Tuesday, March 23, 2010

Abortion is Murder, 7-20, April 3, 2010

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

April 3, 2010 Vol. 7 No. 20
PO Box 7424, Reading, PA 19603
Phone – cell—484-706-4375, machine -- 610-396-0332
Email – johndunk@ptd.net
Web – skyp1.blogspot.com
Circulation – 107
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

Oh, this book by Eric Rudolph, Abortion, the Irrepressible Conflict -- it just keeps getting better and better. You’ve got to buy it. Now we continue in Chapter 3:

Sally Markowitz begins with the same basic premise—women are not autonomous actors, they are an oppressed slave class, and the personhood argument is inappropriate within this context. Markowitz puts forward two principles: the Feminist Proviso and the Impermissible Sacrifice Principle. In the first principle, “Women are, as a group, sexually oppressed by men and this oppression can neither be completely understood in terms of, nor otherwise reduced to oppressions of the other sorts.” The second principle: “When one social group in society is oppressed by another, it is impermissible to require the oppressed group to make sacrifices that will exacerbate or perpetuate this oppression.” Together, these principles “justify abortion-on-demand for women because they live in a sexist society.” The unborn child is a hostage in a war for equality. Patriarchy needs women slaves to bare its children, so abortion is an effective tactic against the male slave masters. Until patriarchy frees its women, Markowitz encourages her oppressed sisters to get the little bastards while they’re still in the womb:
Let feminists insist that the conditions for refraining from having abortions is a sexually egalitarian society. If men do not respond, and quickly, they will have indicated that fetal life isn’t so important to them after all, or at least not important enough to give up the privileges of being male in a sexist society. If this makes feminists look bad, it makes men look worse.25
Naomi Wolf is just as committed to the war against patriarchy. She is, however, more sentimental about enemy casualties. Abortion is a moral tragedy, says Wolf. She suggests that feminists ought to put aside the de-humanizing language when it comes to aborted children. In fact, mothers ought to mourn their aborted children as fellow human beings. Out of respect for Priam, Achilles finally gave him Hector’s corpse, allowing the old Trojan to mourn his dead son. After bloody battles, it’s customary to call a truce, so both sides can carry off the wounded and the dead. There are no enemies in the after life. But no one mourns for the aborted child, says Wolf. Perhaps feminists should hold the occasional “candlelight vigil at abortion clinics, standing shoulder to shoulder with the doctors who work there, commemorating and saying goodbye to the dead.”26
Wolf doesn’t suggest for a minute that abortions should be outlawed or restricted in any way. Abortion may be a moral tragedy, but it’s a legitimate tactic:
War is legal; it is sometimes even necessary. Letting the dying die in peace is often legal and sometimes even necessary. Abortion should be legal; it is sometimes even necessary. Sometimes the mother must be able to decide that the fetus, in its full humanity, must die. [Emphasis Added] 27
And make no mistake; Wolf has no qualms about killing children. When a conservative asked her at a roundtable discussion whether the fetus was a human being, Wolf snapped back, “Of course it’s a baby. And if I found myself in circumstances in which I had to make the terrible decision to end this life, then that would be between myself and God.” Although recognizing that abortion is a deliberate killing of another human being, Wolf wants a little sympathy for the victims, because “it is never right or necessary to minimize the value of the lives involved or the sacrifice incurred in letting them go.”28

Of the three pro-abortion arguments, the feminist is the most consistent. There is nothing new here. Throughout history it is often the least consistent arguments that are the most popular. To accept the feminist position you must first acknowledge the personhood of the unborn child. Then you must accept that abortion is the deliberate killing of an unborn child. Most that are pro-abortion don’t have the stomach for such honestly. They prefer hiding behind a lie. The unborn child is either a “part of a women’s body,” or he is only a “potential human being.” If he is only a potential human being, then the unborn child could potentially turn out to be a shoe, or a rock, or a Brazilian walnut. Who knows? Whatever it is, the fetus is not a human being, they insist. Both positions are cowardly and inconsistent and typical of mass ideas.
According to the first, the fetus is a part of the mother’s body, just like a cell. Therefore, abortion is akin to amputating a smashed finger, removing an appendix, or having some cells scraped from the insides of your mouth with a cotton swab. The “philosopher” Mortimer Adler claimed that until the child reached viability, he was “part of the mother’s body, in the same sense that an individual’s arm or leg is a part of a living organism. An individual’s decision to have an arm or leg amputated falls within the sphere of privacy—the freedom to do as one pleases in all matters that do not injure others or the public welfare.”29 Adler’s fellow traveler Laurence Tribe, Harvard Law School professor, said that even “though the fetus eventually develops into a separate independent identity . . . it begins as a living part of the women’s body.”30
Adler and Tribe are both egalitarian frauds, using whatever argument seems best at the moment. In the same book Abortion: The Clash of Absolutes, Tribe contradicts his above position, arguing that “Even if the fetus is a person, our Constitution forbids compelling a woman to carry it for nine months and become a mother.”31 When you’re fighting for progress, Tribe and Adler believe that lying is an effective tactic against the reactionary enemy.

The notion that the fetus is a part of the mother’s body is unscientific. In his book The Abortion Papers, Dr. Bernard Nathanson wrote “that the modern science of immunology has shown that the unborn child is not a part of a women’s body in the sense that her kidney or heart is.”32 In fact, as soon as the pregnancy implants itself in the wall of the mother’s uterus an immunological battle begins between the mother and the baby. The mother’s white blood cells maneuver to confront the alien embryo that has set up camp:
Therefore, an intense immunological attack is mounted on the pregnancy by the white blood cell elements, and through an ingenious and extraordinarily efficient defense system the unborn child succeeds in repelling the attack. In 10 percent or so of cases the defensive system fails and pregnancy is lost as a spontaneous abortion or miscarriage. Think of how fundamental a lesson there is here for us: Even on the most minute microscopic scale the body has trained itself, or somehow in some inchoate way knows, how to recognized self from non-self.33
Another good example of the separateness of the mother and the unborn child is the inescapable fact that conception can be formed in a Petri-dish using the sperm and egg of white parents and the conceptus can then be transferred to a black surrogate mother and carried to term. And when the child is finally born, it will be white, and will carry the unique DNA of the embryo conceived in the Petri-dish nine months before, using the sperm and egg of the white parents.
The pro-abortion personhood argument is equally flimsy. Looked at closely, Warren’s and Tooley’s personhood arguments are really transparent attempts to narrow the definition of a person just enough to exclude the unborn child. In order to qualify as a person, Warren says you must have consciousness, reasoning, self-motivated activity, and the capacity to communicate messages. Tooley says an “entity” can’t have a right to life unless it “has an interest in its own continued existence,” and can’t possibly have an interest in its own continued existence, unless it has a “concept of a continuing self.” In other words, if you didn’t graduate from Columbia University; don’t have a time share on Fire Island; can’t put a down payment on a Lexus; or can’t complete a decorating plan for your new corner apartment on the Upper West Side of Manhattan—if you can’t do any of these things, you’re not a person.
The problem with their arguments is that all of us at various times in our lives lack the qualities Warren and Tooley use to define a person. Under their definitions, sleeping people and infants, because they lack “consciousness” and a “concept of a continuing self,” have no right to life. People in comas, people suffering amnesia are not “conscious” and have no “concept of a continuing self.” But these are temporary states, Tooley and Warren would object. Well, so is pregnancy. And what about the senile? What about suicidal teenagers? They have no interest in their “own continued existence.” Should we stop them from killing themselves? Or are they fair game for others who might want to kill them?
One can make the argument that most of humanity lacks rationality. History is a testament to the fact that humans are primarily guided by irrational passions, perceptions, desires, fears, emotions. Witness drug users, drinkers, people who eat at McDonalds, people who fall in love with “losers,” people who watch the Jerry Springer Show. Are these people rational?
To accept their narrow definitions of personhood, you must also accept infanticide, as both Warren and Tooley do. The newborn infant simply can’t hurdle their personhood bar. “Since I do not believe human infants are persons,” says Tooley “infanticide is in itself morally acceptable.”34 Warren also supports infanticide: “Killing a newborn infant isn’t murder. Thus, infanticide is wrong for reason analogous to those which make it wrong to wantonly destroy natural resources, or great works of art.”35 Infanticide is the Achilles Heel of the personhood argument because most Americans will not stomach infanticide. Then again, most Americans who claim to be “pro-choice” use a vulgarized personhood argument to justify their position. This is an irrational, paradoxical position, which would disqualify then as persons under Warren’s and Tooley’s definitions. (tbc)
[people who fall in love with “losers” – my wife]

Cal tells me that this and CLAIM 7 are the two most important sections of his “Writ of Habeas Corpus” for Scott. I will post 7 in the next issue.

In addition to the cause presented in claims 1-5 above, there is cause for a writ of habeas corpus to free me on the basis of technicality: appointed counsel's deficiency prejudiced the defense in a manner so serious as to deprive me of a fair trial and likely acquittal, in violation of my Sixth Amendment right under the Constitution of the United States to the assistance of counsel and my Fourteenth Amendment right under the Constitution of the United States to the equal protection of the laws.
In the past, the U.S. Supreme Court has extended to the judiciary the right to lie, Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978) (upholding judicial immunity for forced sterilization conducted under false pretense of appendectomy). The U.S. Supreme Court is presently considering extending to prosecutorial attorneys the right to lie as well. Pottawattamie County, Iowa, et al., Petitioners v. Curtis W. McGhee, Jr., et al., Supreme Court Docket No. 08-1065. The present claim deals with the question of whether it is also acceptable for defense attorneys to lie to indigent petitioners about their defense prospects to maintain their currency in court.
The U.S. Supreme Court allows appointed counsel wide latitude to ignore matters of law or fact to preserve his or her "currency" with the Court by avoiding any issue "[t]he Supreme Court has signaled very clearly it doesn't want to deal with" or is "unwilling to deal with" (to quote attorney-general designate John Ashcroft, responding to Sen. Dianne Feinstein on his second day of confirmation testimony, Jan. 17, 2001.) In view of the Certiorari Act (43 Stat. 936), which authorized the U.S. Supreme Court to reject any petition despite its legal merit, attorneys such as Mr. Ashcroft have long viewed it as "a losing proposition" to do otherwise. Yet even if it is a losing proposition, it still does not give appointed counsel the right to lie to (or to humor) defendants about such matters; for the defendant has the right to present all matters of legal merit that are necessary to complete a competent defense. Our courts should not allow or encourage their bar members to do the court a favor by lying to clients and omitting issues of legal merit to maintain their "currency" with the court so they can succeed on other days, in other cases, and "on other issues," to again quote Mr. Ashcroft.
In this country, rights, laws, and technicalities should apply to all of us great and small, without exception, and it should be the job of the attorney to go into court and make sure our judges are observing them, without exception, even if it means rubbing their faces in due process once in a while, even at the highest court of the land. Unfortunately, rather than upholding this ideal, our nation's courts encourage attorneys to be mindful of their social, political, and financial currency more so than any underlying issues, the merits of law, or the rights of the client. Indeed, under the Certiorari Act, the U.S. Supreme Court is leading the way in this respect, by expressly reserving the right to ignore matters of legal merit, including "the misapplication of a properly stated rule of law." U.S. Supreme Court Rule 10.
Although I had a bona fide agreement with appointed counsel to pursue a necessity defense, counsel omitted key questions related to the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212). This deficiency prejudiced the defense with respect to a necessity defense in a manner so serious as to deprive me of a fair trial and likely acquittal. For if the unborn can be victims of violence, then it is reasonable to protect them from violence. The legal standard of reasonableness should not be measured by the willingness of a society to draw the line according to the anarchy of its psychological rationalizations. Since the law recognizes that the unborn can indeed be victims of violence, it must also recognize the courage of those who find it in their hearts to accept the necessity of defending them from violence. To do otherwise means giving in to the anarchy of conscience at the expense of innocent children.
Perhaps appointed counsel's omission of questions relating to the Unborn Victims Act was intended to satisfy Mr. Ashcroft's mantra about being mindful of one's "currency" with the court. Though the legal merit of such questions is overtly critical to the my case, the U.S. Supreme Court has created a completely different standard of what constitutes a question of legal merit under the Certiorari Act, whereby presentation of even the most critical questions may be deliberately avoided by counsel as "a losing proposition" depending simply on what the court has "signaled," to again quote from Mr. Ashcroft. Instead, every defendant should have the right to have his or her case settled according to law.
While the Unborn Victims Act makes an exception for children who are legally versus illegally aborted, a coroner would not be able to distinguish the two on this basis alone. (In other words, one child pulled feet first from the womb and thrown into the dumpster naked with a stab wound to the back of the head and the cranial contents removed will look just like any other to the coroner, regardless of whether the woman wanted it done or not.) In this respect, the trial court should have been forced to address whether they are beings so far inferior that they have no rights we are bound to respect, as Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393, 407 (1856), puts it, or whether they instead deserve the equal protection of the laws, as the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States puts it. Pursuit of this question is critical to my defense because the latter establishes the right of each child be protected by another person, in this case, myself, as an innocent third party entitled to defense from homicide.
Instead, being mindful of his currency with the court, appointed counsel let the court slip by this critical question, by allowing the court to make a false statement to the effect that abortion has already been thoroughly debated. On the contrary, as Justice Stevens and Roe v. Wade author Justice Blackmun point out 20 years after Roe, neither any Member of the U.S. Supreme Court nor the U.S. solicitor general has ever so much as even "questioned" whether the children in question have rights we are bound to respect, as provided by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; instead, the only debate has been over to what extent should the states be allowed to override both a woman's decision to refuse an abortion as well as her decision to choose an abortion; indeed, there cannot have been any meaningful debate without someone at least having "questioned" the matter. 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). In light of this abundant evidence, there is no question that appointed counsel allowed the court to get away with making a false statement to avoid further questioning on the matter of the children's rights and my right to defend them.
Again being mindful of his currency with the court, appointed counsel let the court make a self-serving statement without opposition, namely, that admission of a necessity defense would result in anarchy. On the contrary, it is anarchy to oppose the right of innocent children to be protected from homicide. It is anarchy to allow children to be victims of homicide without so much as ever even calling the coroner for a statement. Absence of a coroner's statement is most conspicuous. It testifies to the judicial anarchy associated with 'legal' abortion.
To competently address my right to a necessity defense, the court should have called the coroner for a statement to address any question of child homicide in an upright and legal manner; the court furthermore should have appointed counsel to represent the children's rights to the equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. For my right to be equally protected by laws permitting a necessity defense is indissoluble from the children's right to be equally protected from harm as a matter of necessity. The issues of a coroner's statement and the Fourteenth Amendment rights of the children therefore cannot be excluded from a meaningful defense in this case.
The ineffective assistance of counsel results not only from attorney error or misconduct, but also from restraints imposed by the court which render even the best ambitions of the most capable counsel ineffective, by allowing perfunctory pursuit of latitudes ripe for conviction while denying any pursuit of those ripe for acquittal. It is to appoint counsel to pursue what is doomed, while denying a defense likely to prevail. I would have been acquitted had counsel been allowed to pursue a necessity defense and had counsel obtained a coroner's statement to confirm, as an objective matter, that the children in question are indeed victims of homicide.

Cal just sent me this: John, I know you already have claims 6-7 in your queue for the next issue. But if you have the time to read it yourself, here is the link to my case notes on the Scott Roeder habeas corpus petition.
You might print the link along with the one to the full petition when you publish claims 6-7:
The notes are pretty interesting because they tell us about how Roe was actually about pregnancy abatement, not choice, and how the Members of the Supreme Court never even "questioned" whether the children have rights we are bound to respect.

My favorite writer now is Mary Eberstadt. Each essay she wrote on one of the Seven Deadly Sins is magnificent. Here’s a paragraph from the final one, Pride:
The burning drive to leave a mark on one’s world, even if only in the disappearing ink of the Internet, ploughs up just the sort of soil in which Pride readily takes root. The Internet itself, especially the blogosphere, then fertilizes the results more wildly than any other medium could. To push one’s words into the public square under today’s circumstances is to know intimately just how gray is the area between promoting one’s message, worthy though it may be, and promoting oneself.

Mr. Dunkle & AIM, I have just received word that the regional FBOP office has denied any half-way house time for me. That’s okay though. I have a place to live and a job lined up already. My release date is now November 7th of this year.
I want to thank you for sending AIM/SKYP to me all this time. Even when the jerks in the mailroom sent it back. I know I have not written to you for quite some time but I have been keeping myself rather busy.
A number of months ago I started working in the prison chapel. I enjoy the job as well as the access it has given me to research materials. I am taking a class on conversational Spanish and have just finished a class on marine biology.
Thank you, Robert Weiler

P.S. I wanted to respond to Cal’s attacks on the Catholic and LDS (Mormon) churches. I think this will have to wait for another time. However, having been raised Catholic and currently adhering to the LDS faith, I took exception to a number of his remarks.

God bless you, Robert. Federal agents visit every so often to ask me questions. One agent asked me if I knew a Robert “Wheeler.” No, I said, and I could see she thought I was lying. Since I never lie (unless I really have to), that upset me, especially, when, after they left, I realized her Wheeler was my Weiler. She has not been among those who have visited me recently, but if I see her again, I’ll explain.

Dear John, Hope this finds you and yours doing well and blessed.
Sorry I haven’t written recently but finally got a copy of this “Roeder Trial analysis” written my Kathy Ramey that seemed to be very enlightening. Kathy is with (or was at one time) the Life Advocate which is a pro-life magazine. She was at my trial and seems to have done a good job in assessing what took place that day.
Also, there is another article included by someone off the internet which seemed to be very well written. [How can I find this one, Scott?]
You might want to include them in your next newsletter. Let me know what you think.
God bless you all! Until next time, Scott Roeder

P.S. Wanted to thank you wholeheartedly for all the original and back issues of SKYP! They have been most enlightening. Especially the ones with Paul Hill’s writings! God bless!

Dear John, I now have email, I think Lewisburg is either the last, or near the last federal prison to get this new modern marvel of communications. Slow as it has been to get it, I'm very grateful to have it. I've sent you an automated message to: JohnDunkaptd.net [Clay, please resend to jdmd@ptd.net; I don’t know what happened to johndunk.]
This automated message will direct you to a web site that you must register with. Once you register I can email you, and you me. My email is slightly different from what you are accustomed to. With this system you must send email to me from the web site you registered at (corrlinks I think). I understand it is similar to other web based email systems except that you can't send attachments and all you send is guaranteed to be read by the fed, (As opposed to it will likely be read on normal email). But the real pain with this system is that when I send you an email, you don't receive any form of notification. The only way you'll know I've sent you something is to log into the web site and check. It is no problem on my end. As soon as I log in it informs me that I have new mail, but it’s a pain for you out there.
Hope you don't mind going through this extra step so we can email each other. I see is as a preferred way for me to write stuff for the newsletter. It should inspire me to write articles more often. I am having a great time emailing my family, even a son aboard a Navy ship in the Persian Gulf. The email is not instant, mine has a one to two day delay for security reasons, but after ten years of struggling to communicate with snail-mail, this is a real blessing, Take care my Friend, Clay [signed]

The March 23 post on The Abortioneers is “A Letter to My Local Protesters.” One of the regular contributors, AG (About A Girl), wrote it:

"There are five people you meet in heaven, each one of us was in your life for a reason. you may not have known the reason at the time, and that is what heaven is for. For understanding your life on earth."

Sometimes I imagine that if heaven (if I really believed in one) included five people who affected your life (like in Mitch Albom’s novel), there might be five of the local “peaceful” protesters looking at me. There are things I’d want them to know. Things I’d want to tell them about how their protesting affected my life. This list is not exhaustive:

1. Your rosaries and hail marys don’t make you a nice person.
2. I see you and my blood pressure rises several points past boiling.
3. When I see you, my jaws clench, my fingers tense, my head pounds, my stomach turns in knots, and I get scared.
4. Despite your old age, I don’t trust you haven’t got a pistol behind your sign, ready to blow my doctor’s head off. Or mine.
5. When I have to walk past you or see you, I think of my child. Hope today isn’t the day someone decides to shoot me, leaving my child without a mother.
6. When you stare at my co-workers and write down their license plate numbers, I want to follow YOU home.
7. For years, you have hurt women, causing them pain and anguish. I see them. They cry. Are angry. Feel judged. Yet you have no place to judge her.
8. Because of you, when I leave the clinic, I look both ways exiting the door.
9. Because of you, when I leave or arrive at the clinic, I speedily get into the false safety of the building or my vehicle.
10. Because of you, when I drive home, I check my rear view window to see if I’m being followed.
11. Our doors are a little tighter. Our windows shut harder. Our curtains drawn darker.
12. Because of you, we can’t have normal glass. We have bullet proof glass.
13. Because of you, we have panic buttons.
14. Because of you, I may get a home security system. And I live in a very nice little neighborhood with no other need for a home security system.
15. I really think I hate you.
16. I want to spit on you when I see a woman weep (who was raped by her father; or found out her wanted pregnancy has anencephaly; or who just got her lights shut off because she can't pay any bills, let alone keep another baby; who can die for our country in battle, but is about to get court marshalled if her country finds out she's pregnant; or who slept with the wrong guy on the wrong day and realized she really wants to finish school and make something of herself; or who might even be your daughter or sister or niece or granddaughter) after listening to you scream at her, judge her, beg her not to have an abortion. FUCK you for hurting her.
17. I watch my colleagues and doctors and nurses get tense and nervous and scared because you exist outside our building.
18. You’ve stripped from us basic things: the ability to hire staff without questioning if their anti spies; the ability to walk freely to and from our cars; the ability to do our jobs in safety free from fear.
19. You’re a terrorist.
20. I really think I hate you.
21. Your hail marys and rosaries don’t make you a nice person.
22. You are not a nice person.
23. You're quite awful, really.
24. Oh yeah. I hate you.

Well, this is good news. Great news would be if we upset AG to the point where she got a different job. These nazis operate their auschwitzes voluntarily, remember, not like the Germans who were ordered.

Moreover, look what elicited this vitriolic and embarrassing outburst – five old ladies praying the rosary. Who says the rosary is not a powerful weapon! I know that the next time I get tired standing outside a mill, I will recall AG’s post here, take out my rosary, and know that, among other things, I am attacking the enemy effectively.


Peter’s letter on Greg Cunningham (the April writer) and other pacificist prolifers like him continues:

People would never be drawn to Jesus in the proper manner, though, if any of the April writer’s ideas relating to the subject were followed. To some people the unprovoked and unjustified brutality and savagery of Jesus’ crucifixion brings to mind some of the most emotionally disturbing images possible. And you must bring those images to your mind and the minds of others in order for what he did to be properly appreciated. So if you adopt the AW’s ideas and reasoning that you should not place before people, especially the young, anything that has a potential to upset them emotionally, then you are never going to place before them the story of Jesus’ crucifixion.
These are the reasons why I also disagree with the Apostle Paul when he said that a woman should not teach (preach) 1 Timothy 2:11-12; If people are any good, they cannot help but preach through their example. And what is the difference between preaching by example and preaching by word? Except it be that it is far easier for a hypocrite to preach by word. Paul’s rationale for this precept, Verse 12, that Adam was formed before Eve, is nonsense. If you have that as a reason for a judgment, then you should be consistent and say that Adam was superior to all later formed humans. And that no one should preach to anyone who is older. And that the plants are superior to the animals and humans.
The Apostle Paul had many admirable qualities: concern and compassion; conviction; courage; charity; commitment; confidence (in the Lord) but unfortunately he was prejudiced against certain people. Prejudice is discriminating against someone because of something which itself is of no importance.
And I most certainly do not agree with Paul’s line of reasoning in Verse 4, that if someone of one particular sex does something wrong (Eve) then all people of that sex should be discriminated against and victimized forever more because of it. God sees and considers what’s in the heart of each individual. Not what was in the heart of his or her ancestors.
It’s not as though the men have had such good hearts and have been such crash hot preachers that they deserve the field all to themselves. They’ve been lousy. On the other hand, it’s not that there’s any reason to suppose that the women would be any better. But if someone, male or female, is one of the few people who place the appropriate value on the Lord’s supreme act of love, then she will have an overpowering desire to see to it that it receives as much reward as possible. And it is a major crime, a crime of great cruelty, to attempt to kill or sabotage her good desire. Asking a woman who has that desire to quell it is asking her to fulfill 5% of her potential. Asking her to be a 5% Christian. A 5% Christian is no Christian at all.

The true Christian’s principle duty is this – to invite people, by the only proper means, to come to Jesus’ house and live with him, so that his great act of love receives the maximum reward. Some people are reluctant to perform that duty. The Lord was willing to be crucified so that people would be drawn to his life saving words. All his followers, both male and female, should be no less willing and no less committed to doing the same. It is therefore a fallacy to think that there is any true Christian who does not have a duty to preach.
Having given people the bus ticket to Jesus’ house, it is then up to you to complete your principle duty by (A) correcting any misconceptions they have about the house rules; (B) ensuring that they have a full and proper understanding of what is required of them to live as members of his family, and (C) refusing them entry if thy are unwilling to comply with his house rules.
The main rules at Jesus’ house, the main things he preached about, were these – not desiring or living an affluent lifestyle; having concern and compassion for the poor and the needy and the persecuted and helping them, rather than being apathetic about their plight; being genuine; not being proud; honoring marriage; a willingness to sacrifice for others; promoting the Gospel; and whilst I can’t recall whether he ever specifically mentioned it in words, his own example indicated you should be courageous. If you travel back far enough, you will find that selfishness is the root cause of people’s faults in regard to all these, apart maybe from being genuine. (tbc)

Next issue: Kopp on Holman, and more Evans

Thursday, March 11, 2010

Abortion is Murder, 7-19, April 2, 2010

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

April 2, 2010 Vol. 7 No. 19
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

In the March 2 issue I posted the start of Cal’s “Petition for Habeas Corpus” for Scott. I said I’d post the remainder in the April issue, but forgot. I also forgot how long it is, and even though I knew it was good, I didn’t realize it was this powerful. Anyway, here’s more:

The Associated Press has circulated a statement I made by telephone while in custody. The statement reads: "I know there are many other similar events planned around the country as long as abortion remains legal." Technically, that is just a statement of plausible fact that anyone could make, including, for example, the U.S. Marshal. But some have unfairly sought to use such statements against me as if they were incriminating (e.g., Judge Wilbert).
The U.S. Supreme Court has held that abstract advocacy of illegal things or actions is still legal. For example, in United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285 (2008), slip opinion p. 14, Opinion of the Court, the Court said: As we have discussed earlier, however, the term "promotes" does not refer to abstract advocacy, such as the statement "I believe that child pornography should be legal" or even "I encourage you to obtain child pornography."
In other words, under the U.S. Supreme Court, someone cannot be accused of promoting murder just because he says "I believe killing abortion doctors should be legal" or even "I encourage you to kill abortion doctors." This is because the term "promotes" does not refer to abstract advocacy under the definition of the Supreme Court. Indeed, what kind of nation would allow people to say they believe child pornography should be legal, but not to say they believe protecting children from homicide should be legal? In other words, for someone to say he thinks something is "justified" is another way of saying he thinks it should be "legal."
My First Amendment rights to free speech and freedom of the press were violated because Judge Wilbert increased my bail amount on the basis of my exercise of lawful forms of abstract advocacy. As the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 704 (1972), "liberty of the press is the right of the lonely pamphleteer ... just as much as of the large metropolitan publisher ..." I have the same right to freedom of the press when I mail out pamphlets from my lonely jail cell, or call reporters on the phone, as do top newscasters on television. For Judge Wilbert to increase my bail amount on the basis of lawful forms of abstract advocacy made in connection with my press-related activities represents a grotesque subversion of my constitutional rights.
Writing for The Wichita Eagle ("Lawyer seeks bond for man charged with killing George Tiller," Jun. 3, 2009), Ron Sylvester reports as follows:
Sedgwick County District Judge Ben Burgess ... said that he ordered no bail for Roeder as "a discretionary decision taking public safety into account." Since 1920, the Kansas Supreme Court has held that judges couldn't withhold bail except in capital cases with the strongest evidence. "In all other cases, the admission to bail is a right which the accused can claim, and which no judge or court can properly refuse," the justices wrote in their 1920 decision. Section 9 of the Kansas Bill of Rights in the state constitution says: "All persons shall be bailable by sufficient sureties except for capital offenses." ... Judges in Sedgwick County have routinely granted bonds in capital murder cases over the past decade. ... Among them:
-- Reginald and Jonathan Carr, charged with killing five people during a 2000 crime spree that included robbery, rape and sodomy. The Carrs were held in lieu of $10 million bond.
-- Cornelius Oliver, charged with killing four people in 2000. Oliver's bond was set at $1 million.
-- Douglas Belt, charged with raping and decapitating a woman in 2002. He was ordered held under a $2.5 million bond.
-- Ted Burnett, charged with strangling a 14-year-old pregnant girl in 2006. Burnett was held under a $1 million bond.
Despite having been charged with a non-capital offense, at $20 million my eventual bail amount was set conspicuously higher than the norm even for capital offenses, in violation of my Eighth Amendment right to be free from excessive bail. In violation of my Sixth Amendment rights to counsel and impartial proceedings, even at the time of my first court appearance I was denied the assistance of counsel to claim my right to bail under § 9 of the Kansas Bill of Rights. Such disproportionate treatment proves that my rights to due process and the equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment have suffered egregious harm.

In addition to the cause presented in claim 1 above, there is cause for a writ of habeas corpus to free me on the basis of technicality: The names and addresses of my visitors and correspondents have been made public by my custodian, without warrant, including to State and Federal authorities, in violation of my rights under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States to privacy, freedom of speech, and peaceable assembly with respect to visitors and correspondence, my rights under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States to privacy and security for the protection of my papers against unreasonable searches, my rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States to privacy, due process, and the equal protection of the laws, and my right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty under Kansas law and the Constitution of the United States.
As a prisoner I rely on visitors, commissary funds, and correspondence to maintain a sense of social and bodily integrity. It has come to my attention that my custodian has made public the names and addresses of my visitors and correspondents, and that some of these have been subjected to questioning by the police power as a consequence.
While many institutions, including the United States Postal Service, may inspect mail for security purposes, there is no authority to conduct warrantless searches of the mail to investigate what amounts to a suggestion of guilt by association. To suggest that anyone who visits or writes to me might be guilty by association not only deprives me of the presumption of innocence to which I am entitled, but it also inhibits people from contacting me in custody for fear of being made subject to questioning by the police power. That I have been singled out in this warrantless fashion demonstrates a systematic abuse of my right to impartial treatment.
Now people will be afraid that if they send me money for my commissary fund they will be investigated by the police power at some level. No one wants to be put on a terrorist watch list or have themselves investigated by authorities. So that violates my rights, because I have the right to privacy, free speech, and peaceable assembly. Peaceable assembly includes the right to have visitors without the government intimidating them. Otherwise, people will be afraid to visit me, correspond with me, or send me money for my commissary fund.
In addition to the loss of rights, I further grieve that I have been deprived of donations to my commissary fund on account of such abuse, as a reasonable person might be inhibited from sending a commissary donation to me simply for fear of being made subject to added scrutiny by the police power as a consequence. I therefore request that my custodian be required to deposit funds into my commissary fund as restitution for such losses. As a guide to restitution, my custodian allows for commissary spending up to $160 per month. A higher amount might be determined based on projected estimates of donations apart from such abuse.

I will send Call’s entire petition to the PFCs and to anyone else who asks for it. Because of limited space in this newsletter, I will skip Claims 3,4, and 5. I will post here the more important two, 6 & 7.

And the excellent third chapter of Abortion, the Irrepressible Conflict continues:

Michael Tooley is just as ruthless as Warren and his examples are just as bizarre. Tooley uses the example of kittens subjected to a chemical that gives them human-like consciousness in order to set the bar up high for entry into his personhood club. He sets it so high that he unwittingly excludes himself along with the rest of mankind. According to Tooley an entity cannot have a right to life unless it is capable of having an interest in its own continued existence. An entity is not capable of having an interest in its own continual existence unless it possesses, at some time, the concept of a continuing self, or subject of experiences and other mental states. The fact that an entity will, if not destroyed, come to have properties that would give it a right to life does not in itself make it seriously wrong to destroy it.20
If rationality is one of his criteria, then Tooley is definitely out of the personhood clubhouse.
Tooley’s definitions of personhood are pretty narrow. He admits that “even newborn humans do not have the capacities in question.” If his conclusions are correct, “then it would seem that infanticide during a time interval shortly after birth must be viewed as morally acceptable.” Tooley has a heart, he just doesn’t have one for such dated things as children. In his opinion, at least “some members of non-human species have a right to life.” He is convinced that some animals are “capable of envisioning a future for themselves”; they have “desires”; and have an “interest in their own continued existence.” Tooley is not the only progressive who holds this opinion. Peter Singer has also suggested that higher mammals have a right to life. And if we were enlightened as Tooley and Singer, we would also come to “the conclusion that our every day treatment of members of other species is morally indefensible and that we are in fact murdering innocent persons.”21 Got that? Orangutans and Dolphins deserve the protections of the Bill of Rights, but newborn infants are medical waste.
If you look closely at these arguments for a woman’s right to her body and the personhood defense of abortion, it is easy to see that they are camouflaging polemics used by egalitarians to mask their true motives. The problem is these arguments are based on an extreme interpretation of individual rights. They are libertarian arguments. But the people making these arguments are collectivists on just about every other issue. On the one hand, liberals like Thomson, Tooley and Warren viciously oppose the state’s interfering with a woman’s “privacy” when it comes to abortion; but on the other hand, they support a whole host of social-engineering schemes that bring the state deep into the citizen’s private life. The same feminists who demand the “right to choose,” support hate crime laws, marital rape laws, sexual harassment laws, affirmative action, divorce laws tilted toward women, mandatory sex education—all of which are based on nanny-state collectivist concepts. These “pro-choicers” are libertarian on abortion, but enemies of laissez faire capitalism. These leftists don’t want the state in your bedrooms, unless, of course, it is searching for your guns. And from their perspective, public education should not only be mandatory, all parental rights over your child’s education should be relative to the essential state task of instilling your son or daughter with “progressive” values. Teaching your child to read and write are secondary to “educating” them about America’s racist, sexist, classist society. And all good liberals support “speech codes” in our nation’s universities, which punish students who use “derogatory or intimidating” language toward minorities, woman, or homosexuals. These are hardly libertarian positions.
Francis J. Beckwith recounted an excellent example of this leftist hypocrisy in his essay “Arguments From Bodily Rights: A Critical Analysis.” In a November 1990 Nevada referendum, having to do with abortion, the feminist Nevada Women’s Lobby asked the public to help “get the government off our backs and out of our bedrooms.” Then in January these same abortion rights activists pushed a proposal through the state legislature that asked for taxpayer funds to setup “school-based sex clinics,” which would offer, among other things, an abortion referral service for school-aged girls. “Forgetting that most taxpayers keep their wallet in their back pocket during the day and on their dressers at night,” writes Beckwith, “The Nevada Women’s Lobby had no problems doing in January what they vehemently opposed in November. The Libertarians of November were social engineers come January.”22
Another good example of this type of liberal hypocrisy is the recent decision taken by a Maine school board to give contraceptives to middle school students as young as eleven. And the school clinic would prescribe the birth control without the parent’s permission being necessary. If you were to query these leftist school administrators about their opinions on abortion, you would hear a lot of trite “libertarian” nonsense about “privacy” and “keeping the state out of our private lives.” But these same “libertarians” have no problem at all usurping your role as a parent in order to put your eleven-year-old daughter on the Pill.
Why the inconsistency? Because egalitarians know that personal liberty arguments work best when selling abortion to the masses. Such arguments are better than coming right out and saying that a woman needs the option of killing her kid in order to level some mythical playing field. Liberal legal scholars found it more expedient to fashion the “pro-choice” argument around the classical liberal concepts of individual liberty, knowing that most Americans would be alienated if they were told that killing 1.5 million unborn children every year was necessary in order to achieve female equality. The crackers in the hinterland (fly over country) had never read Marx, but they could identify with the concept of personal liberty.
Pro-abortion ideologues put a different position before the courts and the public than the one they put before their fellow travelers. To the true egalitarian abortion is a necessary part of the revolutionary struggle. Even though it is the deliberate taking of a child’s life, abortion is a legitimate revolutionary response to patriarchal oppression. As the victims of oppression, women are not to blame. Blame lies with the oppressor class of males. However regrettable, the aborted child is collateral damage in a struggle for equality. This is the feminist defense of abortion. As noted earlier, Ruth Bader Ginsburg took this position in her critique of Roe v Wade. Some of the other feminist ideologues who have expounded on this position are Catherine MacKinnon, Sally Markowitz, and Naomi Wolf.

In her essay “Roe v Wade: A Study in Male Ideology,” Catherine MacKinnon said the Roe decision was based on the false premise that women control their own sexuality. Not so, says MacKinnon. Sex as practiced from the beginning of time, especially in the marriage context, is just a legitimized form of rape. Even though she may “believe” she consented to sex, the typical women today is a brainwashed sex slave. It has always been that way. Roe is improper because “abortion policy has never been explicitly approached in the context of how women get pregnant, that is, as a consequence of intercourse under conditions of gender inequality: that is as an issue of forced sex.”23

“What are babies?” asks MacKinnon. They are allies of patriarchy, and however brutal it may seem to abort them, it is a defensive action. Questions about the morality of abortion are strictly secondary, and out of place. Women must have the choice of abortion, but “not because the fetus is not a form of life. In the usual argument, the abortion decision is made contingent on whether the fetus is a form of life.” This is totally inappropriate, says MacKinnon. “Why should women not make life or death decisions?” If a woman aborts, it is the fault of the man who “raped” her: “Most women who seek abortions become pregnant while having sex with men. Most did not mean or wish to conceive.”24 Until women control their own sexuality, we cannot have a proper debate about the morality of abortion. (tbc)

The urge that drives us to seek God is the same as the urge that drives us to smash things. The old psychologists were absolutely correct in the ambiguous role they ascribed to our power of anger. It is the power that smashes through limitations, leading us either to become visionaries or to become vandals.
From “At the Heart of the Transfiguration,” Fr.Tugwell, O.P.

You Gotta Kiss a Lotta Switches Before the Cows Come Home..to Cross the Road
(...at lease that’s what my sage and distinguished Grand Dad, Charles Leo Koppensteinere, Sr., never tired of saying)
By Jim Kopp

Our Story To Date: S&H, upon mature urban art reflection, realized that much of their time together is spent in donut discipline, i.e., the physical separation of crib and work. Over the road , they'd talk shop and optimize. Professionals realize the true cost of high quality work, and they pay the price, sans consternation. That attitude makes every thing else more efficient.
Urbi Et Orbi

When they got deeper into their art work, and saw a lot of different switch locations, S&H were pleasantly surprised to discover that not all switches are created equal, surroundings-wise. Location, location, location is big with graffiti “arteests.”
Most switches (telce central office equipment buildings) are indeed urban, but S&H were not ashamed to give particular attention to the sheep that were straying at the edge of the flock, so to speak.
They did this for two exquisitely simple reasons. First, they, as wives and moms, knew that to a large extent they jeopardized their families, at least a little bit, every time they crossed into the field (the perimeter of the donut).
Though, truth to tell, the amount of jeopardy diminished as they got more experienced and learned from their mistakes and close calls. P.S. Good judgment comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgment...and bad judgment comes from getting off your butt and trying. “Experience” includes, let my Gentle Reader understand, learning the power of abject, intense prayer, whether the revolving blue lights are bouncing off the inside of your car, or not.
...non-readers of this august journal are delicately referred to Language of Heaven (previous issues); also, Cloud of Unknowing (Anon.), Imitation of Christ (a’ Kempis), Seven Story Mountain (Merton), The Hobbit (Tolkien)...you know. The usual suspects.
Where were we? Ah, yes...


The second reason being, you can do more art when you are outside durance vile. There.
Not-so-urban switches are a gas. Say, for example, the switch techs get tired of the noise, dirt, etc of the urban areas and decide to sutuationally take a little trip on the wild side, eh?
It could be summat as simple as a window that looks out on a forest. True, a tacky little semi-suburban forest, but, still.
Suppose that tacky little forest opens out onto three other streets, and not just the one that a crowded urban switch opens out on. This means that the second, the instant S&H hit that forest, they are effectively S.D.G. unarrestable by the gendarmerie locale. Why? I thought you’d never ask!
How can the cops watch three streets at once, in the middle of Nocturne Solitude? See? A third-shift police force in a town of any size under an exurb, say, will DV never be able to muster more than a single cruiser, especially on suspicion and cause of summat so small as a low-end misdemeanor. Even if they knew it happened minutes ago, would they pursue with more than a “drive-around” of vicinity? And, this latter, only so they can tell their watch commander that they did not miss the opportunity to espy some true juvenile delinquent, bless his heart, drunk, rolling around om the ground in plain view, spray paint on his hands? (...all of which would be fixed, DV, by S&H – even if they did not have the luxury of an extent forest – buy rubber gloves and a “throw sway” outer layer of Salvation Army clothes, not to mention sobriety and a Cover Legend (story).


S&H found themselves specializing and focusing on the more vulnerable, remote, no-so-urban, next to cutesy fake suburban landscape shrubbery, or with back-alley kinds of loci. And they were not apologetic about it because success breeds success SDG, and by the time they got experience on the easy pickin’s stray sheep, they were more confident going after the big dogs.
Moral: The forest is our friend, cover in, cover out. AMDG

Bless me Lord, Bless me Lord
You know that’s all I ever hear
No one aches, no one cries,
No one even sheds one tear.

But He cries, He weeps, He bleeds,
And He cares for our needs,
But we just lay back and keep soaking it in

Can’t you see it’s such sin?

For He came knocking at our door
[was being killed at a mill, of known time and place]
And we smile and say
“God bless you. Be at peace!”
And all heaven just weeps.

For Jesus came to your door [at the mill down the street]
And you!
You threw Him out on the street.

Oh come on, get out of your beds....

Survivors: run, don’t walk, to your nearest Christian bookstore and get a copy of No Compromise, (above excerpt) by Kieth Green”

P.S. Hey, did you do Quiet Quiet Time yet today? Look at the sunset tonight for forty-five minutes. Don’t talk to anyone, don’t fret, and don’t read anything. Turn off TV and quietly say His Name now and then.
Occasionally, if you are tempted to worry, say Jesus have mercy on me, a sinner.

P.P.S. If you buy a copy of Cloud of Unknowing, that’s one more copy that will exist. You can give it to your grandkids, along with a copy of the Merck Manuel, the Boy scout Manual, and The Hobbit, to strengthen them to endure the awfulness that looms (...as soon as B.O. runs our of monopoly money).

Here are the parts of Scripture that support Paul Evans’ contention that God’s Law applies to everyone:

Exodus 12:49 One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourns among you.
Numbers 15:15, 16 One ordinance shall be both for you of the congregation, and also for the stranger that sojourneth with you, an ordinance forever in your generations; as ye are, so shall the stranger be before the Lord. One law and one manner shall be for you, and for the stranger that sojourneth with you

These verses speak volumes about how we should perceive those who presently sojourneth among our people, all-the-while tramping upon God’s Word and God’s Law. They are illegitimate, and the laws that they dispense are meaningless.

Leviticus 24:22 Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country, for I am the Lord your God.
The Lord, Our God, doesn’t speak of a pacifist/liberal doctrine in the fore mentioned excerpt from Leviticus. One Law/One God. So quickly do nations who were formerly founded upon Christian morals forget about such values. The Bible makes it perfectly clear about what happens to such nations who leave God and His Law in the past.
In terms of Genesis’ instruction in regulations against marrying foreigners, we interpret such description as non-Christians being “foreigners.”
Genesis 34:14 And they said unto them, we cannot do this thing, to give our sister to one that is uncircumcised, for that were a reproach unto us.
Furthermore, in the book of Joshua, Chapter 5, verses 7 and 8, God brings this reproach from off of them to us. In THIS time period, we take such directions as being guiding instructions from above commanding us to marry Christian with Christian. It is a bond of unit, friendship, family, and structure and is the only way for the militant Christian. Marriage among us eliminates many problems, and is always the wisest of choices. It establishes the structure of the family unit, and clears a path through many worldly troubles and turmoil before they demolish such a sacred bond.
Many humane laws are set in place, as duties of the militant Christian. We, as the upright and legal seat of government, have an obligation to help others. Here we bring about Christ’s sermon as our sound doctrine. Our militancy travels only as far as the law takes it. As a people, during peace times however, our people are commanded through Christ to follow subsequent verses from the book of Matthew, outside of militantly upholding the Law of God.
(Matthew 5:3 – Matthew 7:27)
Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blesses are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted. Blesses are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth. Blesses are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filed. Blesses are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. Blesses are the pure in heart: for they shall se God. Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is our reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets before you. Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savor, wherewith shall it be salted? It is henceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and be trodden underfoot of men. Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick. And it givith light unto all that are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your father which is in heaven. Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one title shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you, that except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the Kingdom of Heaven....(Paul continues through Matthew 7:27)

These previous chapters of Matthew are fundamental to our foundation. We are to use force only to further the Kingdom, and protect the innocent, and to protect God’s word and his people. In all other areas of life we are to show compassion. It is this balance that sets us apart from the rest. The word that we build upon is our rock, as Jesus explains in detail. It is there for us to build our everything upon, and its timeless truths we can always rely on.

Criminal Law
In a theocracy, crime is considered as directly against Father God, rather than simply against man or state. This recognition of Our Heavenly Father as being the direct ruler and leader replaces self-importance with a fundamental foundation of the Master / Servant relationship. This system, as well, positions God’s sovereignty as absolute. A plan for such a theocracy is laid down in the Old Testament, and it is our duty to carry it on.

In the book of Exodus, Chapter 20, verse 13, God commands of us “Thou shalt not kill.” This age-old law speaks not for self-protection and preservation. It speaks not of protecting innocent blood from being shed. It speaks not of defending God’s armies, God’s people, and God’s interests. This age-old law speaks of savage and barbarous murder. Quite clearly until humans (and their “complexities” and intricate thought processes”) jumbled such a distinction, the explanation of murder was quite simple. In Genesis 9: 5.6 the distinct solution to such a tragedy as murder is given:
“And surely your blood of your wives shall I require; at the hand of every beast will require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man’s brother will I require the life of man. Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.” (tbc)

More of Peter Knight’s letter:

Will I use something of my own to attempt to draw others to Jesus or a better way of life when they have insulted him by saying his best effort wasn’t good enough? Am I going to give them an opportunity to have any regard for me when they have none for him? If they have rejected my nearest and dearest friend, am I going to give them an opportunity to substitute me in his place?
Jesus does want those who have a strong desire to see his efforts rewarded as much as possible to help him and play a role in bringing people to him.. And the way to play that role is by repaying the favour through highlighting him as much as possible.
Would that people could always be drawn to Jesus without them paying any regard whatsoever to any intelligence or credibility that I might have. If it is unavoidable that some degree of intelligence or credibility of yours is exposed in helping to draw people to Jesus, then you do as much as you can to see to it that the intelligence or credibility of yours goes as unnoticed and unconsidered as possible. You do not attempt to put it on a pedestal or shine a spotlight on it. There is only one thing that
you put on a pedestal and shine a spotlight on: Jesus’ priceless
act of love.
I am here to honor Jesus and his Gospel. Not to honor me or promote my intelligence or my credibility. And that is what every true Christian says and does. And the other thing that the true Christian is here for is to bring down those who do the opposite. The April writer would be far better off if he stopped insulting Jesus. And he would be far better off if he stopped sucking up to others that do.
A person who does understand what Jesus is, it’s beyond me to understand how he could ever have anything other than total contempt for someone who said that what he did was of no value to him. And it’s beyond me to understand how he could ever ask such a person for his voluntary assistance as the April writer does. I guess the only way anyone could do it is if he had no appreciation himself.
Unfortunately the April writer is far from the only one who thinks that his puny intelligence and his puny credibility and minuscule knowledge can do greater wonders and have a better effect than Jesus’ priceless pearl. He is not the only one who has nurtured and developed the practice of shining the spotlight on himself. There are many proud preachers who like nothing better than to be told what fine preachers they are. It’s not the words and messages they have spoken which they want people to value and learn from. The words are only spoken in the hope that people will admire and praise the fine knowledgeable preacher who spoke them. Pride has been the killer of many a person. It’s pride too which is based on nothing. They aren’t knowledgeable or intelligent at all. They stand up proudly to announce that they know the answer to a truckload of trivia, but they have no idea to the answer of important questions. Even the trivia they pride themselves on, three times out of four they’ve got it wrong too.

Just in from Tobra:
This morning sometime after daylight Neal Horsley was placed under arrest at his campaign headquarters in Carrollton Georgia. Police from the FBI, the City of Atlanta, and the City of Carrollton were involved. The name Elton John came up. Three arrest warrants were handled to Mr. Horsley.
Jonathan O'Toole's wife Ester & Robert Rudnick were on the premises. Mr. Horsley was taken to Fulton County Jail. Mrs. O'Toole & Mr. Rudnick were briefly handcuffed, then released at the local motel. UTUBE has videos of Mr. Horsley & Sir John.

Read this from the great Catholic mystic, Madeleine Delbrel. Then ask yourself why so few Catholics are in jail for defending the young people under attack:

What we are trying to do is realize that, while we are on earth, faith places us in the heat of battle, a permanent struggle, a constant choice between Jesus Christ and that which in the world remains hostile to God; to do so is to accomplish within ourselves the Church's own vocation.
On the earth, the Church is made for fighting: by vocation, she wages war against evil; by mission, she stands on the front lines of evil; by office, she delivers from evil.
The Church's combat will never cease to be bloody: the frontiers she defends will never cease being attacked and the liberation she fights for is always violent. A realistic love for the Church necessarily entails taking your blows and living with bruises...

Jim Kopp and Michael Griffin are the only Catholics in jail for defending the innocent realistically, for showing “a realistic love for the Church.” And so far we have had no Catholic martyrs in this great war. Why is that?