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 –
Web –
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
141 W ELM ST
WICHITA, KS 67203-3848

Address of Custodian:

Sheriff Robert Hinshaw
141 W ELM ST
WICHITA, KS 67203-3848


) Case No. ______________________
In Re Scott P. Roeder,)

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:
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.



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)


John Dunkle said...

My comments never "threaten, demean, or decrease the civility of discussion," but I'm deleted anyway, to the point where I had decided to look elsewhere for fun. But I can't. These postings are too juicy with ignorance, falsehood, pedantry, bombast, and childishness that I just can't resist squeezing; so, here's what I'm gonna do. I will send my comments here, where most will be deleted, and to the "comments" section of my own newsletter,, where they will appear in all their glory. That way I'll know what I think 'cause I'll see what I say. Who said that?

John Dunkle said...

Kate Ranieri no longer posts my comments on her postings -- bullywatch009. So I've decided to place them here. This and the one above respond to her 2/21 posts.

Who is this ghoul? Trying to arrest the "Queen of the Harpies" crown from Allred?

John Dunkle said...

2/19 My comments never "threaten, demean, or decrease the civility of discussion," but I'm deleted anyway, to the point where I had decided to look elsewhere for fun. But I can't. These postings are too juicy with ignorance, falsehood, pedantry, bombast, and childishness that I just can't resist squeezing; so, here's what I'm gonna do. I will send my comments here, where most will be deleted, and to the "comments" section of my own newsletter,, where they will appear in all their glory. That way I'll know what I think 'cause I'll see what I say. Who said that?

2/21 Who is this ghoul? Trying to arrest the "Queen of the Harpies" crown from Allred?

2/21 Who is this ghoul?

2/22 Well said A bay bee, music to my ears!

2/21 I thought Flannery O'Connor said that!

The riddle is solved and it's what I've always wanted -- readers.

2/21 Don't worry, A, The Reverend Rebecca Turner is to religion what the Asian Perch is to The Great Lakes.

2/20 The Lord doesn't answer the prayers of those who mock him

2/20 You and your ilk say mutual masturbation and baby killing are good? You and your ilk are wrong. You and your ilk want women to think for themselves? You and your ilk want anything but. You and your ilk.....

2/19 Oh I didn't miss the point of the post, b, which is that older people should be allowed to kill younger people. I was just pointing out that your syntax unraveled your thought.

John Dunkle said...

I did respond to #4 and now it will appear because I'll also place it on skyp1.blogspot -- The answer to your question is that it's love-inspired.

John Dunkle said...

Bullywatch009 couldn't handle what I say, so they closed down. There's still the Abortioneers, though -- just as stupid but I'm hoping a little more gutty:

You know, VF, most of your postings here are so stupid and my comments are so revealing of their stupidity, I've decided to post them in spite of you (the editor, Vulva Flower, no kidding, has never posted anything I've sent her). From now on all the comments I send to you will also appear in the "Comments" section of my blog, Now I can tell my friends where to go when they want to find out how adolescent Abortioneers' postings are.

John Dunkle said...

Check out the 2/21 post, and look toward the bottom to see who commented, and then you'll understand how anyone who would call himself that would write that.

John Dunkle said...

2/23not with a bang but a whimper You so disappoint me, Kate. What if I promise no more comments? And here are other practices we've had even more than 4000 years of: pederasty, matricide, theft, torture, pedantry, arson....

John Dunkle said...

2/22 Geeeze, I just got finished praising you for your fortitude, Kate! What gives? Can't stand on your own two feet anymore? Finally decided you really, profoundly can not defend the practice of pulling apart young people? Oh, you can come up with the latest slogans and the tired "research" published continuously under new garb, but after a while even you realize that's a dead end, so you scamper away.

John Dunkle said...

Strange comments today, but it least you up and well, Kate. Yesterday, I thought you'd run again. Told myself you were just another wimpy, weak, fearful lady. Glad to see I was wrong.

John Dunkle said...

Bullywatch ran, now let's see how long the perverts at Abortioneers can hang on.

2/23 Yeah, Bob got it wrong: it's not really God's punishment; it's Satan's reward -- "Do me a little favor, Sweetheart, and get rid of this kid. You know how inconvenient she is. Then I'll take of subsequent ones, and you too. And if any of those stupid antis say 'breast cancer,' stop up your ears and get nasty."

John Dunkle said...

the Abortioneers, 2/24 I wish that little girl who had her arms and legs pulled off had had a best friend.

John Dunkle said...

2/24 One may not kill an innocent person. One may not change the name of a person so that you may kill her; i.e., call the baby living in the womb a fetus after having turned "fetus" into a curse word, like "nigger." One can do that but one may not.

John Dunkle said...

2/23 Hey, we're not aborting anyone, we're aborting a fetus -- hey, we're not lynching anyone, we're lynching a nigger! Remember when the lady asked Huckleberry if anyone got hurt when the engine exploded? No, mam, Huck says, killed a nigger. Then her -- well, that's good because sometimes people do get hurt. An old story, just dressed differently.

John Dunkle said...

2/24 You know, folks, they have eleven perverts writing for this blog and they still can't come up with a post a day! Probably because kayhaitchers search far and wide for rationalizations to tell themselves that it's OK to kill young people, and they still can't find them. All we have to do is say, no one may kill an innocent person, no one, not even someone who is carrying her around.

John Dunkle said...

2/26 Don't know what to make out of this stuff. I promised my friends I'd respond to every Abortioneer posting; otherwise,I'd skip this one. Go back to saying silly stuff. All this does is talk about Twitter and I don't even know what Twitter is! Say something for us stupid guys, can't ya?

John Dunkle said...

OK, guys, I finally figured out how to use Twitter. And it's on the 2/25 post, not 2/25. Anyway, this dope tries to be a cutesy killer -- just want you to know you can do it too, tee hee! I really love the older one but I gotta kill this one because I got all kinds of reasons. For one thing, it hurts now but it'll hurt a lot more if I have to carry her to term. Gotta watch out for #1, ya know.