. He wanted people to love his son as much as possible so he called on him to lay down his life for them. It was not just a case that God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, Jn 3:16, it was also a case of God so loved his Son that he wanted the very best for him and asked him to do it.
He wanted to be there with his Son. And he was with him until the last moments. He experienced all his sufferings with him. When they mocked and beat and crucified Jesus, they mocked and beat and nailed God to the cross as well. And the more Jesus was beaten down the taller he stood in the eyes of his people. This is the greatest truth of the Christian religion.
It’s a truth, though, that so many preachers have never mentioned, never explained, and do not appreciate. God did not love Mohammad or Buddha like this. He did not call on them to lay down their lives for their followers so they would be loved the more by them. It is true too that Jesus died to pay the price for people’s sins so they would be forgiven, in that they would not have repented and had their sins forgiven had they not been drawn to him and his teachings and had their lives changed by them.
It is God’s paramount desire that people be drawn to his Son and to him, not by the Christmas story, not through any of his miracles, not through any of his teachings, not through anything else in the Bible, but by his Son’s supreme act of love for his people. Therefore, the greatest duty of every Christian is to see that his act of love receives the fullest reward possible. And it is not only their greatest duty, but it is the true Christian’s greatest desire and greatest joy to see his supreme act of love given its very fullest reward.
There is only one way anyone can do that: by preaching, and preaching in the correct manner, by bringing people to Jesus in the way God wants, through telling them about the Lord’s crucifixion and why he willingly laid down his life.
It is therefore a grave error to attempt to convert anyone, whether adult, adolescent, or child, than doing anything other than firstly explaining the facts about Jesus’ crucifixion. And then having them read the following sections of the Gospel so that they understand what Jesus endured for his people and what he offered them (MT 26: 36-46; JN 18 2-11; LK 22 52-58; JN 18 12-27; MT 26 75; MK 14 55-65; MT 27 1; MT 27 3-10; JN 18 28-40; MT 27 22-30;JN 19 4-15; MK 15 21-22; JN 19 19-24; MY 27 38-45; JN 19 25-27; MT 27 46; JN 19 28-30)
If someone’s heart isn’t sufficiently affected by that to be keen to learn about the rest of Jesus’ life testimony, then he is a loser who has a heart which is made of ice and isn’t worth bothering with any further and shouldn’t be bothered with any further. It is sometimes necessary to put one pearl before swine. But if they treat that pearl with contempt, then you cannot put any more of his pearls before them so they can trample on them as well.
In the April 2 AIM one writer said that he disapproves and disagrees with that. The writer told us that enormous and irreparable damage will be the result of any attempt to talk to people about religion, any attempt to talk to them about Jesus. He said that his experience has taught him that good people get angry and resentful when Jesus comes or is brought near them, and that the only right way to bring people to a better and more enlightened way of life is to firstly keep Jesus out of the way where he won’t be a nuisance, then impress the good people with how intelligent and how cool and how credible the April writer is, and only after that might you allow Jesus to come in and give him a chance to play a minor secondary role in bringing people to a better and more enlightened way of life. The April writer listed for us the ways in which he had impressed people with his intelligence and coolness and credibility. Principally, he says, by not talking to them about religion/Jesus. He went on to say that before anyone makes an attempt to have people brought to Jesus, that, “we must first appeal to their logic.”
Well, the first thing you must appeal to is people’s hearts, so you can find out if they have one. Because if they do not have a heart, if they are losers who have lost it, than you have no business seeking or accepting their voluntary assistance with anything. By far the best way to find out if they have a heart is to tell them about the one who had the best heart, and see what their response is to him.
God wants people to be drawn to his Son, and to him, and to a better way of life, first and foremost, by one thing and one thing only. That one thing is not the story of Jesus’ birth, it’s not his teachings in the Sermon on the Mount, it’s not the account of the poor widow’s charity, and he certainly doesn’t want them drawn to his Son and a better way of life by the April writer’s intelligence, or the AW’s credibility, or the AW’s real coolness as this person suggested. The one thing is Jesus’ wonderful act of love.
Maybe the April writer can tell me what he thinks it is about Jesus that would give anyone an excuse for saying anything other than – I’ve never seen a love so true, this is the Man I want to follow.
Having given every last thing he had on the cross where can any justification be found for someone who then insults Jesus by telling him that that wasn’t good enough and means nothing to him?
And where in his life-giving teachings that he died to promote was there such a big error that anyone could claim they were justified when they rejected his teachings? And thereby rejected him.
For what is it therefore that leads the April writer to decide that those who have rejected him are good and worthy people? So good and worthy that he makes them the vehicle by which to try to show that his crap intelligence and his crap credibility and his crap coolness can be better inspiration and do what Jesus’ most priceless pearl couldn’t. (tbc)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The “Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer” sells palm-sized cards with the following information on one side:
Why Aren’t Women Being Told?
Abortion is the Most Preventable
Cause of Breast Cancer
Extensive studies since 1957 document a
connection between abortion and breast cancer.
Eight medical organizations recognize the link
between abortion and breast cancer.
And this on the other:
Why Aren’t Women Being Told?
Additional Risks for Breast Cancer
Combined oral contraceptives have been identified by the World Health Organization as Group 1 Cancer Causing Agents.
A Mayo Clinic meta-analysis found the use of oral contraceptives before a first full-term
pregnancy increases the risk of pre-menopausal breast cancer by 44%.
“Most combined contraceptives are taken orally, but they can also be delivered by injection, transdermal patch, or vaginal ring.” -Lancet Oncology 2005;6:552-553.
Patrick Carroll (Pension and Population Research Institute) in his study of eight European countries found that abortion is the “best predictor” of future breast cancer rates.*
For additional information call 1-877-803-0102
or visit www.AbortionBreastCancer.com
Contributions to the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer are tax-deductible.
These cards are easy to place on cars parked near mills, especially during the days before they do “the procedures.”
Friday, February 26, 2010
Friday, February 12, 2010
Abortion is Murder, 7-17, March 2, 2010
Formerly Stop the Killing of Young People (skyp) and soon, perhaps, Stop Killing Preemies
March 2, 2010 Vol. 7 No. 17
PO Box 7424, Reading, PA 19603
Phone – cell—484-706-4375, machine -- 610-396-0332
Email – johndunk@ptd.net
Web – skyp1.blogspot.com
Circulation – 95
John Dunkle, Editor
Abortion is Murder, a weak, pathetic response to baby murder, is sent out at least once a month. If the gestapo hasn’t jailed you for defending the innocent realistically, you either have to tell me you want it or go the website. Faxes and emails are free but snail-mail is free only for POC’s, $100 for others.
Because I believe we should use every legitimate means, including force, in our attempt to protect those being tortured to death, I want to hear from people who’ve been forceful. I’d also like to hear from those who disagree with me.
Prisoners For Christ:
1. Evans, Paul Ross 83230-180, USP McCreary, P.O. Box 3000, Pine Knot, KY 42635
2. Gibbons, Linda - Vanier WDC, 655 Martin St., P.O. Box 1040, Milton, ON, Canada L9T 5E6
3. Griffin, Michael 310249, Okaloosa Correctional Institution, Crestview FL 32539-6708 9/11
4. Howard, Peter Andrew 57760-097, FCI, Box 900, Safford, AZ 85546
5. Jordi, Stephen 70309-004, FCI P.O. Box 33, Terre Haute IN 47802 6/30
6 Knight, Peter CRN 158589, Port Philip Prison, P.O. Box 376, Laverton, Victoria, Australia
7. Kopp, James 11761-055, USP Canaan, 3057 Easton Tpk., Waymart, PA 18472
8. McMenemy, David Robert 08168-030, FCI Elkton, P.O. Box 10, Lisbon OH 44432
9. Richardson, Alonzo Lee 12898-021, PO Box 474701, Des Moines, IA 5094
10. Roeder, Scott, Sedgewick county Jail, 141 West Elm, Wichita, KS 67203
11. Rudolph, Eric 18282-058 US Pen. Max, Box 8500, Florence CO 81226-8500
12. Shannon, Rachelle 59755-065, FCI Waseca, Unit A, P.O. Box 1731, Waseca, MN 56093 3/31
13. Waagner, Clayton Lee 17258-039, United States Penitentiary, P.O. Box 1000, Lewisburg PA 17837 8/25
14. Weiler Jr., Robert F. 39385-037, FCC - Delaware Hall, Box 1000, Petersburg VA 23804 (new)
15. Whitaker, Vincent , FCI, Box 699, Estill SC 29918
The Lord has asked people to make sacrifices related to opposing abortion which all but a handful have had too weak a heart to make. And they’ve looked for any pretense they could conjure up to claim that the sacrifice wasn’t required. They even deluded themselves, as people often do, into “believing” the pretense was real . . . When they get what they’ll get, they’ll fully deserve it. Peter Knight
---------------------------------------------------
I hope you’re following this magnificent third chapter in Eric’s book:
The fundamental difference between conservativism and egalitarianism is seen clearly in the present abortion debate. Realizing that life begins at conception, the American conservative believes abortion is murder. To the conservative motherhood is a blessing, the most significant part of a woman’s life. As the backbone of the family, the mother’s place in society is seen as essential. The family is the basic unit of society. It is the primary institution for preserving social order and ensuring cultural continuity. To the conservative abortion is a frontal assault on motherhood, the family, the culture, life itself. On the other side, the egalitarian believes that the family has traditionally been an institution of oppression for women. And although necessary for procreation, maternity has historically served as a shackle to keep women in subjection to men. Until such time as procreation can be had without the slightest possibility that it will threaten their ability to stand in relation to men as absolute equals, women need abortion as a weapon in the fight for their equality.
In the present debate over abortion, conservatives and egalitarians stick pretty close to the classical liberal concepts of the U.S. Constitution. Some who are pro-abortion like Judith Jarvis Thomson, and David Boonin-Vail argue that even if the unborn child is a person, it has no right to use the mother’s body, unless she gives her consent. Their argument is social contract theory at its extreme libertarian interpretation. This approach is largely hypocritical because the same folks who use it, demanding that the government stay out of a woman’s private life, turn right around and demand that the government intrude into its citizen’s lives in a number of other situations: gun control, education, environment. But most who support abortion—Michael Tooley, Mary Ann Warren—adopt a very narrow definition of personhood, which allows them to deny the unborn child’s humanity, and therefore exclude him from legal protections. Their narrow definitions don’t hold water though because they end up excluding most of mankind, both born and unborn. Of the various pro-abortion arguments, the feminist approach is the most consistent. Catherine MacKinnon, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sally Markowitz, and Naomi Wolf — all fully accept the humanity of the unborn child, but insist that women need abortion to achieve equality in a patriarchal society.
In a society that has long since driven Christian values out of the public square, conservatives use a combination of arguments against abortion. Stephen Swartz contends that a person’s life is one continuum from conception to death. Francis J. Beckwith emphasizes a mother’s parental responsibilities, and Don Marquis uses Kant’s Golden Rule to argue that abortion is wrong because it deprives a person, the unborn child, of a “future like ours.”
Hatched in the fevered brain of M.I.T. philosophy Professor Judith Jarvis Thomson, “A Defense of Abortion” is probably the most talked about pro-abortion essay. Using a series of examples, Thomson insists that a woman has an unqualified right to an abortion, even if the fetus is a human being. Her essay is a radical extrapolation of social contract theory, what is sometimes called libertarianism.
Libertarianism is classical liberalism carried to its extreme. Briefly, the individual is sovereign, and prior to society. He has absolute rights. Only he can exchange his rights for the protections of society. In exchange for the protections of society, he assumes certain obligations. But he is obligated to society only in as far as he has consented to the exchange. Society has no prior claims on him.
Libertarian liberals like Thomson get their current definition of individual liberty from John Stuart Mill. Back in 1859, Mill wrote a book entitled On Liberty. Its purpose was to expound the principle that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self- protection. That the only purpose for which power can be exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot be compelled to do or forebear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil in case he do otherwise. To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him must be calculated to produce evil to someone else. The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is to which concerns others. In the part which concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his body and mind, the individual is sovereign.6
Personally Thomson doesn’t believe it, but for the sake of argument, she is willing to “grant that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception.” Because even if a person, the fetus has no right to use a woman’s body without her consent. To make her argument, Thomson asks you to imagine waking up in a hospital back-to-back with a famous violinist, who has a fatal kidney ailment. Because you are the only one with a matching blood type, the Society of Music Lovers has kidnapped you and hooked you up to the famous fiddler to “extract the poisons from his blood.” The hospital director tells you it will be another nine months before the violinist’s kidneys are in good shape and they can unhook you. Even though it was immoral for the Society of Music Lovers to kidnap you and put you in this predicament, unhooking you, the hospital director says, would be doubly immoral, because it would kill the violinist. 7
“Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation?” asks Thomson.8 After all, every person has a right to life, and violinists are persons. What if it were longer than nine months? How about nine years? Or for the rest of your life? This example is Thomson’s argument in defense of abortion for pregnancies caused by rape.
What about cases of pregnancy that threaten the life or health of the mother? For these cases, Thomson asks whether it is moral for the hospital director, who knows the violinist is going to die anyway, to keep you hooked up to the violinist because unhooking you would prematurely cause the death of the fiddler:
“It’s all most distressing,” says the director, “and I deeply sympathize, but you see this is putting an additional strain on your kidneys, and you’ll be dead within the month. But you have to stay where you are all the same. Because unplugging you would be directly killing an innocent violinist, and that’s murder, and that’s impermissible.”
This is simply intolerable and asking too much of a person, says Thomson. You have more than enough right “to reach around your back and unplug yourself from that violinist to save your life.”9 (tbc)
---------------------------------------------
Hello John I have finally finished putting Abortion: the Irrepressible Conflict into book form and ready to send U one FREE. Because of the lawsuit of E. Lyons, we cannot sell them.
If U know of anyone else who would like a copy and will seriously read it please let me know. I think, and I guess I am prejudiced, this is the most informative book on this issue
of cultural identity and demise written to date. If anyone would like to send donations for the Memorial for the Unborn my son Daniel is establishing, it would be appreciated. Enjoy and keep up the good fight. Abortion is the holocaust and a collective guilt just like the Jews in Germany so this country will not escape judgment now or in the years to come.
Patricia Rudolph
I agree absolutely with Patricia’s fourth sentence. Send donations to Memorial for the Unborn, 1159 Four Seasons (103), Sarasota, FL 34234
------------------------------------------------------------------------
John, in your latest newsletter Cal spent an enormous amount of energy and study trying to explain which tree we all need to be barking up.
But Cal missed reality about as far as reality can be missed. That's because Cal assumes. Wait, did I say ASS U ME? that’s right, Cal assumes that the Supreme Court is going to be able to decide which Rights are given to the States. Listen to what Cal says about what the Supreme Court can be expected to allow the States to do, "But if they [the States] do not include exceptions for legally performed forced abortions, states will no longer be allowed to override the woman's decision to refuse an abortion, whether on the basis of incompetence or drug use, not even if the Court at a later date overturns Roe in favor of the states' rights!"
Cal's fundamental assumption shows Cal is nothing but a fully conditioned federal lapdog, I mean, lawyer. Cal's fundamental assumption shows Cal can't even THINK about the reality unfolding in this nation. That's because Cal can't imagine that a State or States might have the Right and reveal the power to do what God wants done, totally uncontrolled by contrary instructions from the Supreme Court, totally uncontrolled by what the Supreme Court says or wants or ORDERS.
The foundation of States' Rights is the idea declared by the Founders of this nation that after a long train of abuses and usurpations THE STATE can overthrow the despotic power of the federal government, no matter what the Supreme Court says. Or we can all die trying.
Nothing in American history or the Mind of God has destroyed that foundation.
Does that make you proud to be an American, or what?
Neal, Horsley for Governor
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Both these guys are too smart for me, so I don’t know who’s right, but here’s the beginning of the Writ of Habeas Corpus Cal wrote for Scott and for anyone else who can use it. Sounds powerful. Neal?
Address of Petitioner:
Scott P. Roeder
C/O SEDGWICK COUNTY DETENTION FACILITY
141 W ELM ST
WICHITA, KS 67203-3848
Address of Custodian:
Sheriff Robert Hinshaw
SEDGWICK COUNTY DETENTION FACILITY
141 W ELM ST
WICHITA, KS 67203-3848
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF SEDGWICK COUNTY, KANSAS
) Case No. ______________________
In Re Scott P. Roeder,)
petitioner. ) PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS
)
________________________)
PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS
I, Scott P. Roeder, pray that a writ of habeas corpus will issue without delay to free me from wrongful restraint.
I state that: 1) I am restrained at the Sedgwick County Detention Facility, located at 141 W. Elm St., Wichita, Kansas 67203, in the custody of Sheriff Robert Hinshaw; 2) to the best of my knowledge and belief, the cause or pretense of the restraint is that I have been arrested and charged with one count of first degree murder and two counts of aggravated assault; and, 3) the restraint is wrongful because the judges in my case have shown heightened disregard for the presumption of my innocence (claim 1), my custodian has made public, in a manner depriving me of the presumption of my innocence, the names and addresses of my visitors and those who have written me while in custody (claim 2), my custodian has singled out my correspondence for unusual scrutiny, in a manner suggesting departure from impartial treatment, without justifying such an exercise of political power and privilege (claim 3), the prosecution in my case has made libelous allegations to undermine the impartiality I receive (claim 4), counsel for my defense has disparaged me in a manner unbecoming of impartial treatment (claim 5), counsel for my defense caused me to lose at trial by failing to provide a meaningful defense (claim 6), and the court denied a defense of voluntary manslaughter in a manner contrary to United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285 (2008), and contrary to the presumption of my innocence (claim 7).
Habeas corpus being a personal right under § 8 of the Kansas Bill of Rights, I present these claims personally, in addition to any claims to habeas corpus relief presented now or in the future by counsel on my behalf.
In support of these claims, I state the facts as follows:
CLAIM 1
There is cause for a writ of habeas corpus to free me on the basis of technicality: I was denied my right to bail, and thereafter subjected to excessive bail, in violation of § 9 of the Kansas Bill of Rights, thereby creating a presumption of guilt in view of such exceptional treatment, in violation of my right under Kansas law and the Constitution of the United States to be presumed innocent until proven guilty; I was denied the assistance of counsel, in violation of my rights under the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; in absence of counsel, I was made the object of public spectacle, on national television, without court clothes, in violation of my right to impartial proceedings under the Sixth Amendment; my Eighth Amendment rights under the Constitution of the United States were violated by imposing excessive bail and inflicting cruel and unusual punishment; my First Amendment rights under the Constitution of the United States to free speech and freedom of the press were violated by increasing my bail on the basis of lawful forms of abstract advocacy; and, my rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States to due process and the equal protection of the laws were violated on the basis of disproportionate treatment.
After being taken into custody, I was kept in a freezing jail cell, so that I started having a bad cough and thought I would have pneumonia; I was in need of my sleep apnea machine; and, I was denied telephone privileges for two days. After being subjected to such cruelty by my custodian, the judge in my case made a public spectacle of me, forcing me to appear on television without the assistance of counsel or court clothes, before a national audience; furthermore, the judge did unlawfully subvert my right to bail under Kansas law at that time, thereby casting a shadow of doubt on the presumption of my innocence, given his recourse to exceptional treatment. This shows that the judge had unreasonable bias against me. It also shows I was subjected to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment, having been singled out for such abuse in a manner departing from custom.
Later, another judge in my case imposed excessive bail along with a suggestion designed to create public distrust for the presumption of my innocence. In support of this claim, I note that Sedgwick County Judge Warren Wilbert stated the following when increasing bail:
"His contact with the news media and the comments that he has made certainly cast a different light on Mr. Roeder, and if he were to make bond, No. 1, if he wouldn't be a flight risk; No. 2, whether he wouldn't perpetuate, participate or enact any more violence on his own or in concert with others," Judge Wilbert said at a June 10 hearing, according to a court transcript reported by CNN. (emphasis added)
Having been preceded by a complete denial of my right to bail under Kansas law, the imposition thereafter of excessive bail along with a suggestion that I might enact "more" violence if I make bond demonstrates heightened disregard for the presumption of my innocence. Widespread derogation from the presumption of my innocence influenced my decision to confess, that I might at least obtain the benefit of a necessity defense; moreover, subsequent confession does not mitigate the gravity of prior offenses against impartiality and due process.
I should complete this next issue. If anyone needs it before then, let me know.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 13th and 14th issues of this volume, I posted a long letter from Jim Kopp in response to an article in the “New Oxford Review” by Judie Brown condemning the use of force. Here Jim adds four additional reasons for prolifers to be more forceful than we have been.
# 14. Bill Cotter, of Boston Rescue
I don’t want to put words in Bill's mouth, but I seem to remember that he wrote a letter on the subject of the use of force to save babies. He did not come out and say it was the greatest thing since sliced bread, but he did say, if I recall correctly, that it was not murder, and it was discussable. This means a lot coming from Bill, who has weathered a lot of abuse about the Salvi thing (see above, entire letter).
# 15 someone you know.
Let's continue the brave and holy and necessary tradition started
by Friends of Paul Hill in the 90's. Nineteen brave people signed this:
“Any force justified to save the life of a born child is justified to save the life on an unborn child.”
Keep an eye out for the few, last people who will say the obvious in public, instead of being afraid. "Be not afraid," Our Lord said, and JP II made it his theme.
If you want to sign this, contact your nearest skyp distributor today! And please give a copy of this letter and the Roeder defense letter (skyp, fall, 09) to any pastor/priest or prolifer you know. [Don’t know what “Roeder defense letter” Jimbo refers to here. I went through the fall issues and nothing jumped out at me. Any help?]
#16 I remember the first time I saw a rescuer list that said "I'll rescue if a thousand people sign up.” I was very encouraged,
and I signed up. Many hands make light work.
“bolder and bolder they go as they go to the fore,
When stouthearted men will stick together hand in hand.”
#17 “If your enemy has a conscience, go with Mohandas Gandhi. If your enemy does not have a conscience, go with Dietrich Bonhoeffer" Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., . . .
think about it. Bonhoeffer was not murdered by Hitler for “praying” and protesting . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------
Here is Paul Ross Evans’ second chapter:
II. Theocracy – The True Government for the Militant Christian
When we speak of theocracy in this text, it should be said that we are speaking of a government by officials regarded as divinely inspired, and a state governed by that fore mentioned.
Some would say that through democratic voting a man is somewhat chosen and ordained by God. However, when the mass man of a specified region and epoch does not adhere to Christian doctrine and principles, the resultant vote-winner is simply not a reflection of “God’s choice,” rather the people’s choice. Humanity’s choice.
What does the mass man of this epoch reflect? What would today’s people choose? Today’s mass man, and especially today’s bourgeoisie, is spoiled. Years, even centuries, ago what would have been considered vast blessings have been transformed, neoterically, into a deserving right, to be demanded. People of past generations were accepting of the fact that there was a portion of everyone’s existence when man was destined to suffer. Clearly liberalism, which now encourages our people from all angles to claim liberty from the restraints of our Eternal Destinies, strives for freedom of criticism by the dominant religious influence of each specific region. Such brand of democracy has clouded our visions, our judgment. Along with technological advancement, the mass man, who embodies the greatest capability of good and evil as well as many of an ill-formed nature, has advanced to positions in which these liberal overtones bleed into such democratic mass voting processes.
In short, there is no hope in electing an official statistically in this country when examining the make-up of said voting body. However, if that make-up were tipped exclusively in our favor, the results would be different obviously. This is nevertheless what I speak of in this text when mentioning the merging of the democratic vote in a Theocratic State. That is what I advocate and support as a militant Christian of the twenty-first century.
A theocracy is the plan, and the vision, of the true Christian militant. What I intend to describe in the following text is not only a marriage of the theocracy and a democratic vote, but as well a marriage of the theocracy and government by Judges mentioned and described in the Biblical book of the same name. Here God raises Chieftains and deliverers because the people had repented. We intend to apply this same process. But first we must look to where our theocracy originates, after the previous precursor, to where exactly we are headed with this.
It begins certainly with God’s direct declaration of sole Rule over His people, starting in Exodus 19: 3-8 (KJV):
3 And Moses went unto God, and the Lord called unto him out of the mountain, saying, Thus shalt thou say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel
4 Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles’ wings, and brought you unto myself
5 Now therefore, if you will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shalt be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people, for all the earth is mine
6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel
7 And Moses came and called for the elders of the people, and laid before their faces these words which the Lord commanded him
8 And all the people answered together, and said, all that the Lord hath spoken we will do. And Moses returned the words of the people unto the Lord.
According to patriarchal philosophy, something we will delve into more later in this text when examining the importance of the family unit in Christian culture and civilization, the Father is the head, authority, and power over life and death. This authority is furthered by verses such as Exodus 12: 26,27 and Exodus 13: 8, 14 and portrays precisely that the Father instructs and directs his household. This is a mirror image of how we are directed to follow God the Father’s instruction. Deuteronomy 6:7 further displays the father’s role in the household and, as well, gives us the frank instruction in this verse (and verses just like it) that as governments are set up to govern Christian men and women, God the Father is our omnipresent, omnipotent leader and sole guidance. Job 1:5, in turn, is an exhibition of the father of the household’s great responsibility as each individual family’s guiding force.
As the book of Judges presents for Christians, a pattern of failure/punishment/deliverance is dominant (in such books) and is useful in understanding God’s way. It should be said that a Christian body of believers should be observant of such examples when establishing judges for their territories. Once a Christian body of individuals is in the position of setting up a fresh government for themselves and their given land, they have the duty of establishing a democratic voting system that will help to raise into power those they feel have been ordained by God the Father. Through these judges, God leads through the fundamental working theocracy. When the Christian body feels that the judge has fallen away from God’s instruction, and he refrains from directing the body in such a direction, he is to be removed immediately.
This is not to say that judges are never to make mistakes, as is evident in the book of Judges in our Holy Bible. Our theocratic government is simply a form of government, with God as the head and direct ruler of the people, working through appointed leaders who, in actuality, were raised up by God to judge the people.
The supreme and unequivocal law concerning morals, treatment of foreigners, slavery, taxation, military laws, laws for domestic relations, parental laws and powers, and criminal law are all outlined in detail throughout the Bible. Many of these areas are covered throughout this text. As mentioned before (as well as throughout the Bible) we are far from perfect. We are sinful by nature, in fact, as humans. However, we attempt to deny such nature, these laws are given to us for a reason. As Christian militants we are to uphold God’s Law, using force, if necessary. It is my belief that the laws give to us by the Father, God, reflect understanding and a fair but stern authority. Some of the offenses described, however, in this text as well as our Bibles, are atrocities. These atrocities are not only committed towards the individual they are perpetrated against but they are also threats toward the foundation of an upright Christian society.
As this text is written, we will consider the reader well-informed of the fact that it has been a great struggle to establish a beacon, and secure a land, for the militant Christian nation. So with respect to that, and as we follow God’s law, we must purge from among us certain atrocious sinners in order to cleanse our upright Christian nation. This will secure a remission of those acts which have been committed among us. If we refuse to act, and ignore such behavior, we bring those punishments upon us for turning a blind eye towards those particular types of behavior.
The faithful and genuine Christian militant never allows, in the society he lives in, God’s law to take a back seat to civil law. This is a sheer impossibility for anyone reading our Father’s written law, and studying it in all earnestness and in truth. God’s law never molds or shape-shifts to fit the ruling body. God’s law never forms into a modified version in support of the present inhabitant’s false idols. Severe punishments are dispensed by God throughout the Bible for any such type of Liberal tolerance and apathy. God’s law is a direct portion of the Rock that it is built upon. Even THE Rock states later in this life, in Matthew 10:34 – “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I come not to send peace, but a sword.” Let us never forget that He was then tortured to death by the “authorized figures” (of that time and place) for opposing their misbegotten rule.
At one time, in recent history – and when I use the term “recent,” I speak, still, of several hundreds of years ago – we began to draw close to God the Father of a nation. We attempted to establish a land in which Christians could live and work, serving our most-high God. However, as in the case of ANY monarchy or democracy that is not the TRUE theocracy, the propensity for corruption by human hands strangles out virtue in the end.
Eventually these types of societies, which began with variations of great and small intentions of establishing Christian nations, are overtaken by wicked seeds planted from all directions by the Evil One. Somewhere in time, as the mass man visualizes his leaders’ falling, bow-worshipping, technological “progression,” industry, money, lust and/or the worship of personal relationships, he follows, and all is lost. Typically at this point, the last remnants of true virtue are overtaken by extreme forms of liberal and socialist ideologies. Eventually, the mass man begins to cling to some type of order, yet he still resents the Christian-based life walk, and especially the true and faithful follower of Christ. So he clings to anything non-Christian at core. They aren’t necessarily Anti-Christian, yet they all work together to hypnotize the potential Christian, and for our purpose this is surely negative. Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, Atheism, the Occult, and many more false religions are simply used to deny Christ. Many blame Christians – other humans – for their resentments toward the world and the way it has always been. Many hold strong resentments towards organized religion on any scale. In turn, “religions” which elevate the self and/or promote a higher power, but leave plenty of room for the human mind to dictate, are adhered to vehemently. These established “religions” are simply used to meet the needs all of us have to serve a higher power, and to belong. Sadly, these ill-guided children have chosen poorly, chosen falsely.
The illusions of modern crime have worked in the last decades to chip away any of the final strands of morality our youth grasped a hold of. These illusions portray the drug dealer, the thief, the flesh-peddler, or the violent member of organized crime as holding a position of respect within our community. He has an “upper hand” with either brute force, tactics of the school yard bully, or with possession of a large amount of money or influence. What does this say about a society, when a criminal has been elevated to the position of hero in modern media? Herein lies one of the purest examples of what that society finds important: money and/or power over other humans.
Such life walks inevitably fail in the end, and said individuals who so foolishly follow such paths fall with it. For such things only last so long, and are vanity – as the preacher of Ecclesiastes describes for us perfectly. Long term happiness, however, lies in following the God of Israel and adhering to, and enforcing, His rules, at all costs. (I’ll start ChapterIII next issue))
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Zechariah 10:5
And they shall be as mighty men, which tread down their enemies in the mire of the streets, in the battle and they shall fight because the Lord is with them, and the riders on horses shall be confounded.
Let's act like mighty men & women & not be cowed down by evil proabort prohomo lovers.
FEAR THEM NOT
LIKE THEM NOT
SPARE THEM NOT
ONWARD CHRISTIANS WARRIORS
MARCHING OFF TO WAR
LIKE ROEDER HILL RUDOLPH KOPP
WAAGNER GRIFFIN SHANNON
JORDI SMART ANDERSON MCMENEMY
BRAY EVANS MITCHELL MCKNIGHT
Tobra
GIBBONS HOWARD KNIGHT RICHARDSON WHITAKER
me
------------------------------------------------------------
The informant responsible for Jim Kopp’s incarceration ran across a copy of this newsletter recently and got interested enough to call me. “Jack” and I have been communicating since then by phone and email. I asked Jack why he cooperated with the feds (they had approached him several times before he agreed) and he said it was the word “murder” that persuaded him.
He also said, “I won’t lie to you, economics was a factor” (Jack had been promised over a million dollars from the governments of the US and Canada if things worked out) but when they told me that they were trying to solve a murder, I stopped resisting.
After Jim’s arrest the US paid its share of the award, but not Canada. Canada said that there has been no closure on their shootings, and, thus, no payment. Jack asked me to try for closure by talking to Jim. I told Jack I wouldn’t do that. However, when I visited Jim last week, I did tell him that Jack had called and that we are talking. Jim didn’t seem much interested. Your thoughts?
I am emailing Jack this newsletter, and he has been sending me
articles that I had missed, mostly from New York magazine. One is a ten-page description of Jack himself; another an article about Jim by Amanda Robb, the niece of serial murderer Barnett Slepian whom Jim had stopped; and another about the continued federal search for people who had helped Jim during his two-year run.
“Abortion is Murder” does have its rewards.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
You have to go back to issue #11, December, to see where I left off posting Peter Knight’s great essay on Greg Cunningham. It continues here and I promise I won’t lose it right away again:
Jesus Himself gave the reason why He came into the world and why he willingly laid down his life: Jn 9:39; 12:23-24, 32, 46.
“For judgment I have come into the world, that those who see not might see, and that those who see might be made blind.”
“I have come into the world as a light, that whoever believes in me will not abide in darkness.”
“The hour has come for the son of man to be glorified. This is the way it is: unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it will remain alone. But if it dies, it will bring forth much fruit.”
“And if I die and am raised, all men will be drawn to me.”
No doubt Jesus was correct and not the crazies. Some people might go so far as to say that if it had not been for Jesus’ death and resurrection, then his entire life story would have been discarded long ago. That though is no more than unproven guess-work. Whether that’s the case or not, however, the plain fact is that since his death and resurrection, in all parts of the world, that momentous and well-publicized event has been what inspired many Christians, not all, but many, to read about the rest of his life story. No doubt, at least some of those people would not have been drawn to his life story and his life giving teachings by anything less momentous. The lives of some of them have been drastically changed by his teachings. Changed as they would not have been changed by anything else. It has been no exaggeration to say that they themselves too have been raised from death to life. (tbc)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
March 2, 2010 Vol. 7 No. 17
PO Box 7424, Reading, PA 19603
Phone – cell—484-706-4375, machine -- 610-396-0332
Email – johndunk@ptd.net
Web – skyp1.blogspot.com
Circulation – 95
John Dunkle, Editor
Abortion is Murder, a weak, pathetic response to baby murder, is sent out at least once a month. If the gestapo hasn’t jailed you for defending the innocent realistically, you either have to tell me you want it or go the website. Faxes and emails are free but snail-mail is free only for POC’s, $100 for others.
Because I believe we should use every legitimate means, including force, in our attempt to protect those being tortured to death, I want to hear from people who’ve been forceful. I’d also like to hear from those who disagree with me.
Prisoners For Christ:
1. Evans, Paul Ross 83230-180, USP McCreary, P.O. Box 3000, Pine Knot, KY 42635
2. Gibbons, Linda - Vanier WDC, 655 Martin St., P.O. Box 1040, Milton, ON, Canada L9T 5E6
3. Griffin, Michael 310249, Okaloosa Correctional Institution, Crestview FL 32539-6708 9/11
4. Howard, Peter Andrew 57760-097, FCI, Box 900, Safford, AZ 85546
5. Jordi, Stephen 70309-004, FCI P.O. Box 33, Terre Haute IN 47802 6/30
6 Knight, Peter CRN 158589, Port Philip Prison, P.O. Box 376, Laverton, Victoria, Australia
7. Kopp, James 11761-055, USP Canaan, 3057 Easton Tpk., Waymart, PA 18472
8. McMenemy, David Robert 08168-030, FCI Elkton, P.O. Box 10, Lisbon OH 44432
9. Richardson, Alonzo Lee 12898-021, PO Box 474701, Des Moines, IA 5094
10. Roeder, Scott, Sedgewick county Jail, 141 West Elm, Wichita, KS 67203
11. Rudolph, Eric 18282-058 US Pen. Max, Box 8500, Florence CO 81226-8500
12. Shannon, Rachelle 59755-065, FCI Waseca, Unit A, P.O. Box 1731, Waseca, MN 56093 3/31
13. Waagner, Clayton Lee 17258-039, United States Penitentiary, P.O. Box 1000, Lewisburg PA 17837 8/25
14. Weiler Jr., Robert F. 39385-037, FCC - Delaware Hall, Box 1000, Petersburg VA 23804 (new)
15. Whitaker, Vincent , FCI, Box 699, Estill SC 29918
The Lord has asked people to make sacrifices related to opposing abortion which all but a handful have had too weak a heart to make. And they’ve looked for any pretense they could conjure up to claim that the sacrifice wasn’t required. They even deluded themselves, as people often do, into “believing” the pretense was real . . . When they get what they’ll get, they’ll fully deserve it. Peter Knight
---------------------------------------------------
I hope you’re following this magnificent third chapter in Eric’s book:
The fundamental difference between conservativism and egalitarianism is seen clearly in the present abortion debate. Realizing that life begins at conception, the American conservative believes abortion is murder. To the conservative motherhood is a blessing, the most significant part of a woman’s life. As the backbone of the family, the mother’s place in society is seen as essential. The family is the basic unit of society. It is the primary institution for preserving social order and ensuring cultural continuity. To the conservative abortion is a frontal assault on motherhood, the family, the culture, life itself. On the other side, the egalitarian believes that the family has traditionally been an institution of oppression for women. And although necessary for procreation, maternity has historically served as a shackle to keep women in subjection to men. Until such time as procreation can be had without the slightest possibility that it will threaten their ability to stand in relation to men as absolute equals, women need abortion as a weapon in the fight for their equality.
In the present debate over abortion, conservatives and egalitarians stick pretty close to the classical liberal concepts of the U.S. Constitution. Some who are pro-abortion like Judith Jarvis Thomson, and David Boonin-Vail argue that even if the unborn child is a person, it has no right to use the mother’s body, unless she gives her consent. Their argument is social contract theory at its extreme libertarian interpretation. This approach is largely hypocritical because the same folks who use it, demanding that the government stay out of a woman’s private life, turn right around and demand that the government intrude into its citizen’s lives in a number of other situations: gun control, education, environment. But most who support abortion—Michael Tooley, Mary Ann Warren—adopt a very narrow definition of personhood, which allows them to deny the unborn child’s humanity, and therefore exclude him from legal protections. Their narrow definitions don’t hold water though because they end up excluding most of mankind, both born and unborn. Of the various pro-abortion arguments, the feminist approach is the most consistent. Catherine MacKinnon, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sally Markowitz, and Naomi Wolf — all fully accept the humanity of the unborn child, but insist that women need abortion to achieve equality in a patriarchal society.
In a society that has long since driven Christian values out of the public square, conservatives use a combination of arguments against abortion. Stephen Swartz contends that a person’s life is one continuum from conception to death. Francis J. Beckwith emphasizes a mother’s parental responsibilities, and Don Marquis uses Kant’s Golden Rule to argue that abortion is wrong because it deprives a person, the unborn child, of a “future like ours.”
Hatched in the fevered brain of M.I.T. philosophy Professor Judith Jarvis Thomson, “A Defense of Abortion” is probably the most talked about pro-abortion essay. Using a series of examples, Thomson insists that a woman has an unqualified right to an abortion, even if the fetus is a human being. Her essay is a radical extrapolation of social contract theory, what is sometimes called libertarianism.
Libertarianism is classical liberalism carried to its extreme. Briefly, the individual is sovereign, and prior to society. He has absolute rights. Only he can exchange his rights for the protections of society. In exchange for the protections of society, he assumes certain obligations. But he is obligated to society only in as far as he has consented to the exchange. Society has no prior claims on him.
Libertarian liberals like Thomson get their current definition of individual liberty from John Stuart Mill. Back in 1859, Mill wrote a book entitled On Liberty. Its purpose was to expound the principle that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self- protection. That the only purpose for which power can be exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot be compelled to do or forebear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil in case he do otherwise. To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him must be calculated to produce evil to someone else. The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is to which concerns others. In the part which concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his body and mind, the individual is sovereign.6
Personally Thomson doesn’t believe it, but for the sake of argument, she is willing to “grant that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception.” Because even if a person, the fetus has no right to use a woman’s body without her consent. To make her argument, Thomson asks you to imagine waking up in a hospital back-to-back with a famous violinist, who has a fatal kidney ailment. Because you are the only one with a matching blood type, the Society of Music Lovers has kidnapped you and hooked you up to the famous fiddler to “extract the poisons from his blood.” The hospital director tells you it will be another nine months before the violinist’s kidneys are in good shape and they can unhook you. Even though it was immoral for the Society of Music Lovers to kidnap you and put you in this predicament, unhooking you, the hospital director says, would be doubly immoral, because it would kill the violinist. 7
“Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation?” asks Thomson.8 After all, every person has a right to life, and violinists are persons. What if it were longer than nine months? How about nine years? Or for the rest of your life? This example is Thomson’s argument in defense of abortion for pregnancies caused by rape.
What about cases of pregnancy that threaten the life or health of the mother? For these cases, Thomson asks whether it is moral for the hospital director, who knows the violinist is going to die anyway, to keep you hooked up to the violinist because unhooking you would prematurely cause the death of the fiddler:
“It’s all most distressing,” says the director, “and I deeply sympathize, but you see this is putting an additional strain on your kidneys, and you’ll be dead within the month. But you have to stay where you are all the same. Because unplugging you would be directly killing an innocent violinist, and that’s murder, and that’s impermissible.”
This is simply intolerable and asking too much of a person, says Thomson. You have more than enough right “to reach around your back and unplug yourself from that violinist to save your life.”9 (tbc)
---------------------------------------------
Hello John I have finally finished putting Abortion: the Irrepressible Conflict into book form and ready to send U one FREE. Because of the lawsuit of E. Lyons, we cannot sell them.
If U know of anyone else who would like a copy and will seriously read it please let me know. I think, and I guess I am prejudiced, this is the most informative book on this issue
of cultural identity and demise written to date. If anyone would like to send donations for the Memorial for the Unborn my son Daniel is establishing, it would be appreciated. Enjoy and keep up the good fight. Abortion is the holocaust and a collective guilt just like the Jews in Germany so this country will not escape judgment now or in the years to come.
Patricia Rudolph
I agree absolutely with Patricia’s fourth sentence. Send donations to Memorial for the Unborn, 1159 Four Seasons (103), Sarasota, FL 34234
------------------------------------------------------------------------
John, in your latest newsletter Cal spent an enormous amount of energy and study trying to explain which tree we all need to be barking up.
But Cal missed reality about as far as reality can be missed. That's because Cal assumes. Wait, did I say ASS U ME? that’s right, Cal assumes that the Supreme Court is going to be able to decide which Rights are given to the States. Listen to what Cal says about what the Supreme Court can be expected to allow the States to do, "But if they [the States] do not include exceptions for legally performed forced abortions, states will no longer be allowed to override the woman's decision to refuse an abortion, whether on the basis of incompetence or drug use, not even if the Court at a later date overturns Roe in favor of the states' rights!"
Cal's fundamental assumption shows Cal is nothing but a fully conditioned federal lapdog, I mean, lawyer. Cal's fundamental assumption shows Cal can't even THINK about the reality unfolding in this nation. That's because Cal can't imagine that a State or States might have the Right and reveal the power to do what God wants done, totally uncontrolled by contrary instructions from the Supreme Court, totally uncontrolled by what the Supreme Court says or wants or ORDERS.
The foundation of States' Rights is the idea declared by the Founders of this nation that after a long train of abuses and usurpations THE STATE can overthrow the despotic power of the federal government, no matter what the Supreme Court says. Or we can all die trying.
Nothing in American history or the Mind of God has destroyed that foundation.
Does that make you proud to be an American, or what?
Neal, Horsley for Governor
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Both these guys are too smart for me, so I don’t know who’s right, but here’s the beginning of the Writ of Habeas Corpus Cal wrote for Scott and for anyone else who can use it. Sounds powerful. Neal?
Address of Petitioner:
Scott P. Roeder
C/O SEDGWICK COUNTY DETENTION FACILITY
141 W ELM ST
WICHITA, KS 67203-3848
Address of Custodian:
Sheriff Robert Hinshaw
SEDGWICK COUNTY DETENTION FACILITY
141 W ELM ST
WICHITA, KS 67203-3848
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF SEDGWICK COUNTY, KANSAS
) Case No. ______________________
In Re Scott P. Roeder,)
petitioner. ) PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS
)
________________________)
PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS
I, Scott P. Roeder, pray that a writ of habeas corpus will issue without delay to free me from wrongful restraint.
I state that: 1) I am restrained at the Sedgwick County Detention Facility, located at 141 W. Elm St., Wichita, Kansas 67203, in the custody of Sheriff Robert Hinshaw; 2) to the best of my knowledge and belief, the cause or pretense of the restraint is that I have been arrested and charged with one count of first degree murder and two counts of aggravated assault; and, 3) the restraint is wrongful because the judges in my case have shown heightened disregard for the presumption of my innocence (claim 1), my custodian has made public, in a manner depriving me of the presumption of my innocence, the names and addresses of my visitors and those who have written me while in custody (claim 2), my custodian has singled out my correspondence for unusual scrutiny, in a manner suggesting departure from impartial treatment, without justifying such an exercise of political power and privilege (claim 3), the prosecution in my case has made libelous allegations to undermine the impartiality I receive (claim 4), counsel for my defense has disparaged me in a manner unbecoming of impartial treatment (claim 5), counsel for my defense caused me to lose at trial by failing to provide a meaningful defense (claim 6), and the court denied a defense of voluntary manslaughter in a manner contrary to United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285 (2008), and contrary to the presumption of my innocence (claim 7).
Habeas corpus being a personal right under § 8 of the Kansas Bill of Rights, I present these claims personally, in addition to any claims to habeas corpus relief presented now or in the future by counsel on my behalf.
In support of these claims, I state the facts as follows:
CLAIM 1
There is cause for a writ of habeas corpus to free me on the basis of technicality: I was denied my right to bail, and thereafter subjected to excessive bail, in violation of § 9 of the Kansas Bill of Rights, thereby creating a presumption of guilt in view of such exceptional treatment, in violation of my right under Kansas law and the Constitution of the United States to be presumed innocent until proven guilty; I was denied the assistance of counsel, in violation of my rights under the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; in absence of counsel, I was made the object of public spectacle, on national television, without court clothes, in violation of my right to impartial proceedings under the Sixth Amendment; my Eighth Amendment rights under the Constitution of the United States were violated by imposing excessive bail and inflicting cruel and unusual punishment; my First Amendment rights under the Constitution of the United States to free speech and freedom of the press were violated by increasing my bail on the basis of lawful forms of abstract advocacy; and, my rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States to due process and the equal protection of the laws were violated on the basis of disproportionate treatment.
After being taken into custody, I was kept in a freezing jail cell, so that I started having a bad cough and thought I would have pneumonia; I was in need of my sleep apnea machine; and, I was denied telephone privileges for two days. After being subjected to such cruelty by my custodian, the judge in my case made a public spectacle of me, forcing me to appear on television without the assistance of counsel or court clothes, before a national audience; furthermore, the judge did unlawfully subvert my right to bail under Kansas law at that time, thereby casting a shadow of doubt on the presumption of my innocence, given his recourse to exceptional treatment. This shows that the judge had unreasonable bias against me. It also shows I was subjected to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment, having been singled out for such abuse in a manner departing from custom.
Later, another judge in my case imposed excessive bail along with a suggestion designed to create public distrust for the presumption of my innocence. In support of this claim, I note that Sedgwick County Judge Warren Wilbert stated the following when increasing bail:
"His contact with the news media and the comments that he has made certainly cast a different light on Mr. Roeder, and if he were to make bond, No. 1, if he wouldn't be a flight risk; No. 2, whether he wouldn't perpetuate, participate or enact any more violence on his own or in concert with others," Judge Wilbert said at a June 10 hearing, according to a court transcript reported by CNN. (emphasis added)
Having been preceded by a complete denial of my right to bail under Kansas law, the imposition thereafter of excessive bail along with a suggestion that I might enact "more" violence if I make bond demonstrates heightened disregard for the presumption of my innocence. Widespread derogation from the presumption of my innocence influenced my decision to confess, that I might at least obtain the benefit of a necessity defense; moreover, subsequent confession does not mitigate the gravity of prior offenses against impartiality and due process.
I should complete this next issue. If anyone needs it before then, let me know.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 13th and 14th issues of this volume, I posted a long letter from Jim Kopp in response to an article in the “New Oxford Review” by Judie Brown condemning the use of force. Here Jim adds four additional reasons for prolifers to be more forceful than we have been.
# 14. Bill Cotter, of Boston Rescue
I don’t want to put words in Bill's mouth, but I seem to remember that he wrote a letter on the subject of the use of force to save babies. He did not come out and say it was the greatest thing since sliced bread, but he did say, if I recall correctly, that it was not murder, and it was discussable. This means a lot coming from Bill, who has weathered a lot of abuse about the Salvi thing (see above, entire letter).
# 15 someone you know.
Let's continue the brave and holy and necessary tradition started
by Friends of Paul Hill in the 90's. Nineteen brave people signed this:
“Any force justified to save the life of a born child is justified to save the life on an unborn child.”
Keep an eye out for the few, last people who will say the obvious in public, instead of being afraid. "Be not afraid," Our Lord said, and JP II made it his theme.
If you want to sign this, contact your nearest skyp distributor today! And please give a copy of this letter and the Roeder defense letter (skyp, fall, 09) to any pastor/priest or prolifer you know. [Don’t know what “Roeder defense letter” Jimbo refers to here. I went through the fall issues and nothing jumped out at me. Any help?]
#16 I remember the first time I saw a rescuer list that said "I'll rescue if a thousand people sign up.” I was very encouraged,
and I signed up. Many hands make light work.
“bolder and bolder they go as they go to the fore,
When stouthearted men will stick together hand in hand.”
#17 “If your enemy has a conscience, go with Mohandas Gandhi. If your enemy does not have a conscience, go with Dietrich Bonhoeffer" Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., . . .
think about it. Bonhoeffer was not murdered by Hitler for “praying” and protesting . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------
Here is Paul Ross Evans’ second chapter:
II. Theocracy – The True Government for the Militant Christian
When we speak of theocracy in this text, it should be said that we are speaking of a government by officials regarded as divinely inspired, and a state governed by that fore mentioned.
Some would say that through democratic voting a man is somewhat chosen and ordained by God. However, when the mass man of a specified region and epoch does not adhere to Christian doctrine and principles, the resultant vote-winner is simply not a reflection of “God’s choice,” rather the people’s choice. Humanity’s choice.
What does the mass man of this epoch reflect? What would today’s people choose? Today’s mass man, and especially today’s bourgeoisie, is spoiled. Years, even centuries, ago what would have been considered vast blessings have been transformed, neoterically, into a deserving right, to be demanded. People of past generations were accepting of the fact that there was a portion of everyone’s existence when man was destined to suffer. Clearly liberalism, which now encourages our people from all angles to claim liberty from the restraints of our Eternal Destinies, strives for freedom of criticism by the dominant religious influence of each specific region. Such brand of democracy has clouded our visions, our judgment. Along with technological advancement, the mass man, who embodies the greatest capability of good and evil as well as many of an ill-formed nature, has advanced to positions in which these liberal overtones bleed into such democratic mass voting processes.
In short, there is no hope in electing an official statistically in this country when examining the make-up of said voting body. However, if that make-up were tipped exclusively in our favor, the results would be different obviously. This is nevertheless what I speak of in this text when mentioning the merging of the democratic vote in a Theocratic State. That is what I advocate and support as a militant Christian of the twenty-first century.
A theocracy is the plan, and the vision, of the true Christian militant. What I intend to describe in the following text is not only a marriage of the theocracy and a democratic vote, but as well a marriage of the theocracy and government by Judges mentioned and described in the Biblical book of the same name. Here God raises Chieftains and deliverers because the people had repented. We intend to apply this same process. But first we must look to where our theocracy originates, after the previous precursor, to where exactly we are headed with this.
It begins certainly with God’s direct declaration of sole Rule over His people, starting in Exodus 19: 3-8 (KJV):
3 And Moses went unto God, and the Lord called unto him out of the mountain, saying, Thus shalt thou say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel
4 Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles’ wings, and brought you unto myself
5 Now therefore, if you will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shalt be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people, for all the earth is mine
6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel
7 And Moses came and called for the elders of the people, and laid before their faces these words which the Lord commanded him
8 And all the people answered together, and said, all that the Lord hath spoken we will do. And Moses returned the words of the people unto the Lord.
According to patriarchal philosophy, something we will delve into more later in this text when examining the importance of the family unit in Christian culture and civilization, the Father is the head, authority, and power over life and death. This authority is furthered by verses such as Exodus 12: 26,27 and Exodus 13: 8, 14 and portrays precisely that the Father instructs and directs his household. This is a mirror image of how we are directed to follow God the Father’s instruction. Deuteronomy 6:7 further displays the father’s role in the household and, as well, gives us the frank instruction in this verse (and verses just like it) that as governments are set up to govern Christian men and women, God the Father is our omnipresent, omnipotent leader and sole guidance. Job 1:5, in turn, is an exhibition of the father of the household’s great responsibility as each individual family’s guiding force.
As the book of Judges presents for Christians, a pattern of failure/punishment/deliverance is dominant (in such books) and is useful in understanding God’s way. It should be said that a Christian body of believers should be observant of such examples when establishing judges for their territories. Once a Christian body of individuals is in the position of setting up a fresh government for themselves and their given land, they have the duty of establishing a democratic voting system that will help to raise into power those they feel have been ordained by God the Father. Through these judges, God leads through the fundamental working theocracy. When the Christian body feels that the judge has fallen away from God’s instruction, and he refrains from directing the body in such a direction, he is to be removed immediately.
This is not to say that judges are never to make mistakes, as is evident in the book of Judges in our Holy Bible. Our theocratic government is simply a form of government, with God as the head and direct ruler of the people, working through appointed leaders who, in actuality, were raised up by God to judge the people.
The supreme and unequivocal law concerning morals, treatment of foreigners, slavery, taxation, military laws, laws for domestic relations, parental laws and powers, and criminal law are all outlined in detail throughout the Bible. Many of these areas are covered throughout this text. As mentioned before (as well as throughout the Bible) we are far from perfect. We are sinful by nature, in fact, as humans. However, we attempt to deny such nature, these laws are given to us for a reason. As Christian militants we are to uphold God’s Law, using force, if necessary. It is my belief that the laws give to us by the Father, God, reflect understanding and a fair but stern authority. Some of the offenses described, however, in this text as well as our Bibles, are atrocities. These atrocities are not only committed towards the individual they are perpetrated against but they are also threats toward the foundation of an upright Christian society.
As this text is written, we will consider the reader well-informed of the fact that it has been a great struggle to establish a beacon, and secure a land, for the militant Christian nation. So with respect to that, and as we follow God’s law, we must purge from among us certain atrocious sinners in order to cleanse our upright Christian nation. This will secure a remission of those acts which have been committed among us. If we refuse to act, and ignore such behavior, we bring those punishments upon us for turning a blind eye towards those particular types of behavior.
The faithful and genuine Christian militant never allows, in the society he lives in, God’s law to take a back seat to civil law. This is a sheer impossibility for anyone reading our Father’s written law, and studying it in all earnestness and in truth. God’s law never molds or shape-shifts to fit the ruling body. God’s law never forms into a modified version in support of the present inhabitant’s false idols. Severe punishments are dispensed by God throughout the Bible for any such type of Liberal tolerance and apathy. God’s law is a direct portion of the Rock that it is built upon. Even THE Rock states later in this life, in Matthew 10:34 – “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I come not to send peace, but a sword.” Let us never forget that He was then tortured to death by the “authorized figures” (of that time and place) for opposing their misbegotten rule.
At one time, in recent history – and when I use the term “recent,” I speak, still, of several hundreds of years ago – we began to draw close to God the Father of a nation. We attempted to establish a land in which Christians could live and work, serving our most-high God. However, as in the case of ANY monarchy or democracy that is not the TRUE theocracy, the propensity for corruption by human hands strangles out virtue in the end.
Eventually these types of societies, which began with variations of great and small intentions of establishing Christian nations, are overtaken by wicked seeds planted from all directions by the Evil One. Somewhere in time, as the mass man visualizes his leaders’ falling, bow-worshipping, technological “progression,” industry, money, lust and/or the worship of personal relationships, he follows, and all is lost. Typically at this point, the last remnants of true virtue are overtaken by extreme forms of liberal and socialist ideologies. Eventually, the mass man begins to cling to some type of order, yet he still resents the Christian-based life walk, and especially the true and faithful follower of Christ. So he clings to anything non-Christian at core. They aren’t necessarily Anti-Christian, yet they all work together to hypnotize the potential Christian, and for our purpose this is surely negative. Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, Atheism, the Occult, and many more false religions are simply used to deny Christ. Many blame Christians – other humans – for their resentments toward the world and the way it has always been. Many hold strong resentments towards organized religion on any scale. In turn, “religions” which elevate the self and/or promote a higher power, but leave plenty of room for the human mind to dictate, are adhered to vehemently. These established “religions” are simply used to meet the needs all of us have to serve a higher power, and to belong. Sadly, these ill-guided children have chosen poorly, chosen falsely.
The illusions of modern crime have worked in the last decades to chip away any of the final strands of morality our youth grasped a hold of. These illusions portray the drug dealer, the thief, the flesh-peddler, or the violent member of organized crime as holding a position of respect within our community. He has an “upper hand” with either brute force, tactics of the school yard bully, or with possession of a large amount of money or influence. What does this say about a society, when a criminal has been elevated to the position of hero in modern media? Herein lies one of the purest examples of what that society finds important: money and/or power over other humans.
Such life walks inevitably fail in the end, and said individuals who so foolishly follow such paths fall with it. For such things only last so long, and are vanity – as the preacher of Ecclesiastes describes for us perfectly. Long term happiness, however, lies in following the God of Israel and adhering to, and enforcing, His rules, at all costs. (I’ll start ChapterIII next issue))
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Zechariah 10:5
And they shall be as mighty men, which tread down their enemies in the mire of the streets, in the battle and they shall fight because the Lord is with them, and the riders on horses shall be confounded.
Let's act like mighty men & women & not be cowed down by evil proabort prohomo lovers.
FEAR THEM NOT
LIKE THEM NOT
SPARE THEM NOT
ONWARD CHRISTIANS WARRIORS
MARCHING OFF TO WAR
LIKE ROEDER HILL RUDOLPH KOPP
WAAGNER GRIFFIN SHANNON
JORDI SMART ANDERSON MCMENEMY
BRAY EVANS MITCHELL MCKNIGHT
Tobra
GIBBONS HOWARD KNIGHT RICHARDSON WHITAKER
me
------------------------------------------------------------
The informant responsible for Jim Kopp’s incarceration ran across a copy of this newsletter recently and got interested enough to call me. “Jack” and I have been communicating since then by phone and email. I asked Jack why he cooperated with the feds (they had approached him several times before he agreed) and he said it was the word “murder” that persuaded him.
He also said, “I won’t lie to you, economics was a factor” (Jack had been promised over a million dollars from the governments of the US and Canada if things worked out) but when they told me that they were trying to solve a murder, I stopped resisting.
After Jim’s arrest the US paid its share of the award, but not Canada. Canada said that there has been no closure on their shootings, and, thus, no payment. Jack asked me to try for closure by talking to Jim. I told Jack I wouldn’t do that. However, when I visited Jim last week, I did tell him that Jack had called and that we are talking. Jim didn’t seem much interested. Your thoughts?
I am emailing Jack this newsletter, and he has been sending me
articles that I had missed, mostly from New York magazine. One is a ten-page description of Jack himself; another an article about Jim by Amanda Robb, the niece of serial murderer Barnett Slepian whom Jim had stopped; and another about the continued federal search for people who had helped Jim during his two-year run.
“Abortion is Murder” does have its rewards.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
You have to go back to issue #11, December, to see where I left off posting Peter Knight’s great essay on Greg Cunningham. It continues here and I promise I won’t lose it right away again:
Jesus Himself gave the reason why He came into the world and why he willingly laid down his life: Jn 9:39; 12:23-24, 32, 46.
“For judgment I have come into the world, that those who see not might see, and that those who see might be made blind.”
“I have come into the world as a light, that whoever believes in me will not abide in darkness.”
“The hour has come for the son of man to be glorified. This is the way it is: unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it will remain alone. But if it dies, it will bring forth much fruit.”
“And if I die and am raised, all men will be drawn to me.”
No doubt Jesus was correct and not the crazies. Some people might go so far as to say that if it had not been for Jesus’ death and resurrection, then his entire life story would have been discarded long ago. That though is no more than unproven guess-work. Whether that’s the case or not, however, the plain fact is that since his death and resurrection, in all parts of the world, that momentous and well-publicized event has been what inspired many Christians, not all, but many, to read about the rest of his life story. No doubt, at least some of those people would not have been drawn to his life story and his life giving teachings by anything less momentous. The lives of some of them have been drastically changed by his teachings. Changed as they would not have been changed by anything else. It has been no exaggeration to say that they themselves too have been raised from death to life. (tbc)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wednesday, February 03, 2010
Abortion is Murder, 7-16, March 2010
Formerly Stop the Killing of Young People (skyp) and soon, perhaps, Stop Killing Preemies
March, 2010 Vol. 7 No. 16
PO Box 7424, Reading, PA 19603
Phone – cell—484-706-4375, machine -- 610-396-0332
Email – jdmd@ptd.net
Web – skyp1.blogspot.com
Circulation – 85
Editor, John Dunkle
Abortion is Murder, a weak, pathetic response to baby murder, is sent out at least once a month. If the gestapo hasn’t jailed you for defending the innocent realistically, you either have to tell me you want it or go the website. Faxes and emails are free but snail-mail is free only for POC’s, $100 for others.
Because I believe we should use every legitimate means, including force, in our attempt to protect those being tortured to death, I want to hear from people who’ve been forceful. I’d also like to hear from those who disagree with me.
Prisoners for Christ:
1. Evans, Paul Ross 83230-180, USP McCreary, P.O. Box 3000, Pine Knot, KY 42635
2. Gibbons, Linda - Vanier WDC, 655 Martin St., P.O. Box 1040, Milton, ON, Canada L9T 5E6
3. Griffin, Michael 310249, Okaloosa Correctional Institution, Crestview FL 32539-6708 9/11
4. Howard, Peter Andrew 57760-097, FCI, Box 900, Safford, AZ 85546
5. Jordi, Stephen 70309-004, FCI P.O. Box 33, Terre Haute IN 47802 6/30
6. Knight, Peter CRN 158589, Port Philip Prison, P.O. Box 376, Laverton, Victoria, Australia
7. Kopp, James 11761-055, USP Canaan, 3057 Easton Tpk., Waymart, PA 18472
8. McMenemy, David Robert 08168-030, FCI Elkton, P.O. Box 10, Lisbon OH 44432
9. Richardson, Alonzo Lee 12898-021, PO Box 474701, Des Moines, IA 5094
10. Roeder, Scott, Sedgewick County Jail, 141 West Elm, Wichita, KS 67203
11. Rudolph, Eric 18282-058 US Pen. Max, Box 8500, Florence CO 81226-8500
12. Shannon, Rachelle 59755-065, FCI Waseca, Unit A, P.O. Box 1731, Waseca, MN 56093 3/31
13. Waagner, Clayton Lee 17258-039, United States Penitentiary, P.O. Box 1000, Lewisburg PA 17837 8/25
14. Weiler Jr., Robert F. 39385-037, FCC - Delaware Hall, Box 1000, Petersburg VA 23804 (new)
15. Whitaker, Vincent , FCI, Box 699, Estill SC 29918
The Lord has asked people to make sacrifices related to opposing abortion which all but a handful have had too weak a heart to make. And they’ve looked for any pretense they could conjure up to claim that the sacrifice wasn’t required. They even deluded themselves, as people often do, into “believing” the pretense was real . . . When they get what they’ll get, they’ll fully deserve it. Peter Knight
----------------------------------------------
Here’s the ending of Jim Kopp’s Neo Trades II, Shade Tree Horror Stories:
William loved to work. He loved it so much he loved it for itself. He never scolded anyone, he never called anyone lazy, although he could, because he was the laborers’ straw-boss, and he could. It was always, “If you could be so kind,” or “As soon as would be convenient for you,” and he knew you would jump up and do it because he asked so kindly. William went at 100 miles an hour, sunup to sundown, and with nary a discouraging word, he could make you feel like a slacker just for doing 99 instead. You wanted to catch up with him, which must explain why one bright Caribbean morning William woke up, took a deep breath, looked up at the almost cobalt sky with the magnificent frigate birds floating around in it, looked down at the bay and the over-arching coconuts, and said, we can move this along, and he rolled the cement mixer out onto the scaffold and of course a wee drop of sand and mortar to feed it.
The stone masons were tapping. The masons’ apprentices were lugging. The mixer was thump, thump , thumping. You could feel it in your feet which was why you didn’t feel the feel of the cross-braces giving out with just a little tiny flex, as sway of their own.
They all looked up, and instead of the blue of the sky, they saw the green of the jungle coming at them at a little bit more than 100 miles an hour.
No one was hurt, for all of their rapid one-way ride from the top of the house to the bottom of the jungle, Thanks be to Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, a chastened but undaunted William would later say.
When the Shade Tree Horror Story was told to me by the G.C./architect later on, he said, “I turned my back on William for just one hour because I had to run into town. Would you believe it? When I came back he had the mixer up on the scaffold. He rode it all the way to the ground.
All along that wild ride, up until just before it hit, there was William still shoveling away to fill the mixer.
Moral of the story: Boys and girls, hard work won’t kill you. And if you don’t drink, your kids will never starve. But don’t put the mixer on the scaffold. OK?
Next time DV: Chainsaws are much safer than you think. But wait till you find out what’s really scary about saws. You’ll never believe it. (hint: it’s not the blade)
P.S. I learned all this and 10000 things more and I was scarcely 18. See why your wee bairnies need off the couch? Read Cloud of Unknowing yet? How about Noise? (Tomeo, EWTN.com, ...time’s running out)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Continuation of Eric’s chapter 3, “The Debate.”
Most Americans have a stereotypical image of a communist. He's a guy dressed in a drab uniform carrying an AK-47 in Peking or Hanoi. But the Frankfurt School Marxists were not trying to create goose-stepping revolutionaries. First, they wanted hippies. Frankfurt School thinker Herbert Marcuse articulated the free-love doctrine for the counterculture. Author of Eros and Civilization (1955), Marcuse was the guy who coined the phrase "make love, not war." Ultimately the Frankfurt School thinkers wanted the children of the hippies. Because even though they were subjected to an intensive deconstruction process—which is why they called it the counterculture— the hippies still retain elements of the older value system. But their children do not. Take a look at the typical member of the MTV generation: he's amoral and lives only to satisfy his animal desires; he lacks discipline, ambition and purpose; he has no patriotism, honor or dignity; he is missing religion, culture and convictions; he has no loyalty to family, friends and country; his only heroes are Hollywood degenerates and sports stars. He is exactly what Lukács and Gramsci wanted: a person lacking identity, a talking monkey, a blank slate upon which to write the values of socialism. Their work is now paying dividends. In the recent presidential election (2008) 66 percent of those under thirty years old voted for the Marxist candidate, Barack Obama. Where Marx's revolution failed, Lukács and Gramsci's has succeeded.
Meanwhile, socialists in Russia would keep their revolutionary roots and their internationalist ambitions. Political structures were supposed to follow economic conditions, according to Marx’s theory. But most Russians were peasants engaged in agriculture. Their mode of production and exchange was still feudal. Therefore, they had to first go through the capitalist phase of economic development before moving on to socialism, said Marx. Revolution was supposed to start in the most advanced capitalist societies (Germany, France, England), and spread from there. When he realized that revolution would not happen in the West, Marx became opportunistic. He turned his theory on its head. In the preface to the Russian 1882 edition of the Communist Manifesto, Marx gave Russia permission to skip the capitalist stage of economic development and move right on to socialism.
Using this interpretation of dialectical materialism, Lenin, the leader of Russia’s Social Democratic Party, developed his own brand of egalitarianism (Marxism-Leninism). Lenin preferred Marx’s name for socialism, calling it communism. The underlying economic conditions are not necessary to achieve socialism in Russia, wrote Lenin in his book What is to be Done? (1912). A well organized group of professional revolutionaries, said Lenin, could act as a “vanguard” for the people. Relying on their unique insights, the revolutionary vanguard could propel the masses to socialism, regardless of the society’s economic stage of development. If a ruthless elite imposed it, socialism could work anywhere. Lenin called this idea democratic centralism. This meant the rule of a small party elite through terror, secrecy, and propaganda. Stalin later refined the idea to mean the rule of one man through a few handpicked lackeys. Improving party discipline through intra-party purges was another Stalinist improvement on democratic centralism. Focusing his attention on peasants and agriculture rather than workers and industry, Mao Tze-Tung later developed his own style of Marxism-Leninism called Maoism. This triumvirate — Lenin, Stalin, Mao — created the version of egalitarianism that would serve as the model for communist regimes in the non-Western world.
During the Second World War Democratic Socialists and Revolutionary Socialists joined together to defeat the Axis powers. Not since the 1890s had socialists worked so well together. Many socialists in the West were confident that the differences with their Soviet comrades could be worked out and the dream of global socialism finally realized. Franklin D. Roosevelt, for one, held out hope that after the war America and the Soviet Union could lay the foundations for a New World Order based upon the general principles of socialism, which were later embodied in the United Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. But after the war the dream of socialist cooperation died when Stalin held onto Eastern Europe and pursued an aggressive policy with his Democratic Socialist cousins in the West. A Cold War developed. The war in Korea and the ruthless nature of Soviet and Chinese communism caused a conservative reaction in the West. The old labels of communism and socialism became highly unpopular, as conservatives started to point out the common ideological heritage of the Soviet and Chinese communists and their American Democratic Socialist cousins. Conservatives exposed the sympathies, the collaborations, the outright treasons of figures such as Alger Hiss and Harry Dexter White, both of whom held key positions in Roosevelt’s administration. Lest they face a full fledged reaction, as happened in Spain in the1930s, egalitarians in America began to camouflage their communist sympathies, and they got rid of the socialist label entirely. Now they are known exclusively as liberal democrats, or progressives.
Since they have already laid the basis of a welfare state in Europe and America, egalitarians now concentrate their focus on cultural issues. This is Frankfurt School-style Marxism. The Marxist idea of class struggle has been expanded to include white vs. black, men vs. women, natives vs. immigrants, straights vs. homosexuals. It’s the same old concept of history as a struggle between the oppressors and the oppressed, with the mirage of an egalitarian paradise somewhere up ahead. But despite the camouflage, the name change, and the new focus, the contemporary liberal is an ideological relative of Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Marx, Robespierre and Rousseau. Like them, he believes that basic inequalities cause injustices, and like them, he believes there is a template for the perfect society. Egalitarians only differ on how to get there. Just like children trying to force square blocks into round holes, egalitarians have tried for over 200 years to smash their templates down onto the existing organic societies of the earth. The result has been misery on an unprecedented scale. By attempting to erect a heaven on earth they have created a living hell.
The conservative accepts life, he builds culture on natural human dispositions. America is a Western Christian nation; therefore, the conservative believes in keeping the Christian ethic at the core of his world view. The Conservative believes in the exclusive claims of Western Christian culture identity. At the other end, the egalitarian is committed to building an artificial culture, one based on theories, and not organic identity. This universal culture claims to speak for all “humanity.” The egalitarian views organic cultures as primitive, backward, and intolerant. Because the Western Culture is the most powerful organic culture in existence today, they see it as the ultimate enemy of their utopian fantasies. At this level, the conflict is existential, there can be no compromises: Western conservatives will either preserve their culture, or the egalitarians will succeed in snuffing it out forever. Their global utopia is the mirage of fools. At issue here is whether the West will die at the hands of these fools. (tbc)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear John, Sometimes you have to tell a confused old dog, "You're barking up the wrong tree." But for old dogs like you it is worse than that, "You should be barking up the tree you're resting under!" The reason why letters like my last one are confusing to you is that you have been taking shade under trees you should be barking up instead!
Let's look at Laci and Conner's law, for example, also known as the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. The law provides limited legal protection for children in utero. What do old pro-life dogs say about this law? "Finally some shade to rest under!" The poor old dog is so badly confused he would never ever think of barking up this tree. He'd bark up other trees, but not this one because he thinks this is a pro-life tree as solid as oak. So he rests under its shade instead of barking up it.
At this point you might think I'm being ridiculous, wondering, "Does Cal really think he is going to prove to me that Laci's law is anything but pro-life?" Well, let me poke a little stick up there and show you the big snake hiding up in the tree. Here's the scoop.
In addition to legalizing voluntary abortion, the Court in Roe v. Wade quietly legalized two categories of forced abortion. The Court based the authority to override a woman's decision to refuse an abortion on Buck v. Bell (forced sterilization) and Jacobson v. Massachusetts (forced vaccination). By disavowing the applicability of Skinner v. Oklahoma to abortion, the Court created two categories of forced abortion: 1) based on mental incompetence, and 2) based on drug use. Skinner would have prevented abortion based on drug use, because it was handed down to protect people from forced procedures to control reproduction in arbitrary connection with crimes committed.
But faced with the sex and drug craze of the hippie era, and unsure of what might lie on the horizon, even Justice Douglas (who himself had authored Skinner for a unanimous Court) went along with abandoning Skinner for abortion. The reason was that the Court felt it would be impractical to label all the women who got pregnant on sex and drug crazes mentally incompetent and to force them to abort that way. Instead, it would be more practical to abandon Skinner so women could simply be forced to abort based on the crime of drug use itself. Otherwise, the Court feared there might be no way to control drug-related pregnancy epidemics at some point in the future.
Mislabeled pro-life justices, Justices Rehnquist and White dissented from Roe v. Wade not because the children's rights were being denied, but because they felt states should have broader discretion to override both the woman's decision to refuse an abortion and her decision to choose an abortion. In a nutshell, the states' rights view is based on a belief that provincial judgment reaches its perfection at the state level, such that the leaders of our states will know exactly when to override a woman's decision to refuse an abortion and when to override her decision to choose an abortion.
In other words, some feel leaving the abortion decision up to women alone is inefficient for two reasons. First, some women who state leaders feel should have abortions (e.g., women on drugs) will refuse abortions and slip through the cracks. Second, without letting the states make women jump through hoops to get abortions, more women will carelessly rely on abortion and this will lend more social momentum to the sorts of sex and drug crazes that result in unplanned pregnancies in the first place. Thus, the states' rights advocates on the Court feel giving states broad permission to override both the decision to refuse and the decision to choose an abortion will be the most efficient way to prune the wild fruit off women's branches and keep it from coming back.
So that's the background. Now let's look at Laci's law. If the Court in Roe had left the abortion decision to the woman's sole determination, then it would have sufficed for Laci's law to make an exception for abortions performed with the consent of the pregnant woman. But Laci's law makes two more exceptions, one for each category of forced abortion authorized by the Court in Roe as a backup plan. Why? Roe reserved forced abortion as a backup plan, but the states' rights advocates want the Court to give the states broader power to override the woman's decision to refuse an abortion as an everyday plan. As the plurality warns in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the states' rights justices would allow the states to override a woman's decision to refuse an abortion "as readily" as to override her decision to choose an abortion.
It is no skin off the backs of states' rights advocates if criminals are given added penalties for killing at least potentially wanted children in the womb in connection with certain federal crimes. But if they do not include exceptions for legally performed forced abortions, states will no longer be allowed to override the woman's decision to refuse an abortion, whether on the basis of incompetence or drug use, not even if the Court at a later date overturns Roe in favor of the states' rights!
So Laci's law keeps a snake hidden in its tree. Looking forward to a day when the Court overturns Roe not in favor of the children's rights but rather in favor of the states' rights, so that the states can then override a woman's decision to refuse an abortion "as readily" as to override her decision to choose an abortion, Laci's law provides exceptions for both categories of forced abortion.
In addition to an exception for abortions authorized by the woman, Laci's law provides exceptions for abortions authorized by "a person authorized by law to act on her behalf" (e.g., by a psychiatrist after she is labeled incompetent) and abortions for which the nature of "such consent is implied by law" (e.g., abortions authorized by the state in connection with drug use). In Stump v. Sparkman, the Court ruled that ministerial authority to forcibly control reproduction need only be implied by state law. It does not have to be expressed, just implied. So there you are, old dog, now you see the snake hiding up the tree in Laci's law. And to think you've been resting under it!
References: Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905); Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927); Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942); Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), at 153-154 (relying on Jacobson and Buck to reject the argument that the abortion decision should be left to the woman's sole determination), and at 159 (disavowing Skinner, saying, "The situation therefore is inherently different from … Skinner"); Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973), at 215 (Justice Douglas joining the Court's reliance on Jacobson and Buck in Roe); San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 (1973), at 100-101 (Justice Marshall reflecting that the Court in Roe abandoned Skinner and instead "reaffirmed its initial decision in Buck v. Bell" for abortion); Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978); Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, at 859 (the plurality warning that the states' rights justices would allow states to override a woman's decision to refuse an abortion "as readily" as to override her decision to choose an abortion), at 913, 932 (Justices Stevens and Blackmun, who wrote Roe, respectively reflecting that no Member of the Court, nor the solicitor general, has ever so much as "questioned" whether the children have rights we are bound to respect, but instead the Court has debated to what extent states should be allowed to override the woman's abortion decision), and at 915 (Justice Stevens, with whom Justice Blackmun joined at 932, disavowing Skinner for abortion); Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (2000), at 980 (the states' rights justices banding together under Justice Thomas to clarify that they would allow states to perform even partial-birth procedures, provided only that the states so decide); Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004, Public Law 108-212, (18 U.S.C section 1841, part (c)(1) reads, "(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution--(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law.") Sincerely, Cal.
Now wait a minute, Cal. I neither rest under that tree nor bark up it. (Is that a sin of omission?) Readers, don’t miss Cal’s Petition for Habeas Corpus, next issue, for Scott and others.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Ross Evans has just completed The Militant Christian. I will post it here as I am doing with Eric’s Abortion, the Irrepressible Conflict:
The Militant Christian
A text by Paul Ross Evans
I. Introduction
II. Theocracy – The True Government for the Militant Christian
III. Theocratic Law and Its Function
IV. Criminal Law
V. Military Law and Rules of Engagement
VI. Moral Law and Assorted Laws of Theocracy
VII. The Ten Commandments – Behavioral Standards and a Sacred Code
VIII. Prayers for Strength
IX Documented Action by the Author of the Text
X. Epilogue
Introduction
Against a modern sky, our towering Christian culture began to crumble. Slowly, but surely, we’ve let it come to this. We are disarmed, lacking the absolution we have stood tall with during past conflicts, declaring ourselves a cut above the rest. No, now we relinquish the sword and shield of the Lord’s absolute commandments. They have been cheaply traded for empty idealism and pacifistic, flesh-worshiping idolatry.
The time has come for us, as a body, to draw a line in this conflict. We must separate Christian from non-believer. Does that mean we abandon non-believers? Absolutely not. But in order for a Christian to embark upon a journey leading others to Christ, that Christian must be able to see clearly. Today, things are, at best, cloudy and uncertain for the mainstream followers of Christ. Then again, Christ was anything but mainstream.
For those who know the truth, it can be difficult and exhausting to walk through a grey world, where no black and white lies are drawn, and everything remains uncertain. It is my wish that this text will give my brothers and sisters those clear lines, as they have been revealed to me. My hope also is the sheer, plain truth of the text will influence others to follow Christ, and join us as well.
Positively, at one time, people, we were a force to reckoned with. Our callings as the chosen have not died, only our will to stand defiantly in the faces of the enemy as Armies of the God of Israel. When the day comes along when Christians unite world-wide, and align themselves with the truth of the Word, nothing can or will stop us. May God be with us.
Next issue I will begin Paul’s second chapter, “Theocracy.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------
For you who’d like to know more about the editor:
So, pray tell, what have you learned that is so self-revealing, Mr. Know-It-All. [I had told the writer that her blog, bullywatch009, is very self-revealing.] What is the problem with my comments? What is it that you know, in your infinite world of wisdom, that is so self-revealing? And, further, what do you imagine you can do with your abundance of knowledge that will further your mission of hatred and misery toward women? The fact remains that you can waste obnoxious amounts of time making inane comments on this blog. You can continue with your hubris, making false claims of religiosity. Everyone outside of your smarmy group of mongrel, pseudo-prolifers knows that you are a sad, old man who tries to be important but is essentially an impotent, ignorant pretense of a Catholic. You are right when you say you are a coward. You desperately want love and attention. You would be wise to seek love and kindness from your family and stop seeking some form of heroism in your pathetic attempts at being so righteous. You are a coward, a poser, a pretender.
Go home. Love your wife, your children, your grandchildren. Show the world what love is about by being a kind and generous man instead of an ogre Hell-bent on damnation. Show your misanthropic pal, Gerry McWilliams, what cura personalis is all about. Gerry is a lesser man than you are. Rise above his hatred and anger.
January 24, 2010 10:26 PM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roeder Rooters – Tiller’s “Grateful Dead”
Dave and Dorothy Leach rode with Donna Holman to Wichita, Kansas in our Truthvan. They wanted to be at the courthouse to support to Scott Roeder who is on trial for killing abortionist George Tiller. They were joined by Michael Bray from Ohio, Drew Heiss from Wisconsin, and Gene Frye from Kansas City. Randall Terry and a few of his supporters did interviews outside the courthouse. There is bad blood between Randall Terry and Wichita’s Troy Newman over the Operation Rescue moniker.
Local pro-lifers have been conspicuously absent during these proceedings. The significance of this trial is capturing the world’s attention and Operation Rescue’s sign trucks are no where to be seen. There are plenty of pro-aborts in the gallery tying a “hang man’s noose.”
This is America’s epitaph on of how we lost the culture. We did not lose because the wicked are more powerful than we. We did not lose because they have more money or influence; we did not lose because they have a seducing message; we lost because we did not show up! We lost by default!
Do you ever wonder why there are no Christian suicide bombers taking out abortion clinics? Heck! You can hardly find a pastor preaching an anti-abortion sermon, or a pew of people willing to listen to it! American “pro-life” “Christians” don’t want to hear about kids getting killed. Christianets need sermonets with lots of sugar, comedy skits, dancing zebras, and finger puppets presenting a cheerful but thoughtful message; something that relates to them and theirs.
Is it any wonder why most pro-life Christians view Scott Roeder and his supporters as the radical fringe! They have had no sound teaching from their pulpits!
Many pro-life ministries do not act as if the babies’ lives are important. They bicker with each other over monikers, window dressing, and conscience money.
Scott Roeder is an embarrassment to them. Mr. Roeder acted as if the children Tiller killed were worth defending, a big “NO-NO” in pro-life circles. Pro-lifers cannot come up with a logical argument as to why the double standard? Why is it OK to use force, even deadly force, to protect a classroom of kindergarten children, but it is forbidden to use force to protect pre-born children slated for abortion? Are pre-born children worth less than post-born children? If so, we have tacitly admitted that a mother DOES have a right to kill her unborn child! Her unborn child is somehow sub-human and NOT entitled to an inalienable Right of Life.
The past 3 days Truthvan has been prominently parked at the entrance of the Sedgwick County Courthouse. The despised children pictured on the van are junior prosecutors; their tortured bodies are an indictment to the authorities sanctioning their demise. Tiller should have been judiciously hung like “Chemical Ali.” George Tiller might be alive today if these authorities did not protect his baby-killing operation.
The state should wrap up its case today. Tomorrow former Attorney General Phil Kline will testify for the Defense regarding illegal abortions George Tiller performed.
Dan Holman, as usual, hits the nail on the head. My new sign says, “Why do Christians and Jews, but not Muslims, kill their children?” My wife asks if I have an answer to that question. Yes, I say, the answer is birds of a feather flock together. Well what does that mean, she says. It means that Christians and Jews, both, are the scum of the earth, hateful, despicable, cowardly, self-absorbed monsters, and worse – people who pay to have their own children tortured to death.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I’ve mentioned the Lutheran Pastor Bahmann here recently. Pastor started visiting the mill in Allentown after Scott Roeder killed George Tiller in a Lutheran Church. That hit a little too close to home for Pastor, and he decided to get involved. A week ago I talked with him for an hour in the office at his church. Here’s what happened later:
When I got home from my meeting with Pastor Bahmann, my wife Margaret asked me how it went.
“I like him a lot,” I said, “but he thinks I’m a terrorist.”
“See? I knew it! You’re going to get us all in trouble. Why do you have to say the things you say and do the things you do?” etc., etc. -- Margaret was beside herself.
“Hold on, hold on,” I said, “He thinks you’re a terrorist too.”
“What! You’re crazy!”
“No, it’s true. You think abortion is murder, don’t you?”
Margaret is no dope, and she could see where this was heading. (long pause)
“It’s homicide, it’s not murder.”
“Now you’re playing with words – no, you are – no, you are – no, you are . . . .” (longer pause)
“You don’t say the victim of an abortion was homicided, do you? You say she was murdered.”
“No, you say she was killed.”
“No, you say she was killed if the woman carrying her is in a car accident, or drowns, or something. In an abortion she is tracked down and pulled apart. You say murdered. And, when you say that, sooner or later someone is going to believe you even if you don’t really believe yourself. She or he is going to take action, and that’s what Pastor Bahmann was talking about.”
“Prayer is the only action anyone should take.”
“Prayers are answered, right? Do you think Jesus is going to appear here again Himself to answer them? Of course not! Instead, He will raise a few, a minuscule number, from our ranks to confront the enemy forcefully and realistically. Some of them will die as Jesus did. We prolifers will continue to attack those few chosen even more vehemently than the kayhaitchers attack them, but as long as child-killing remains legal, one or two will always be raised.” (longest pause)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stacey & Hutch {So Many Switches . . . So Little Time}
Our story to date: S & H, successful in their nocturnal civic art projects, find themselves optimizing the operation as they talk shop in the long rides in and out of their “donuts.” After a while in these discussions, they begin to see variation in the sitting of the various switches . . . and they ponder about Barkeep Sean, a little bit, too . . .
It came as a subtle surprise to S & H, as they were talking, that not all switches are urban, or, at least, not as urban as they thought.
Huh?
OK, well, they thought you’d never ask!
Of course any “switch” (central office telco equipment) almost has to be urban in its nature, right? Telephones are a technology dependent, sooner or later, still, on physical copper wires, right? And the most efficient way to locate a switch is at the center of a concentration of subscribers (phone users), right? And the price of copper dictates centralization, right? Well, the CIA thought so when they murdered President Salvador Allende of Chile to get his copper, right? (Don’t start me on the bloody basis of gold, copper, uranium, oil and diamonds just now, OK?)
So, switches tend to be at the center of things, ditty-wise, goes the conventional wisdom. Practically, this means that in the process of AIM-ing at their artistic objective (Adopt, Improvise, Modify) Stacey & Hutch learned early on that they had to find a way to be comfortable in the urban environment, which basically means, operate where there is no cover you’d find otherwise, from hills, mountains, ravines, trees, grass, shrubs, forests, etc.
S&H learned quickly to be part of a tableau, where they were a visible part of it, not hidden behind it. To be visible you have to have a “story,” even if it’s a story that’s never told, but only glimpsed, once, by a peace officer, read, and ignored as consonant with his known:
A street person:
ditzy “girls” on an impulsive lark (their favorite);
tour bus casino visitors;
en route to sick mom over there (1000 miles away);
old friends having a fight away from the kids, etc.
This early, urban success at carefully cultivated “stories” of appearance and explanation did well for S & H to get going, but after a while they couldn’t help but notice that not all switches are alike. Despite the central doctrine of urbanity, some switches had a touch of country, and could be most ricky-tick exploited for same.
You Gotta Kiss a Lot of Switches To Get the Horse to Cross the Stream
. . . um, is that right? But wait!
“Wait, wait, dammit!” Stacey rolled down the window smidge. “Before we get into that I want to talk about Sean.”
“You are hopeless! What would Bob say?”
“I love Bob and you know it. But Sean is interesting, with all his checkered past.”
“Sean has more checkers than Toys-R-Us . . . Hutch opined.
“Poor guy. So, I distract him. Nothing hinky, just friendly. We talk about P.O.’s.”
Hutch twitched around on her seat to Stacey, all alert,
“Spill, girl-friend!”
“I’d thought you’d never ask! Guess what he told the salesman over the phone when he wanted to buy a barrel of paint!”
“A barrel of paint? What the heck for?”
“Well, he wanted a barrel, not ten buckets. He figured he’d save $50 that way, and he’s cheap.. In a nice way.”
“Fifty dollars is fifty dollars . . .”
“Exactly, why not? But the problem is, how to get the factory to sell you just one barrel, when it’s a lot of trouble for them to move just one barrel. The salesman said to Sean, just go over to Home Depot and buy ten buckets. Simple for you, simple for us.
“I wouldn’t know what to say to that . . .”
“Me neither, high pressure wholesale salesman? Forget it.”
“So? . . .
“So, enter the blarney. Sean starts spinning this story about how the paint’s not really for the bar, but instead it’s for his brother, who’s thinking of opening up his own trailer factory.”
“Trailer factory? You mean . . .”
“No, dummy, not truck trailers, but house trailers.”
Hutch drew herself up into a proper sitting posture, “Are you by any chance referring to mobile homes?”
“Whatever, they take a lot of paint if you make a hundred of them, right? So Sean actually asked the salesman, ‘How much for a railroad tanker of paint.’ “
“What?”
“To paint all the trailer houses his brother was going to make in his new factory, right? He got the salesman’s head all spinning with ideas of making a million bucks commission by supplying this huge new factory, and then he said, ‘Well, my brother wants to do a test painting with just your paint to see if he likes it, and later he’ll order the railroad tanker.’ “
Hutch was goggle-eyed, “A switcheroo, then . . .”
“Sean even sent a pick-up over to the factory, with a Mail Boxes, Etc., address on the P.O., just so the dispatcher wouldn’t see that it was just coming to his funky old bar.”
March, 2010 Vol. 7 No. 16
PO Box 7424, Reading, PA 19603
Phone – cell—484-706-4375, machine -- 610-396-0332
Email – jdmd@ptd.net
Web – skyp1.blogspot.com
Circulation – 85
Editor, John Dunkle
Abortion is Murder, a weak, pathetic response to baby murder, is sent out at least once a month. If the gestapo hasn’t jailed you for defending the innocent realistically, you either have to tell me you want it or go the website. Faxes and emails are free but snail-mail is free only for POC’s, $100 for others.
Because I believe we should use every legitimate means, including force, in our attempt to protect those being tortured to death, I want to hear from people who’ve been forceful. I’d also like to hear from those who disagree with me.
Prisoners for Christ:
1. Evans, Paul Ross 83230-180, USP McCreary, P.O. Box 3000, Pine Knot, KY 42635
2. Gibbons, Linda - Vanier WDC, 655 Martin St., P.O. Box 1040, Milton, ON, Canada L9T 5E6
3. Griffin, Michael 310249, Okaloosa Correctional Institution, Crestview FL 32539-6708 9/11
4. Howard, Peter Andrew 57760-097, FCI, Box 900, Safford, AZ 85546
5. Jordi, Stephen 70309-004, FCI P.O. Box 33, Terre Haute IN 47802 6/30
6. Knight, Peter CRN 158589, Port Philip Prison, P.O. Box 376, Laverton, Victoria, Australia
7. Kopp, James 11761-055, USP Canaan, 3057 Easton Tpk., Waymart, PA 18472
8. McMenemy, David Robert 08168-030, FCI Elkton, P.O. Box 10, Lisbon OH 44432
9. Richardson, Alonzo Lee 12898-021, PO Box 474701, Des Moines, IA 5094
10. Roeder, Scott, Sedgewick County Jail, 141 West Elm, Wichita, KS 67203
11. Rudolph, Eric 18282-058 US Pen. Max, Box 8500, Florence CO 81226-8500
12. Shannon, Rachelle 59755-065, FCI Waseca, Unit A, P.O. Box 1731, Waseca, MN 56093 3/31
13. Waagner, Clayton Lee 17258-039, United States Penitentiary, P.O. Box 1000, Lewisburg PA 17837 8/25
14. Weiler Jr., Robert F. 39385-037, FCC - Delaware Hall, Box 1000, Petersburg VA 23804 (new)
15. Whitaker, Vincent , FCI, Box 699, Estill SC 29918
The Lord has asked people to make sacrifices related to opposing abortion which all but a handful have had too weak a heart to make. And they’ve looked for any pretense they could conjure up to claim that the sacrifice wasn’t required. They even deluded themselves, as people often do, into “believing” the pretense was real . . . When they get what they’ll get, they’ll fully deserve it. Peter Knight
----------------------------------------------
Here’s the ending of Jim Kopp’s Neo Trades II, Shade Tree Horror Stories:
William loved to work. He loved it so much he loved it for itself. He never scolded anyone, he never called anyone lazy, although he could, because he was the laborers’ straw-boss, and he could. It was always, “If you could be so kind,” or “As soon as would be convenient for you,” and he knew you would jump up and do it because he asked so kindly. William went at 100 miles an hour, sunup to sundown, and with nary a discouraging word, he could make you feel like a slacker just for doing 99 instead. You wanted to catch up with him, which must explain why one bright Caribbean morning William woke up, took a deep breath, looked up at the almost cobalt sky with the magnificent frigate birds floating around in it, looked down at the bay and the over-arching coconuts, and said, we can move this along, and he rolled the cement mixer out onto the scaffold and of course a wee drop of sand and mortar to feed it.
The stone masons were tapping. The masons’ apprentices were lugging. The mixer was thump, thump , thumping. You could feel it in your feet which was why you didn’t feel the feel of the cross-braces giving out with just a little tiny flex, as sway of their own.
They all looked up, and instead of the blue of the sky, they saw the green of the jungle coming at them at a little bit more than 100 miles an hour.
No one was hurt, for all of their rapid one-way ride from the top of the house to the bottom of the jungle, Thanks be to Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, a chastened but undaunted William would later say.
When the Shade Tree Horror Story was told to me by the G.C./architect later on, he said, “I turned my back on William for just one hour because I had to run into town. Would you believe it? When I came back he had the mixer up on the scaffold. He rode it all the way to the ground.
All along that wild ride, up until just before it hit, there was William still shoveling away to fill the mixer.
Moral of the story: Boys and girls, hard work won’t kill you. And if you don’t drink, your kids will never starve. But don’t put the mixer on the scaffold. OK?
Next time DV: Chainsaws are much safer than you think. But wait till you find out what’s really scary about saws. You’ll never believe it. (hint: it’s not the blade)
P.S. I learned all this and 10000 things more and I was scarcely 18. See why your wee bairnies need off the couch? Read Cloud of Unknowing yet? How about Noise? (Tomeo, EWTN.com, ...time’s running out)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Continuation of Eric’s chapter 3, “The Debate.”
Most Americans have a stereotypical image of a communist. He's a guy dressed in a drab uniform carrying an AK-47 in Peking or Hanoi. But the Frankfurt School Marxists were not trying to create goose-stepping revolutionaries. First, they wanted hippies. Frankfurt School thinker Herbert Marcuse articulated the free-love doctrine for the counterculture. Author of Eros and Civilization (1955), Marcuse was the guy who coined the phrase "make love, not war." Ultimately the Frankfurt School thinkers wanted the children of the hippies. Because even though they were subjected to an intensive deconstruction process—which is why they called it the counterculture— the hippies still retain elements of the older value system. But their children do not. Take a look at the typical member of the MTV generation: he's amoral and lives only to satisfy his animal desires; he lacks discipline, ambition and purpose; he has no patriotism, honor or dignity; he is missing religion, culture and convictions; he has no loyalty to family, friends and country; his only heroes are Hollywood degenerates and sports stars. He is exactly what Lukács and Gramsci wanted: a person lacking identity, a talking monkey, a blank slate upon which to write the values of socialism. Their work is now paying dividends. In the recent presidential election (2008) 66 percent of those under thirty years old voted for the Marxist candidate, Barack Obama. Where Marx's revolution failed, Lukács and Gramsci's has succeeded.
Meanwhile, socialists in Russia would keep their revolutionary roots and their internationalist ambitions. Political structures were supposed to follow economic conditions, according to Marx’s theory. But most Russians were peasants engaged in agriculture. Their mode of production and exchange was still feudal. Therefore, they had to first go through the capitalist phase of economic development before moving on to socialism, said Marx. Revolution was supposed to start in the most advanced capitalist societies (Germany, France, England), and spread from there. When he realized that revolution would not happen in the West, Marx became opportunistic. He turned his theory on its head. In the preface to the Russian 1882 edition of the Communist Manifesto, Marx gave Russia permission to skip the capitalist stage of economic development and move right on to socialism.
Using this interpretation of dialectical materialism, Lenin, the leader of Russia’s Social Democratic Party, developed his own brand of egalitarianism (Marxism-Leninism). Lenin preferred Marx’s name for socialism, calling it communism. The underlying economic conditions are not necessary to achieve socialism in Russia, wrote Lenin in his book What is to be Done? (1912). A well organized group of professional revolutionaries, said Lenin, could act as a “vanguard” for the people. Relying on their unique insights, the revolutionary vanguard could propel the masses to socialism, regardless of the society’s economic stage of development. If a ruthless elite imposed it, socialism could work anywhere. Lenin called this idea democratic centralism. This meant the rule of a small party elite through terror, secrecy, and propaganda. Stalin later refined the idea to mean the rule of one man through a few handpicked lackeys. Improving party discipline through intra-party purges was another Stalinist improvement on democratic centralism. Focusing his attention on peasants and agriculture rather than workers and industry, Mao Tze-Tung later developed his own style of Marxism-Leninism called Maoism. This triumvirate — Lenin, Stalin, Mao — created the version of egalitarianism that would serve as the model for communist regimes in the non-Western world.
During the Second World War Democratic Socialists and Revolutionary Socialists joined together to defeat the Axis powers. Not since the 1890s had socialists worked so well together. Many socialists in the West were confident that the differences with their Soviet comrades could be worked out and the dream of global socialism finally realized. Franklin D. Roosevelt, for one, held out hope that after the war America and the Soviet Union could lay the foundations for a New World Order based upon the general principles of socialism, which were later embodied in the United Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. But after the war the dream of socialist cooperation died when Stalin held onto Eastern Europe and pursued an aggressive policy with his Democratic Socialist cousins in the West. A Cold War developed. The war in Korea and the ruthless nature of Soviet and Chinese communism caused a conservative reaction in the West. The old labels of communism and socialism became highly unpopular, as conservatives started to point out the common ideological heritage of the Soviet and Chinese communists and their American Democratic Socialist cousins. Conservatives exposed the sympathies, the collaborations, the outright treasons of figures such as Alger Hiss and Harry Dexter White, both of whom held key positions in Roosevelt’s administration. Lest they face a full fledged reaction, as happened in Spain in the1930s, egalitarians in America began to camouflage their communist sympathies, and they got rid of the socialist label entirely. Now they are known exclusively as liberal democrats, or progressives.
Since they have already laid the basis of a welfare state in Europe and America, egalitarians now concentrate their focus on cultural issues. This is Frankfurt School-style Marxism. The Marxist idea of class struggle has been expanded to include white vs. black, men vs. women, natives vs. immigrants, straights vs. homosexuals. It’s the same old concept of history as a struggle between the oppressors and the oppressed, with the mirage of an egalitarian paradise somewhere up ahead. But despite the camouflage, the name change, and the new focus, the contemporary liberal is an ideological relative of Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Marx, Robespierre and Rousseau. Like them, he believes that basic inequalities cause injustices, and like them, he believes there is a template for the perfect society. Egalitarians only differ on how to get there. Just like children trying to force square blocks into round holes, egalitarians have tried for over 200 years to smash their templates down onto the existing organic societies of the earth. The result has been misery on an unprecedented scale. By attempting to erect a heaven on earth they have created a living hell.
The conservative accepts life, he builds culture on natural human dispositions. America is a Western Christian nation; therefore, the conservative believes in keeping the Christian ethic at the core of his world view. The Conservative believes in the exclusive claims of Western Christian culture identity. At the other end, the egalitarian is committed to building an artificial culture, one based on theories, and not organic identity. This universal culture claims to speak for all “humanity.” The egalitarian views organic cultures as primitive, backward, and intolerant. Because the Western Culture is the most powerful organic culture in existence today, they see it as the ultimate enemy of their utopian fantasies. At this level, the conflict is existential, there can be no compromises: Western conservatives will either preserve their culture, or the egalitarians will succeed in snuffing it out forever. Their global utopia is the mirage of fools. At issue here is whether the West will die at the hands of these fools. (tbc)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear John, Sometimes you have to tell a confused old dog, "You're barking up the wrong tree." But for old dogs like you it is worse than that, "You should be barking up the tree you're resting under!" The reason why letters like my last one are confusing to you is that you have been taking shade under trees you should be barking up instead!
Let's look at Laci and Conner's law, for example, also known as the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. The law provides limited legal protection for children in utero. What do old pro-life dogs say about this law? "Finally some shade to rest under!" The poor old dog is so badly confused he would never ever think of barking up this tree. He'd bark up other trees, but not this one because he thinks this is a pro-life tree as solid as oak. So he rests under its shade instead of barking up it.
At this point you might think I'm being ridiculous, wondering, "Does Cal really think he is going to prove to me that Laci's law is anything but pro-life?" Well, let me poke a little stick up there and show you the big snake hiding up in the tree. Here's the scoop.
In addition to legalizing voluntary abortion, the Court in Roe v. Wade quietly legalized two categories of forced abortion. The Court based the authority to override a woman's decision to refuse an abortion on Buck v. Bell (forced sterilization) and Jacobson v. Massachusetts (forced vaccination). By disavowing the applicability of Skinner v. Oklahoma to abortion, the Court created two categories of forced abortion: 1) based on mental incompetence, and 2) based on drug use. Skinner would have prevented abortion based on drug use, because it was handed down to protect people from forced procedures to control reproduction in arbitrary connection with crimes committed.
But faced with the sex and drug craze of the hippie era, and unsure of what might lie on the horizon, even Justice Douglas (who himself had authored Skinner for a unanimous Court) went along with abandoning Skinner for abortion. The reason was that the Court felt it would be impractical to label all the women who got pregnant on sex and drug crazes mentally incompetent and to force them to abort that way. Instead, it would be more practical to abandon Skinner so women could simply be forced to abort based on the crime of drug use itself. Otherwise, the Court feared there might be no way to control drug-related pregnancy epidemics at some point in the future.
Mislabeled pro-life justices, Justices Rehnquist and White dissented from Roe v. Wade not because the children's rights were being denied, but because they felt states should have broader discretion to override both the woman's decision to refuse an abortion and her decision to choose an abortion. In a nutshell, the states' rights view is based on a belief that provincial judgment reaches its perfection at the state level, such that the leaders of our states will know exactly when to override a woman's decision to refuse an abortion and when to override her decision to choose an abortion.
In other words, some feel leaving the abortion decision up to women alone is inefficient for two reasons. First, some women who state leaders feel should have abortions (e.g., women on drugs) will refuse abortions and slip through the cracks. Second, without letting the states make women jump through hoops to get abortions, more women will carelessly rely on abortion and this will lend more social momentum to the sorts of sex and drug crazes that result in unplanned pregnancies in the first place. Thus, the states' rights advocates on the Court feel giving states broad permission to override both the decision to refuse and the decision to choose an abortion will be the most efficient way to prune the wild fruit off women's branches and keep it from coming back.
So that's the background. Now let's look at Laci's law. If the Court in Roe had left the abortion decision to the woman's sole determination, then it would have sufficed for Laci's law to make an exception for abortions performed with the consent of the pregnant woman. But Laci's law makes two more exceptions, one for each category of forced abortion authorized by the Court in Roe as a backup plan. Why? Roe reserved forced abortion as a backup plan, but the states' rights advocates want the Court to give the states broader power to override the woman's decision to refuse an abortion as an everyday plan. As the plurality warns in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the states' rights justices would allow the states to override a woman's decision to refuse an abortion "as readily" as to override her decision to choose an abortion.
It is no skin off the backs of states' rights advocates if criminals are given added penalties for killing at least potentially wanted children in the womb in connection with certain federal crimes. But if they do not include exceptions for legally performed forced abortions, states will no longer be allowed to override the woman's decision to refuse an abortion, whether on the basis of incompetence or drug use, not even if the Court at a later date overturns Roe in favor of the states' rights!
So Laci's law keeps a snake hidden in its tree. Looking forward to a day when the Court overturns Roe not in favor of the children's rights but rather in favor of the states' rights, so that the states can then override a woman's decision to refuse an abortion "as readily" as to override her decision to choose an abortion, Laci's law provides exceptions for both categories of forced abortion.
In addition to an exception for abortions authorized by the woman, Laci's law provides exceptions for abortions authorized by "a person authorized by law to act on her behalf" (e.g., by a psychiatrist after she is labeled incompetent) and abortions for which the nature of "such consent is implied by law" (e.g., abortions authorized by the state in connection with drug use). In Stump v. Sparkman, the Court ruled that ministerial authority to forcibly control reproduction need only be implied by state law. It does not have to be expressed, just implied. So there you are, old dog, now you see the snake hiding up the tree in Laci's law. And to think you've been resting under it!
References: Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905); Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927); Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942); Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), at 153-154 (relying on Jacobson and Buck to reject the argument that the abortion decision should be left to the woman's sole determination), and at 159 (disavowing Skinner, saying, "The situation therefore is inherently different from … Skinner"); Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973), at 215 (Justice Douglas joining the Court's reliance on Jacobson and Buck in Roe); San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 (1973), at 100-101 (Justice Marshall reflecting that the Court in Roe abandoned Skinner and instead "reaffirmed its initial decision in Buck v. Bell" for abortion); Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978); Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, at 859 (the plurality warning that the states' rights justices would allow states to override a woman's decision to refuse an abortion "as readily" as to override her decision to choose an abortion), at 913, 932 (Justices Stevens and Blackmun, who wrote Roe, respectively reflecting that no Member of the Court, nor the solicitor general, has ever so much as "questioned" whether the children have rights we are bound to respect, but instead the Court has debated to what extent states should be allowed to override the woman's abortion decision), and at 915 (Justice Stevens, with whom Justice Blackmun joined at 932, disavowing Skinner for abortion); Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (2000), at 980 (the states' rights justices banding together under Justice Thomas to clarify that they would allow states to perform even partial-birth procedures, provided only that the states so decide); Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004, Public Law 108-212, (18 U.S.C section 1841, part (c)(1) reads, "(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution--(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law.") Sincerely, Cal.
Now wait a minute, Cal. I neither rest under that tree nor bark up it. (Is that a sin of omission?) Readers, don’t miss Cal’s Petition for Habeas Corpus, next issue, for Scott and others.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Ross Evans has just completed The Militant Christian. I will post it here as I am doing with Eric’s Abortion, the Irrepressible Conflict:
The Militant Christian
A text by Paul Ross Evans
I. Introduction
II. Theocracy – The True Government for the Militant Christian
III. Theocratic Law and Its Function
IV. Criminal Law
V. Military Law and Rules of Engagement
VI. Moral Law and Assorted Laws of Theocracy
VII. The Ten Commandments – Behavioral Standards and a Sacred Code
VIII. Prayers for Strength
IX Documented Action by the Author of the Text
X. Epilogue
Introduction
Against a modern sky, our towering Christian culture began to crumble. Slowly, but surely, we’ve let it come to this. We are disarmed, lacking the absolution we have stood tall with during past conflicts, declaring ourselves a cut above the rest. No, now we relinquish the sword and shield of the Lord’s absolute commandments. They have been cheaply traded for empty idealism and pacifistic, flesh-worshiping idolatry.
The time has come for us, as a body, to draw a line in this conflict. We must separate Christian from non-believer. Does that mean we abandon non-believers? Absolutely not. But in order for a Christian to embark upon a journey leading others to Christ, that Christian must be able to see clearly. Today, things are, at best, cloudy and uncertain for the mainstream followers of Christ. Then again, Christ was anything but mainstream.
For those who know the truth, it can be difficult and exhausting to walk through a grey world, where no black and white lies are drawn, and everything remains uncertain. It is my wish that this text will give my brothers and sisters those clear lines, as they have been revealed to me. My hope also is the sheer, plain truth of the text will influence others to follow Christ, and join us as well.
Positively, at one time, people, we were a force to reckoned with. Our callings as the chosen have not died, only our will to stand defiantly in the faces of the enemy as Armies of the God of Israel. When the day comes along when Christians unite world-wide, and align themselves with the truth of the Word, nothing can or will stop us. May God be with us.
Next issue I will begin Paul’s second chapter, “Theocracy.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------
For you who’d like to know more about the editor:
So, pray tell, what have you learned that is so self-revealing, Mr. Know-It-All. [I had told the writer that her blog, bullywatch009, is very self-revealing.] What is the problem with my comments? What is it that you know, in your infinite world of wisdom, that is so self-revealing? And, further, what do you imagine you can do with your abundance of knowledge that will further your mission of hatred and misery toward women? The fact remains that you can waste obnoxious amounts of time making inane comments on this blog. You can continue with your hubris, making false claims of religiosity. Everyone outside of your smarmy group of mongrel, pseudo-prolifers knows that you are a sad, old man who tries to be important but is essentially an impotent, ignorant pretense of a Catholic. You are right when you say you are a coward. You desperately want love and attention. You would be wise to seek love and kindness from your family and stop seeking some form of heroism in your pathetic attempts at being so righteous. You are a coward, a poser, a pretender.
Go home. Love your wife, your children, your grandchildren. Show the world what love is about by being a kind and generous man instead of an ogre Hell-bent on damnation. Show your misanthropic pal, Gerry McWilliams, what cura personalis is all about. Gerry is a lesser man than you are. Rise above his hatred and anger.
January 24, 2010 10:26 PM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roeder Rooters – Tiller’s “Grateful Dead”
Dave and Dorothy Leach rode with Donna Holman to Wichita, Kansas in our Truthvan. They wanted to be at the courthouse to support to Scott Roeder who is on trial for killing abortionist George Tiller. They were joined by Michael Bray from Ohio, Drew Heiss from Wisconsin, and Gene Frye from Kansas City. Randall Terry and a few of his supporters did interviews outside the courthouse. There is bad blood between Randall Terry and Wichita’s Troy Newman over the Operation Rescue moniker.
Local pro-lifers have been conspicuously absent during these proceedings. The significance of this trial is capturing the world’s attention and Operation Rescue’s sign trucks are no where to be seen. There are plenty of pro-aborts in the gallery tying a “hang man’s noose.”
This is America’s epitaph on of how we lost the culture. We did not lose because the wicked are more powerful than we. We did not lose because they have more money or influence; we did not lose because they have a seducing message; we lost because we did not show up! We lost by default!
Do you ever wonder why there are no Christian suicide bombers taking out abortion clinics? Heck! You can hardly find a pastor preaching an anti-abortion sermon, or a pew of people willing to listen to it! American “pro-life” “Christians” don’t want to hear about kids getting killed. Christianets need sermonets with lots of sugar, comedy skits, dancing zebras, and finger puppets presenting a cheerful but thoughtful message; something that relates to them and theirs.
Is it any wonder why most pro-life Christians view Scott Roeder and his supporters as the radical fringe! They have had no sound teaching from their pulpits!
Many pro-life ministries do not act as if the babies’ lives are important. They bicker with each other over monikers, window dressing, and conscience money.
Scott Roeder is an embarrassment to them. Mr. Roeder acted as if the children Tiller killed were worth defending, a big “NO-NO” in pro-life circles. Pro-lifers cannot come up with a logical argument as to why the double standard? Why is it OK to use force, even deadly force, to protect a classroom of kindergarten children, but it is forbidden to use force to protect pre-born children slated for abortion? Are pre-born children worth less than post-born children? If so, we have tacitly admitted that a mother DOES have a right to kill her unborn child! Her unborn child is somehow sub-human and NOT entitled to an inalienable Right of Life.
The past 3 days Truthvan has been prominently parked at the entrance of the Sedgwick County Courthouse. The despised children pictured on the van are junior prosecutors; their tortured bodies are an indictment to the authorities sanctioning their demise. Tiller should have been judiciously hung like “Chemical Ali.” George Tiller might be alive today if these authorities did not protect his baby-killing operation.
The state should wrap up its case today. Tomorrow former Attorney General Phil Kline will testify for the Defense regarding illegal abortions George Tiller performed.
Dan Holman, as usual, hits the nail on the head. My new sign says, “Why do Christians and Jews, but not Muslims, kill their children?” My wife asks if I have an answer to that question. Yes, I say, the answer is birds of a feather flock together. Well what does that mean, she says. It means that Christians and Jews, both, are the scum of the earth, hateful, despicable, cowardly, self-absorbed monsters, and worse – people who pay to have their own children tortured to death.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I’ve mentioned the Lutheran Pastor Bahmann here recently. Pastor started visiting the mill in Allentown after Scott Roeder killed George Tiller in a Lutheran Church. That hit a little too close to home for Pastor, and he decided to get involved. A week ago I talked with him for an hour in the office at his church. Here’s what happened later:
When I got home from my meeting with Pastor Bahmann, my wife Margaret asked me how it went.
“I like him a lot,” I said, “but he thinks I’m a terrorist.”
“See? I knew it! You’re going to get us all in trouble. Why do you have to say the things you say and do the things you do?” etc., etc. -- Margaret was beside herself.
“Hold on, hold on,” I said, “He thinks you’re a terrorist too.”
“What! You’re crazy!”
“No, it’s true. You think abortion is murder, don’t you?”
Margaret is no dope, and she could see where this was heading. (long pause)
“It’s homicide, it’s not murder.”
“Now you’re playing with words – no, you are – no, you are – no, you are . . . .” (longer pause)
“You don’t say the victim of an abortion was homicided, do you? You say she was murdered.”
“No, you say she was killed.”
“No, you say she was killed if the woman carrying her is in a car accident, or drowns, or something. In an abortion she is tracked down and pulled apart. You say murdered. And, when you say that, sooner or later someone is going to believe you even if you don’t really believe yourself. She or he is going to take action, and that’s what Pastor Bahmann was talking about.”
“Prayer is the only action anyone should take.”
“Prayers are answered, right? Do you think Jesus is going to appear here again Himself to answer them? Of course not! Instead, He will raise a few, a minuscule number, from our ranks to confront the enemy forcefully and realistically. Some of them will die as Jesus did. We prolifers will continue to attack those few chosen even more vehemently than the kayhaitchers attack them, but as long as child-killing remains legal, one or two will always be raised.” (longest pause)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stacey & Hutch {So Many Switches . . . So Little Time}
Our story to date: S & H, successful in their nocturnal civic art projects, find themselves optimizing the operation as they talk shop in the long rides in and out of their “donuts.” After a while in these discussions, they begin to see variation in the sitting of the various switches . . . and they ponder about Barkeep Sean, a little bit, too . . .
It came as a subtle surprise to S & H, as they were talking, that not all switches are urban, or, at least, not as urban as they thought.
Huh?
OK, well, they thought you’d never ask!
Of course any “switch” (central office telco equipment) almost has to be urban in its nature, right? Telephones are a technology dependent, sooner or later, still, on physical copper wires, right? And the most efficient way to locate a switch is at the center of a concentration of subscribers (phone users), right? And the price of copper dictates centralization, right? Well, the CIA thought so when they murdered President Salvador Allende of Chile to get his copper, right? (Don’t start me on the bloody basis of gold, copper, uranium, oil and diamonds just now, OK?)
So, switches tend to be at the center of things, ditty-wise, goes the conventional wisdom. Practically, this means that in the process of AIM-ing at their artistic objective (Adopt, Improvise, Modify) Stacey & Hutch learned early on that they had to find a way to be comfortable in the urban environment, which basically means, operate where there is no cover you’d find otherwise, from hills, mountains, ravines, trees, grass, shrubs, forests, etc.
S&H learned quickly to be part of a tableau, where they were a visible part of it, not hidden behind it. To be visible you have to have a “story,” even if it’s a story that’s never told, but only glimpsed, once, by a peace officer, read, and ignored as consonant with his known:
A street person:
ditzy “girls” on an impulsive lark (their favorite);
tour bus casino visitors;
en route to sick mom over there (1000 miles away);
old friends having a fight away from the kids, etc.
This early, urban success at carefully cultivated “stories” of appearance and explanation did well for S & H to get going, but after a while they couldn’t help but notice that not all switches are alike. Despite the central doctrine of urbanity, some switches had a touch of country, and could be most ricky-tick exploited for same.
You Gotta Kiss a Lot of Switches To Get the Horse to Cross the Stream
. . . um, is that right? But wait!
“Wait, wait, dammit!” Stacey rolled down the window smidge. “Before we get into that I want to talk about Sean.”
“You are hopeless! What would Bob say?”
“I love Bob and you know it. But Sean is interesting, with all his checkered past.”
“Sean has more checkers than Toys-R-Us . . . Hutch opined.
“Poor guy. So, I distract him. Nothing hinky, just friendly. We talk about P.O.’s.”
Hutch twitched around on her seat to Stacey, all alert,
“Spill, girl-friend!”
“I’d thought you’d never ask! Guess what he told the salesman over the phone when he wanted to buy a barrel of paint!”
“A barrel of paint? What the heck for?”
“Well, he wanted a barrel, not ten buckets. He figured he’d save $50 that way, and he’s cheap.. In a nice way.”
“Fifty dollars is fifty dollars . . .”
“Exactly, why not? But the problem is, how to get the factory to sell you just one barrel, when it’s a lot of trouble for them to move just one barrel. The salesman said to Sean, just go over to Home Depot and buy ten buckets. Simple for you, simple for us.
“I wouldn’t know what to say to that . . .”
“Me neither, high pressure wholesale salesman? Forget it.”
“So? . . .
“So, enter the blarney. Sean starts spinning this story about how the paint’s not really for the bar, but instead it’s for his brother, who’s thinking of opening up his own trailer factory.”
“Trailer factory? You mean . . .”
“No, dummy, not truck trailers, but house trailers.”
Hutch drew herself up into a proper sitting posture, “Are you by any chance referring to mobile homes?”
“Whatever, they take a lot of paint if you make a hundred of them, right? So Sean actually asked the salesman, ‘How much for a railroad tanker of paint.’ “
“What?”
“To paint all the trailer houses his brother was going to make in his new factory, right? He got the salesman’s head all spinning with ideas of making a million bucks commission by supplying this huge new factory, and then he said, ‘Well, my brother wants to do a test painting with just your paint to see if he likes it, and later he’ll order the railroad tanker.’ “
Hutch was goggle-eyed, “A switcheroo, then . . .”
“Sean even sent a pick-up over to the factory, with a Mail Boxes, Etc., address on the P.O., just so the dispatcher wouldn’t see that it was just coming to his funky old bar.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)