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 –
Web –
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 Cross the Road
( 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) 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 ( 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?


John Dunkle said...

My comments here respond to postings on "The Abortioneers," a pro-death website.

3/11 Desi, that's not God who remains at the side of women during their abortions; that's Satan. And of course you're not the Christian type; you're the Satanic type. But don't despair: many of you Satanic types are good, noble, even heroic; and many of us Christian types are cowardly weasels.

OperationCounterstrike said...

We know where your children live,
(Doo-dah, doo-dah)
We know where your children live,
(Oh dee doo-dah day!)

John Dunkle said...

Officers, this is the guy whose name I couldn't remember when you visited me Wednesday.

OperationCounterstrike said...

John, would you rather have us kill your kids with guns, or with knives?

OperationCounterstrike said...

You like threatening abortion workers, but when someone suggests that the violence you use could be turned against you, you run to the police like a little girl.

John Dunkle said...

Well some of you guys are really mean.

John Dunkle said...

3/11, again! Don't you folks have anything to say? About every two weeks each of you is supposed to come up with something that defends the act of pulling apart a young person. And you can't do it! I think it's good that you can't do it, but for you it has to be embarrassing.

Moral Pilgrim said...

I strongly suggest you read

John Dunkle said...

I went there, MP. I even bookmarked the page in hopes that I'll find something interesting there. Not this, though, that tries to prove, by quoting pro-death organizations, that unnecessary operations are not unhealthy. Flies in the face of reason.

John Dunkle said...

3/14 SL's post gives me some hope, not a lot, but some.

John Dunkle said...

3/15 Is this in response to my accusing you of having nothing to say? Nothing is better than this. This is just babble. I thought this blog was supposed to be about dearming and deleging little girls, about how that is fine to do.

John Dunkle said...

3/16 That wasn't you your mother had killed Sparky, it was your older sister. Why can't you people say what happened. Just say it. That's the first step to recovery.

John Dunkle said...

3/17 When I was young, any woman could pay to have the young person she was carrying tortured to death -- if she had ten grand (today's money). A minuscule number, relatively, could or would pay that much. Instead they carried to term, and, more often than not, fell in love. Today abortions cost a tenth that much and their number has increased "seventy times seven."

Now you want to make them free! Before 1973 I didn't believe in Satan. Slowly, though, I realized only he could be responsible for this.

ian said...

Hi, I'm curious what your stance on life support is.


John Dunkle said...


John Dunkle said...

3/17 VF, will you please stop posting stuff by DOW. I got to the fifth paragraph and my head started spinning (and I haven't even finished my martini yet).

John Dunkle said...

3/18 Here I comment on The Abortioneers' comments -- Kate, you might have run but I'm happy to see you haven't shut up. And DOW, I'm happy to see you still have a gut to wrench. The only way we will eventually lose this war is if y'all turn into zombies, like the others. '

MyKarma said...

John Dunkle said...

Yo, MK, you don't have to prove to me that Catholics are bad -- belonging to a church that says killing someone before she's born is worse than killing her afterwords, and doing little to stop it. But go to Keats Street Chronicles. Commander handles this rather well, I think.

John Dunkle said...

3/21 Putting two-year-olds in front of firing squads? It's much worse. It's torturing to death two-month-olds. The rest of this post doesn't mean anything.

Anonymous said...


John Dunkle said...

Yo, Ya, you go girl!

John Dunkle said...

3/22 Abortion's heart will go on, and so will rape's, and so will pederasty's, and so will thievery's, and so will...

"If you let that little girl live for another six months, you will fall in love," I said Saturday to a young lady at the Allentown Women's Center as she approached the door leading to the abortion chamber. She turned to me, stopped, and said softly, "It's a boy."

John Dunkle said...

3/23 Well this is good news. Great news would be if I scared AG to the point where she was too upset even to report to work or that she had to find a different job. You know, these nazis guard their little auschwitzes voluntarily, not like the Germans who were ordered to guard and run Auschwitz. Who is the more guilty?