Thursday, April 15, 2010

Abortion is Murder, 8-2, May 2, 2010

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

May 2, 2010 Vol. 8 No. 2
PO Box 7424, Reading, PA 19603
Phone – cell—484-706-4375, machine -- 610-396-0332
Email –
Web –
Circulation – 103
John Dunkle, Editor

Abortion is Murder, a weak, pathetic response to baby murder, is sent out at least once a month. If the gestapo hasn’t jailed you for defending the innocent realistically, you either have to tell me you want it or go the website. Faxes and emails are free but snail-mail is free only for PFC’s, $100 for others.
Because I believe we should use every legitimate means, including force, in our attempt to protect those being tortured to death, I want to hear from people who’ve been forceful. I’d also like to hear from those who disagree with me.

Prisoners for Christ:
1. Evans, Paul Ross 83230-180, USP McCreary, P.O. Box 3000, Pine Knot, KY 42635
2. Gibbons, Linda - Vanier WDC, 655 Martin St., P.O. Box 1040, Milton, ON, Canada L9T 5E6
3. Griffin, Michael 310249, Okaloosa Correctional Institution, Crestview FL 32539-6708 9/11
4. Howard, Peter Andrew 57760-097, FCI, Box 900, Safford, AZ 85546
5. Jordi, Stephen 70309-004, FCI P.O. Box 33, Terre Haute IN 47802 6/30
6. Knight, Peter CRN 158589, Port Philip Prison, P.O. Box 376, Laverton, Victoria, Australia
7. Kopp, James 11761-055, USP Canaan, 3057 Easton Tpk., Waymart, PA 18472
8. Little, David (no address yet)
9. Lo, Erlyndon Joseph LE#234894, Collin County Detention Center, 4300 Community Avenue, McKinney TX 75071
10. McMenemy, David Robert 08168-030, FCI Elkton, P.O. Box 10, Lisbon OH 44432
11. Richardson, Alonzo Lee 12898-021, PO Box 474701, Des Moines, IA 5094
12. Scott P. Roeder KDOC#0065192, El Dorado Correctional Facility, P. O. Box 311, El Dorado, KS 67042
13. Ross, Michael, Custer County Jail, 1010 Main St., Miles City, Montana 59301
14. Rudolph, Eric 18282-058 US Pen. Max, Box 8500, Florence CO 81226-8500
15. Shannon, Rachelle 59755-065, FCI Waseca, Unit A, P.O. Box 1731, Waseca, MN 56093 3/31
16. Waagner, Clayton Lee 17258-039, United States Penitentiary, P.O. Box 1000, Lewisburg PA 17837 8/25
17. Weiler Jr., Robert F. 39385-037, FCC - Delaware Hall, Box 1000, Petersburg VA 23804 (new)
18. Whitaker, Vincent , FCI, Box 699, Estill SC 29918

"I'm prepared to die in jail, if necessary. I can no longer cope with the hypocrisy of praying for life ... and paying for death." David Little

More from Chapter 3 of Eric Rudolph’s Abortion, the Irrepressible Conflict:

Our society still prosecutes child abusers precisely because we believe that parents assume certain obligations to their children. They are obligated to provide a minimum of food, shelter, medical care, and education. And if the parents don’t live up to their obligations, they can be prosecuted and the child can be removed from their custody. The parents can’t simply “unplug” themselves anytime they choose. The mother who let her child starve to death while she was on a trip to Europe would be tracked down and prosecuted for murder. Most civilized people still recognize that we assume certain involuntary obligations as part of living in society. And one of those obligations is to care for our children.
Not only are we obligated to our family, we are also obligated to strangers. In a case out of Minnesota, a cattle buyer named Orlando Depue was awarded damages after he was literally kicked out in the cold. It was a cold January night in Minnesota—we’re talking Eskimo weather. Depue had eaten dinner with a couple, the Flateaus. Feeling sick after the dinner, he asked the couple if he could sleep over. But the Flateaus refused to give him board and told him to leave. Too sick to drive, Depue was forced to sleep in the backseat of his car. In the morning his fingers were popsicles, and later had to be amputated.
Depue sued the couple for damages. The Court said: “In the case at bar the defendants were under no contract obligation to minister to plaintiff in his distress; but humanity demanded they do so, if they understood and appreciated his condition . . . The law as well as humanity required that he not be exposed in his helpless condition to the merciless elements.”42 An obligation is assumed once you “understand and appreciate” the conditions of your fellowman, even if he is a stranger. What goes for strangers goes double for family members.
Looked at within the normal context of familial obligations, Thomson’s Henry Fonda example falls apart. Although it may be asking too much of Henry to run about the country laying hands on sick folks, it would be only just to expect his healing touch if you were his son or daughter. The glue that holds society together is assumed responsibility to family, friends, strangers, and country. No doubt we owe each of these categories a different level of responsibility, but without assumed responsibility, there is no society.
There is something deeper at work in Thomson’s examples than just a brutal social contract theory. They reveal someone with a deep hatred of maternity itself. Such attitudes are typical of feminists like Thomson. Pregnancy is like being kidnapped and hooked-up to an ailing violinist. In her bizarre world, the wonders of maternity are similar to being trapped in a tiny house with an ever-expanding child, who will eventually crush her to death if she doesn’t kill him first. Contraceptives are like bars on your windows meant to keep burglars (babies) out. Something so natural and traditionally welcomed by women the world over is reduced to a malevolent force. A woman is trapped, put upon by nature, and abortion is a defensive reaction. In feminist literature, with few exceptions, pregnancy is everything negative, never a gift or a blessing. All healthy cultures treat child birth as the penultimate female experience. Feminists like Thomson see it as a curse.
Liberals such as Harry Blackmun and Judith Jarvis Thomson framed the abortion debate and conservatives feel compelled to base their arguments on the same classical liberal premises. From their side, the unborn child’s right to life outweighs the mother’s right to control her body. The problem with this approach is the unborn child is not an independent actor as social contract theory assumes. The neonate is a special dependent. In Lockian social contract theory dependents are not afforded full rights. In fact, if you didn’t own property, Locke believed you had no stake in society, and therefore should not be given the full rights of a citizen. This is where early American property qualification for voting is derived from.
Pro-lifers frame the debate as if they were going into court to represent the child in a legal dispute against his mother. Strictly speaking, carrying a child to term entails more than just respecting the baby’s right to life. Maternity is about the performance of an affirmative duty. The two are somewhat different. For example, respecting your neighbor’s property rights normally requires only that you refrain from violating his property through trespass, theft, or vandalism and so forth. If you do nothing to your neighbor’s property, you have observed his rights. But you are not required to go over to his house every week and mow his grass, or help him put on a new roof if he needs one. And respecting another’s right to life requires only that you refrain from killing him. Normally, you are not obligated to make sure your neighbor is well fed and has adequate shelter.
Thomson’s argument relies on this classical liberal notion that to observe another person’s rights we are not obligated for another’s upkeep. But caring for a child does require that the mother do more than just respect the child’s right to life. She must nurture the child; she must protect him from abortion; she can’t use drugs or alcohol; and if she intends to keep him after birth, she must provide food, shelter, healthcare, and education. Thomson points out this weakness in the pro-life position:

Opponents of abortion have been so concerned to make out the independence of the fetus, in order to establish that it has a right to life, just as the mother does, that they have tended to overlook the possible support they might gain from making out that the fetus is dependent on the mother, in order to establish that she has a special responsibility that gives it rights against her that are not possessed by an independent person—such as an ailing violinist who is a stranger to her.43

Thomson makes a good point here. Ancient obligations to our family and society take precedence to our individual rights. This is the correct conservative argument against abortion and infanticide. Cardinal Newman put it this way:

We are not our own anymore than what we possess is our own. We did not make ourselves, we can’t be supreme over ourselves. We are not our masters. We are God’s property. Is it not our happiness to view the matter? Is it any happiness or any comfort to consider that we are our own? It may be thought so by the young and prosperous. These may think it a great thing to have everything, as they suppose, their own way—to depend on no one, to think of nothing out of sight, to be without irksome and continual acknowledgment, continual prayer, continual reference to what they do to the will of another. But as time goes on, they, as all men, will find that independence was not made for man—that it is an unnatural state—it will do for a while, but will not carry them safely to the end.44

Our parental laws are rooted in this ancient wisdom. Until 1973, most governments in the Western world applied this thinking to abortion. Childbirth is a blessing. It is an essential relationship. Without mothers, society is not possible. The family is the primary unit in society, the primary socializer of citizens. More specifically, the traditional nuclear family performs those essential tasks best. Good families make good taxpayers, good patriots, good citizens. If the government is effective, it will do all in its power to create an environment where healthy families can flourish. Family life is none of the government’s business, you may say. You are wrong! All cultures have found that social stability is dependent on strong families. Marriage contracts and family law are found in all healthy societies. Children raised by responsible fathers and mothers are less likely to engage in anti-social behavior. The problems of America’s inner cities today are largely due to the absence of solid families, specifically the absence of fathers. Studies continue to show that children who grow up in fatherless households are far more likely to end up in prison. Protecting the integrity of the family is a legitimate state interest and falls well within the constitutional mandate. Compelling a woman, who is already pregnant, to carry her child for at least the nine months of pregnancy is a legitimate extension of that mandate. Except to save the life of the mother, there is no legitimate reason for abortion. (tbc)

Dear Friends, I am in the Oakland County Jail these past 4 months. My bunkee is in jail for destroying his home with a hammer. This frightened his poor wife who arrived home during his rampage. Though his wife was not verbally or physically threatened or harmed, my bunkee was charged with Felony Assault.
My bunkee was on meds for depression as a result of a motorcycle accident. His meds were the reason he went on his rampage. The doctor prescribed something he should not have been taking, this contributed to his mental state.
On September 11th Harlan Drake gunned down Jim Poullion and Mike Fouss. It is possible that Harlan Drake’s situation is similar to my bunkee's. In 2004 Drake was in a severe motor vehicle accident; it is reported that he has not been the same since. Perhaps prescribed drugs contributed to his homicidal rampage.
However, one thing is very strange: my bunkee had to wait 4 months to get into the Ann Arbor forensic lab, and he still has not received word from the court regarding the lab's prognosis. Harlan Drake seems to get preferential treatment and a clement court decision within weeks of his shooting rampage.
This is all too typical of pro-abortion violence against pro-lifers.
When pro-lifers are attacked at the death camps, and we call for the police, guess who gets arrested? Usually nothing happens to the person committing the assault. Others could say much more. I have heard many, many stories besides my own experiences.
I am presently in custody in Michigan as a result of road rage. I was driving a vehicle which displays the same aborted babies Jim Poullion was displaying not 40 miles from where Jim was shot and killed by Harlan Drake.
I am accused of the road rage the other person was doing (I have nothing against bland mini-vans).
I am presently tempted to plead to a misdemeanor just to get this ordeal over with. My chances of getting a fair-minded jury in this country are very slim. Most people believe that in any altercation, people who display aborted baby pictures are at fault. They believe we are deliberately provoking people to fight us. I am sure that is in the back of most people’s minds when it comes to the shooting death of Jim Poullion. Though unsaid, they believe he got what he deserved.
But provoking a fight is not the reason why we display the pictures. We display the brutality of abortion because we want baby-killing to end. We want people to see and to understand how outrageous it is for a mother to kill her child. Displaying the pictures saves lives and stirs up repentance. It also brings about outrage to the unrepentant. Baby-murder is permitted, protected, and promoted in our nation these past 37 years with no end in sight. Displaying the carnage is the most direct and powerful means we have to combat its acceptance.
Those who kill their children have few inhibitions about inflicting harm on strangers (perceptive). There is but a thin layer of civility which prevents many from doing so. Drugs can strip away that thin layer. But even those considered sane, empowered as of a pastor, judge, juror, prosecutor, politician, or voter participate in the homicides of 4000 innocent Americans per day.
How shall those who protect the unborn get fair treatment from those who participate in their killings? It will not happen this side of glory.
dan holman, Missionaries to the Pre-born, Iowa

Dear John, Here I've assembled a few miscellaneous thoughts and observations:
The American Civil Liberties Union strikes me as Jenny Gump gets a law degree and Forest is really proud of her. And now she's going through her phases in the American courtroom. And the reason why she supports abortion is that if she keeps showing up pregnant from Forest, people are going to think she's the one who's "somewhat retarded," to quote the U.S. Supreme Court in Stump v. Sparkman.
In other words, the Court has been dealing with Jenny since long before the movie came out. And Buck v. Bell (sterilization) and Roe v. Wade (child homicide) are prime examples of what the Court is willing to resort to when American women behave like "imbeciles afflicted with hereditary forms of insanity or imbecility," to quote from p. 215 of the concurring opinion of Justice Douglas to Roe v. Wade. He was reflecting on the sexual imbecility of American women caught up in the social insanity of the Hippie Craze, which succeeded the original "form of insanity" addressed by the Court in Buck v. Bell, namely, the Flapper Craze of the Roaring 20s.
If you really want to scare abortion providers, show up with signs reading on one side:
And on the other side reading:

Then they'll know you’ve finally wised up to what the pro-life scam is all about: Letting Mr. Wolf clear the pews, school desks, and homes of awkward pregnancy scandals, while the traditionalists deny their complicity!
I tell the joke about Ronald Reagan that if you're going to appoint a Justice O'Connor as a ringer to the Supreme Court, you have to at least be fair to the other side by appointing a Justice Kennedy! (In other words, it looks like Mr. Wolf has had more than a little help from even the most famous complicity deniers.)
Infanticide is correct, and not over-broad. But the exact medical term is concepticide, which means the taking of the life of a conceptus. The term conceptus includes babies since they were conceived, e.g., fertilized, and includes every part of their bodies, even the birth sac and umbilical cord. For example, while some people try to debate whether killing babies before implantation is an "abortion," or whether discarding babies conceived by in vitro fertilization is an "abortion," medically speaking it is an act of concepticide either way. Concepticidal drugs and devices, e.g., birth control pills, morning-after pills, and intrauterine devices, all kill babies just the same as any other means of concepticide, for example, late-term procedures, except the baby does not get to live as long.
Dorland's medical dictionary defines a 'conceptus' as "the product of the union of oocyte and spermatozoon at any stage of development from fertilization until birth, including extraembryonic membranes as well as the embryo or fetus." Some people are taken aback when they see the word 'conceptus' defined as bluntly as "the products of conception," thinking it is impersonal. The historical reason for this is that, in the mid-1900s, our dummy doctors finally got a clue and realized the birth sac and umbilical cord were a part of the baby's body. They were embarrassed when they found out the mother's body did not produce them. So, to avoid further embarrassment, they used the term conceptus to include "all" the products of conception, as a catch-all term. Otherwise, who knew what blunder they might make next!
I tell the joke about Scott Roeder's trial that the State of Kansas was a real "rail-Roeder" of the defendant's rights! But after Scott is freed on habeas corpus, the headlines will read: "Roeder Sentenced to 52 Years for Killing Abortion Doc ... April fools!" Sincerely, Cal.

Mr. Eurica Califorrniaa
PO Box 791
Haleiwa, HI 96712
(310) 804-0727

Oh, Canada

Neal Horsley says: Linda Gibbons has done a total of nine years in jail in Canada for the crime of begging women to not kill their unborn babies. Under Court order to not sidewalk counsel, Linda does it anyway, is arrested and jailed. Then as soon as she is released, she starts begging women to not kill their babies...and you get it--the vicious cycle continues.
So what's up with Linda Gibbons? Is she crazy? Certainly, according to the conventional wisdom of this world, and the conventional wisdom of the Christian consensus, Linda Gibbons is utterly bonkers.
But in the Kingdom of God? Ah, there's another question.
You see, what Linda Gibbons does every time she tries to persuade people to refrain from sacrificing their children to idols is to remove herself from culpability that accrues to people who do nothing in the face of legalized child sacrifice. In effect, and in the Kingdom of God, Linda Gibbons implements the only method she can find that actually accomplishes her being removed from guilt as an accessory before and after the fact of child sacrifice. For, after all, Linda Gibbons cannot be reasonably accused of complicity in the legalized child slaughter going on around her if she is in prison for trying to stop that child slaughter.
Only the most mentally retarded people on the planet can fail to see that Linda Gibbons has found a way to a clean conscience on this planet today.
But legions of people who are not mentally retarded refuse to look at Linda Gibbons because they sense that if they look at Linda Gibbons they would be stricken in their conscience or, in self-defense of their own self-serving life, would be forced to castigate Linda Gibbons as a foolish masochist and no Christian at all.
The problem with Christians taking that position in response to Linda Gibbon's ministry is Christians would logically have to say the same thing about the Lord Jesus Christ that they say about Linda Gibbons. After all, the Lord could have avoided looking like a masochist. All He had to do was refuse to go the cross.
And right there we see the terrible truth of our age, our generation, our time and place in His Story.
Finally Linda Gibbons brings the most ruthlessly terrible message of Jesus Christ alive in our world today. Who can help but tremble when they hear the Lord Jesus Christ proclaim, "For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will find it." Mat 16:25
Linda Gibbons is not alone in modeling the way to be delivered from culpability in the rampant sin that has overtaken this generation. Linda Gibbons is not alone in bearing a living witness that leaves the vast horde of people who call themselves Christians utterly condemned for being friends with the world for loving pleasure more than the truth, in direct opposition to the clear commands of King Jesus as mediated by Lord Holy Ghost today. Others have found the way of deliverance as well. Their names resonate across the ages: The Apostles: Peter, Paul, the list goes on and on: John Brown, Paul Hill, wait! STOP! Don't come any closer! Don't say Scott Roeder, don't say Linda Gibbons! What are you? A terrorist?

Dear Linda, how does one obtain a Court Order to not sidewalk counsel?

And another Canadian -- An anti-abortion crusader in New Brunswick has been sentenced to 66 days in jail for refusing to pay fines stemming from a 2007 conviction for failing to file his tax returns.
David Little said in provincial court Thursday that he will never file another tax return as long as there is tax-funded abortion in Canada, and won't pay the $3,000 in fines for failing to file returns for 2000, 2001, and 2002.
"Let us not waste time any more. ... Put me in jail," he told Judge Leslie Jackson.
In January, the Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear Little's appeal of the conviction, which he argued violated his religious beliefs under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The 66-year-old Roman Catholic, who is married and has eight children, said he is willing to spend the rest of his life behind bars if necessary.
"I don't want to co-operate with an entity that takes my money and pays gynecological assassins to kill my brothers and sisters," he said in an interview prior to sentencing.
"I'm prepared to die in jail, if necessary. I can no longer cope with the hypocrisy of praying for life ... and paying for death."
Little now faces a new charge for failing to comply with a judge's order to file his returns for the three years in question.
Little, who represented himself in court, said he has not filed a tax return since 1999. He asked for a delay to the start of his incarceration, but the judge refused, ordering him into custody immediately. Jackson did agree to send him to a detention centre in Moncton so he will be closer to his wife and children now living in Prince Edward Island. Little is to return to court in Fredericton on Aug. 10 on the new charge.
Outside the court, federal prosecutor Keith Ward refused to speculate if Little could face charges for not filing returns for 2003 to the present. He said that would be up to the Canada Revenue Agency to decide.
Little had a number of supporters in court, including Bishop Faber MacDonald, the bishop emeritus for Saint John diocese.
MacDonald said outside court that he expects the jail sentence will result in more supporters for Little's cause. "I think after a few days, after people read this story, it would be very easy to motivate them to action," he said.
When asked if he thought other Catholics should refuse to file their taxes in protest of abortion, MacDonald replied: "Yes."
MacDonald, though, acknowledged he has filed his own return.

The Bishop’s like me -- we’re getting around to it

More of Paul Ross Evans’ letter:


Kidnapping is noted in the law of Exodus. This offense gives us yet another glimpse of “the mind of God” and what He deems abhorrent behavior. Putting a price on flesh, and disgracing another human being is strictly forbidden.

Exodus 21:16 and he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.

The law is clear once again in the case of kidnapping. We must purge this evil from among us, and the offender must be put to death immediately.


A special note in criminal law is given to those who create and spread lies of slander among God’s people. This act is strictly forbidden although the death penalty is not merited in this situation.
Lleviticus 19:16 thou shalt not go up and down as tale bearers among this people: neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy neighbor: I am the Lord
Exodus 23:1 Thou shalt not raise a false report: put not thine hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness.
Exodus 23:7 Keep thee far from a false matter, and the innocent and righteous slay thou not: for I will not justify the wicked.

As many of you know, the wicked are among us today. They sow slander and lies into the modern society of information, snoop through our every belonging, and spy on Christians who attempt to uphold God’s Law. Our Father is clear that such wickedness can never be justified in His sight. Those who sow such discord will inevitably answer for such deeds. If they happen to escape retribution in this life, on Judgment Day God will hold them accountable. This is a simple fact.


The crime of theft is given mention as well, in Exodus 20:15 Thou shalt not steal.

As simple as that sentence alone is, as sound as it stands upon its own accord, the matter of thievery is mentioned again in the 22nd chapter of Exodus in verses 1-4:

If a man shall steal an ox, or a sheep, and kill it, or sell it, he shall restore five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep. If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall be no blood shed for him. If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him; for he should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft. If the theft be certainly found in his hand alive, whether it be ox, or ass, or sheep, he shall restore double.
The previous verse is very self-explanatory; however, it is good to keep in mind that the metaphorical translation of these terms can be, as well, used to many other theft situations of today. For example:
- If a man steals a large item, and sells it, or uses it, then he shall repay it 5-fold.
- If a man steals a medium-sized to small-sized item and sells it, or uses it, then he shall pay it back 4-fold.
- If he is killed during the day, in plain sight, with malice (and not in self-defense) and/or he runs away, then it shall be handled as follows:
a. killed with malice – his people shall have their retribution
b. if he runs away with said item(s) – he shall commence with previously covered payments in return

* The thief has the right to repay for items stolen, and in so doing, earn forgiveness and repentance. He also has the right, through gainful employment, to work for his victim as mentioned in Exodus 21:2 If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve, and in the 7th he shall go free for nothing.

I feel this verse is to set a time limit for such debt-recovery situations. Six years are to be the most, in order to avoid committing tragic acts such as those mentioned previously in this text, for example, kidnapping which is strictly forbidden (tbc)

Here’s the rest of Jimbo’s “Holman’s Really On To Something”:

Note to Barak Obama: please remember: the line for civil actions against me forms to the left. Please wait patiently, you’ll get your turn. Don’t jostle or try to cut ahead of other litigants.

P.S. to Barak: Where are the photos of Nairobi Gramma at the White House? Baby pictures? Wanna see my baby pictures?

OK, where were we? Oh Yeah, Syllabus. I’m not selling the Syllabus here because I’m just old and tired enough that I do not want to mess with perfection. Trust me, please, that when DV we read the Syllabus, it will open our minds to the read problem, the core underpinning of Modernism and the root cause of abortion. OK? And that’s what Dan’s getting at, guided, I humbly suspect, by the Holy Spirit, praised Be that Spirit.
If any of us try to “reassess the problem” without this crucial fundamental, a lot of time will be wasted, time babies and moms don’t have.
For example, imagine a fresh discussion a’ la Dan’s, ... without any reference to any new “principle” put forward since 1860? Or, how about 1650-ish, a much more accurate date? Do you realize how much time this would save? How much more quickly we can arrive at tardy help for these suffering ones, mother and child?

Please John, print it, even a little at a time. Thank you in advance

Damn, Jimbo’s serious, and his word is... OK, all 80. Here’s the first:

1. There exists no Supreme, all-wise, all-provident Divine Being, distinct from the universe and God is identical with the nature of things, and is, therefore, subject to changes. In effect, God is produced in man and in the world, and all things are God and have the very substance of God, and God is one and the same thing with the world, and, therefore, spirit with matter, necessity with liberty, good with evil, justice with injustice.

Seventy-nine to go, oh my goodness.

P.S. I still remember how Humani Generis silenced the Darwinist horsecrap that was rolling around these pages. (I beg your pardon, Jimbo; I smelled nothing, or, maybe, very little.) And alert prisoners can build a mini-library of encyclicals, useful for years to come, in debate with inquiring fellow cons.

P.P.S. Humble note to any readers, and Dan: please don’t confuse real, essential Catholic teaching with what “Luigi at the corner deli” said, no matter how good-natured Luigi is. This mistake cost me years of mess. Stick with encyclicals, Aquinas and Ludwig Ott’s book if you want to know.

P.P.P. S. Similar: Don’t confuse the Lord, or Scripture, with the American (Modernist) heresy, Protestant or “RC” flavors. Also, a big waste of time. Personally? I never discovered authentic truth until I physically left the US for the overseas Wycliffe mission field, and I return to there, mentally, as often as required.

P.P.P.P.S. Another e.g. of clear Syllabus thinking: tax resistance, under pain of sin, to stop abortion, ordered by all US bishops. To think we’re assuaged by no tax-funded abortion in Obamacare! Even with that (dream on) how about the entire Fed. Machine that protects ‘AB? What is that, chopped liver?

Not quite the rest of this remarkable piece – couple more PSes.

The letter of the Great Australian Peter Knight continues:

Another letter which I will say something is that of Paul Ross Evans (April 1). “You will answer for killing our children, we said, as we bombed, killed, and destroyed the abortionists and those who protect them.” That may have been the principle sentiment Paul Evens was expressing, it may even have been the principal sentiment expressed by some others, but it wasn’t the principle sentiment of all those on the prisoners’ list.
Rather than that, the actions which I took were taken to say to the multitudes of cowards who failed to defend the children – “this is the way you are required to deal with a situation such as the situation is with abortion.” Whether you like it or not, and no matter what your actions or lack of actions are, you and your example will be taken by people to be saying that. And the reply which is almost always given to those who have used forceful actions by those who refuse to, is – “No, your way is not the right way, and we condemn it and we condemn you,”
Paul Evans says he likes Clay Wagner’s ideas. I am not in favor of anything which encourages people to believe that they were justified in not taking Paul Hill’s actions. It encourages people to believe that it’s OK for them to sit back and wait and wait and wait for a political solution to this problem.
There are only two methods which people would have been justified to use to stop abortion. Only two methods which would have stopped it quick and smart as it should have been stopped. A political solution was not one of them. The first was for a large number of people, a million or more in the USA, to non-violently (or violently) obstruct entry to every abortion center and prevent any possibility of abortions being carried out. It’s obvious, and always was obvious, that people were never going to do that. When it was clear that there was never going to be a small number of people who were wiling to turn up at an abortion center and do anything, instead of those people wasting their time achieving diddly, it was then their responsibility to up the anti and use method number 2. Method number 2 is Paul Hill’s method. There was a sufficient number of these people to make his method successful. Since they were too gutless to up the anti, it was then the responsibility of anyone who wasn’t a coward to say to himself – “It’s time to show these people and the millions of others what cowards and wimps they are.”
The Christian religion was not founded by a wimp, and it was not founded for wimps. We know this because it was founded by the man who was willing to be crucified so that his message would be promoted. Founded by the man who said – “anyone who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple.” No wimps need apply.
There are almost a countless number of people, though, who have a wrong impression of the Christian religion. People who believe it is a religion for wimps. People who believe Jesus set such an example merely to gain weak admiration and not for it to be followed. People, who, when it was necessary for persecuted people to be defended, and they were give a relatively easy task to do it, claimed that they did not have a duty to defend them. Even claimed that it was wrong to defend them. And there’s no doubt that that is what the biggest problem is with this issue. (tbc)

Friday, April 02, 2010

Abortion is Murder, 8-1, May, 2010

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

May, 2010 Vol. 8 No. 1
PO Box 7424, Reading, PA 19603
Phone – cell—484-706-4375, machine -- 610-396-0332
Email –
Web –
Circulation – 99
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. Ross, Michael, Custer County Jail, 1010 Main St., Miles City, Montana 59301
12. Rudolph, Eric 18282-058 US Pen. Max, Box 8500, Florence CO 81226-8500
13. Shannon, Rachelle 59755-065, FCI Waseca, Unit A, P.O. Box 1731, Waseca, MN 56093 3/31
14. Waagner, Clayton Lee 17258-039, United States Penitentiary, P.O. Box 1000, Lewisburg PA 17837 8/25
15. Weiler Jr., Robert F. 39385-037, FCC - Delaware Hall, Box 1000, Petersburg VA 23804 (new)
16. 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

This issue of “Abortion is Murder,” now starting its eighth year, begins with more of Eric Rudolph’s magnificent history:

Used by the majority of “pro-choicers,” the personhood defense of abortion is a hollow attempt to assuage guilty consciences. Killing is a disagreeable business. But if a person de-humanizes the victim, it makes it so much easier. Combatants do this in time of war. The enemy is transformed from a human being into an object: “Gook,” “Jerry,” “Kraut,” “Crusaders.” Even military nomenclature uses “target,” “enemy personnel,” and “collateral damage.” The pro-abortion ideologues are no different. They use “fetus,” “material,” and “parasite.” Thomson, Tooley, and Warren’s use of bizarre de-humanizing examples is evidence of guilty consciences. Unborn children are “burglars,” “people-seeds,” and “kittens on consciousness drugs”—they are anything but human beings. Pro-abortion ideologue Pollack Petchesky put it bluntly when he said that “on a level of biology alone . . . the fetus is a parasite.”36
Medical science says that the zygote is an individual human being at his earliest stage of life. Life never stands still from conception to death, life is one continuum. If you interrupt the continuum at any point, you have killed that individual human being. Stephen Swartz’s excellent essay “Personhood Begins at Conception” makes this point very well. The unborn child, says Swartz, is not an organ like a heart or lung. Nor is he a simple cell, or a cancer cell. If left to grow, a cancer cell will not develop into a walking, talking, reasoning human being. But a zygote will develop into a full grown human being. All of us were zygotes at the beginning of our lives, just as all of us will be elderly at the end. And if our mothers had aborted us when we were zygotes, or at any stage of gestation, we would not be here. It is true that pre-natal life has special dependencies that post-natal life does not. But all of us will have special dependencies at other times in our lives as well—hospitalization, adolescence, senility, old age. Although each stage of life has its special considerations, the individual experiencing that stage of life is still the same person, and should be treated accordingly:
A being at the beginning of his development cannot be expected to possess what only that development will provide him. He is already the being who will later function as a person, given time. The sleeping person is also a being who will later function as a person, only he will do it much sooner. What they each have now—a fully developed brain, in one case, and a less developed brain that will grow into a developed brain in the other—is a basis for his or her capacity to function as a person. It is the same essential basis, one undeveloped, the other developed. It is merely a matter of degree; there is no difference in kind.37
If infants, sleeping people, amnesiacs, the comatose, the mentally ill are protected from unjustified homicide, then so should the unborn.
Even if you put his position in its most favorable light, Tooley’s argument is absurd. Imagine twin girls born at precisely the same time. One is born comatose, and will remain that way until she is nine-years-old. Her sister is born healthy, but the moment she develops Tooley’s “concept of continuing self,” she slips into a coma, and like her sister will remain that way until her ninth birthday. According to Tooley’s twisted logic, it is moral to kill the first twin because she has no history of functioning as a “person.” But it would be immoral to kill the second twin because she does have such a history, however brief.
It simply is not possible to narrow the definition of personhood with the intention of excluding the unborn without at the same
time excluding infants as well. There are no differences between the fetus in his eight month and the newborn infant. The pro-abortion personhood argument thus falls apart over infanticide. Here is Warren sounding like some savage in the Amazon jungle: “It follows from my argument that when an unwanted or defective infant is born into a society which cannot afford and/or is not willing to care for it, then its destruction is permissible.”38
Don Marquis used Kantian philosophy to fashion a personhood defense for the unborn, one that he hoped was not too broad, or too narrow. Marquis believes the pro-life position that it is always “prima facie wrong to take human life” is too broad because it seems to include cancer cells. Conversely, he believes the pro-abortion argument that it is only “prima facie wrong to kill a rational agent” is too narrow because it excludes infants, the severely retarded, and the mentally ill.39
Killing is wrong because of the effect on the victim, says Marquis. It “deprives him of all the experiences, activities, projects, and enjoyments that would have otherwise constituted his future. What makes killing an adult human wrong is the loss of his or her future.” Marquis admits that the problem with any argument that relies on psychological qualities is you always end up excluding one or another class of people. Because the terminally ill and the aged don’t have much of a future, Marquis’ formula ends up excluding them: “The claim that the loss of one’s future is what makes killing them wrong does not mean that active euthanasia is wrong.”40
One of the best arguments against abortion is that it attacks the very heart of social order, which is social obligation. Thomson’s libertarian interpretation of the social contract is a pile of nonsense. Either you are in society, or you are out. The individual and society are not sitting in their own little kingdoms, trading rights for obligations. All contractual agreements exist within society. Outside of society is anarchy and war, not a utopia full of sovereign people. The individual is not prior to society. There are no sovereign individuals. Whatever rights and privileges you manage to get in a particular society, the society is sovereign, for if it were not, there would be no society. If everyone was left as judge in his own case, the laws could only be applied to consenting individuals.
Thomson’s contention that the child has no right to live in his mother’s body undermines all social obligations. A woman must give her consent before the child can stay. This applies to all pregnancies, says Thomson. Even if the pregnancy was intended and the child is carried into the ninth month, Thomson believes the mother has every right to “unplug” herself through abortion. Her argument is predicated on the false notion that society is made up of sovereign individuals. The mother has no obligations to her child. No one owes anyone anything unless she gives her consent.
To make her argument, Thomson assumes that all obligations in society are voluntary. A mother’s obligation to her child is similar to those obligations toward a stranger. Her argument is untenable in part because parental obligations are different from those obligations to strangers. Normally, a woman gets pregnant after engaging in consensual sex, being fully aware that pregnancy is a likely possibility. Pregnancy is a natural result of engaging in sex. Any twelve-year-old knows this. Pregnancy is not an unusual event like being kidnapped by music lovers, or being burglarized. Also, what makes Thomson’s arguments inappropriate is their novelty. Sex and pregnancy go together like eating and digesting. If you engage in sex, you assume the risk of pregnancy. If you eat, you should likewise expect to digest. If you engage in certain behavior, you must accept the inherent consequences of that behavior.
Thomson’s thesis also nullifies parental support laws. Under the current laws, a man who has consensual sex with a woman is responsible for the financial upkeep of any resulting offspring, even if he used birth control and didn’t intend to have a child. As Michael Levin points out, “All parental support laws make the parental body an indirect resource for the child. If the father is a construction worker, the state will intervene unless some of the calories he is expending lifting equipment go to providing food for his children.”41
Let us carry Thomson’s argument to its logical end. Why should there be any difference between the way a mother can treat her child before birth, and the way she can treat him after birth? Remember, Thomson accepts that the fetus is fully human at all stages of gestation. Still she insists that the child has no “prima facie” right to his mother’s body. Abortion is not deliberate murder, says Thomson. Aborting a child is the same as unplugging yourself from that violinist. Yes, the violinist will die if you unplug yourself, but you are not deliberatly killing him, just refusing to give him use of your body. Why not be consistent? If a mother can unplug herself at any point during the pregnancy, why not after the pregnancy as well? What if a mother brings a baby to term, delivers him, and raises him for one year. Then one day after watching Sex In the City she discovers that motherhood is a drag. So she makes plane reservations, packs her bags, and jets over to Europe for a few months. Meanwhile, her child starves to death. No harm no foul, right? She didn’t kill the child; she just “unplugged” herself. (tbc)

In the last issue Scott mentioned that this account of his trial is worth reading:

Tiller Murder Trial... Roeder Brings in the Victims & Is Silenced
By Cathy Ramey

So Roeder is being tried for Murder but he is not allowed to describe the gruesome procedure inflicted on victims that had him willing to risk incarceration and possibly execution in order to save those lives.
The last thing the prosecution desires is to have this trial turn into a referendum on abortion. The judge in the trial is making sure that doesn't happen by disallowing the testimony of the former Kansas Attorney General, Phil Kline, who unsuccessfully prosecuted Tiller for providing illegal late term abortions
This court needs a conviction of Roeder and that isn't going to happen if the trial swerves into becoming a decision on the morality of abortion.
Roeder simply tells the truth! Like many, many others, me included, he wanted to see Tiller stopped. He waited in hopes the government would "man-up" to their God-given responsibility, but when it was absolutely clear to him that the government has been taken over by quisling social workers and cold-blooded killers, Scott Roeder determined to do what needed to be done; he used whatever means was necessary to assure that the serial-killer, George Tiller, would be unable to kill any more innocent infants ever again.
Scott Roeder didn't try to "play nice" to please a "church" crowd because he is sadly aware that the Church of Jesus Christ has been invaded, polluted and overrun by slimy sentimentalists who would rather turn away from Truth and Responsibility than exert themselves in any real way to share in the suffering of the Unborn, much less that of Jesus Christ. They propound and lap up with their tongues, like swine, "another gospel" contrary to that handed down through the Scriptures. They want their entertainment and their ears tickled. Sadly, they find like-minded "pastors" who are willing to keep them fat and sleepy so long as gold and silver rings line the offering plate. Tiller's "pastor" serves as a fine example of those so thoroughly fit for hell themselves that all they can do is turn out congregants twice as fit for damnation as they are.
Stop sitting with them in the congregation! Stop tolerating their slick-sounding sentiments about "helping women," "preventing over-population"! (Is anyone heralding Roeder for helping to solve that ZPG [zero population growth] problem, one-butcher-at-a-time?)
Stop buying into their oozing concern about serving the children a kindness by killing them so they don't have to suffer "being abused," "going hungry," and the other pitfalls of life later on.
They are verdant liars; if they really cared, they'd limit the population by doing the easiest, most uncomplicated thing— they would simply "off" themselves after sending all of their money and assets to those "poor" among them. They would help "save the earth" by recognizing their own sins against their goddess and offering themselves as a personal human sacrifice to appease her supposed anger expressed in "global warming," "droughts," “famines," pestilence and other things that plague her.
Why aren't they doing this? Perhaps the rising smoke of these worshipers giving themselves to the fire or leaping into a live volcano would waft that nice smoky grilled meat fragrance down to the goddess and appease her; and, if not her, certainly there are those in hell who will welcome them. What are they waiting for? They are part of their problem; why aren't they doing all they can to fix it?
They don't make such real sacrifices themselves because internally they know their gospel is dung, their churches are not even fit to be transformed into outhouses, and they care for no plant, no animal, no so-called god or goddess as much as they care for themselves. They are selfish bastards, illegitimate in their claims to be "children of God" or offspring of their mythical goddess.
They deserve to be confronted with their lies, not tolerated at all. If the true Church won't be honest in confronting them with their sin and need for salvation, do we think satan and his minions will take up that task?
You want society to "like" your gospel message, then go join the Unitarians, Buddhists, those filthy "reformed" so-called "Christian churches" that sanction murdering the Unborn, or some other no-god cult that centers on you, you, and you.
May that evil man or woman burn in hell's fiercest flames for rejecting the True God who prefers innocent lives over those who stand guilty, who wade in the blood of the Unborn they have killed, or stand guilty of any other sin they try to justify as "safe," "legal," "loving," or more "tolerant" and "diversified" than those narrow-minded Christians who believe God and take Him at His Word.
You want to serve the God who created the heavens and the earth, who outlawed the murder of innocent people through a Noahic covenant, and who commanded that we love others enough to do for them in their distress what we would hope could be done for us? Then "man up," pick up that 400-pound cross and plan on being hated by those who openly hate God, or merely pretend He is their Lord.
When anti-abortion men and women everywhere choose to be as brave as Scott Roeder, then, only then, will we see an end to the holocaust perpetrated by these horrid, despicable butchers of children. They are absolutely contemptible and their spilled blood is on their own heads and hands. May God recompense them with terror and dread for every life they bartered away or butchered under the auspices of being "pro-choice" or "a doctor" just doing a "legal medical procedure."
I pray that God will be generous in pouring out His Holy Spirit; endowing brave men, just as He did Scott Roeder, with outrage at the slaughter taking place in these human dog-pounds called "abortion clinics," "medical centers," "women's health clinics" and the like. I pray to God Almighty for others who are earnest in loving Him, loving our Unborn neighbors and doing all that is humanly possible on their part to stop those who kill Unborn children and those who arrogantly promote their slaughter.
May God raise up people of good faith, good aim, and the courage to try to tell a jury precisely why they are innocent of the blood of the abortionists. I don't know the man, but I am sure proud of Scott Roeder.
Please be encouraged! This is a demonstration that God is at work to tear away any pretense that letting an abortionist continue his "work" is connected at any level with truly being Christian; genuinely loving a neighbor, or is biblically, morally or ethically justified at any level. Nowhere does God command the taking of innocent human life. What He does command is that if "man sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed." Tiller got precisely less pain and suffering than he deserved; but a man, having done a man's job, God will take care of the rest of what Tiller has coming to him. Be of good cheer and spread the good news. Read the news article accessed by that link and praise God for endowing Mr. Roeder with such a lack of guile, a desire to be truthful and courage to hold back nothing in asserting the righteousness of his deed.
God was most truly glorified today in Wichita.

"So then, while we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, and especially to those who are of the household of faith." Gal 6:10.”

Cathy Ramey is a prophetess, like Ruth. I do disagree, though, with her second sentence, paragraph 15. It should read, “We are absolutely contemptible and their spilled blood is on our own heads and hands”

Holman’s Really On To Something
By James Kopp

Actually faithful readers of his newsletter know that he’s always been on to something – he has pitch perfect intuition when it comes to ferreting out bad things within the ranks of erstwhile prolifers – but now he’s really, really, on to something, and once again, I wonder myself exceeding, why won’t we listen and pay more careful attention? Or is it just too painful to challenge basic assumptions?
But that’s the point, if you ask me: Dan is trying to look at it all from a new perspective, as if nothing can be taken for granted, and I believe this approach is well justified.
Something is broken in the prolife status quo and it needs fixing because it ain’t working.
My apologies to Dan, that I keep using the word “pro-life” for now, for this little letter, force of habit. I’ll think about the aborticide thing, I promise. It’s hard to teach old dogs new tricks!
Which brings us smartly to what I really want to contribute to Dan’s, and all of our thinking, and partly why I write this letter. Whether you reading this are one of my dear Evangelical brothers or sisters, or, if you are one of my dear befuddled Modernist American RC brothers and sisters, or, for that matter, if you are just Joe Six Pack in the Street, raving drunkenly about “freedom,” (... there. Have I offended everyone? Oh, wait), or, if you are a non-terrorist Muslim who’s here, mainly, for a nice place to raise your kids, without bullets whizzing over their heads (indoor plumbing, too), ... if you are any of the above, and, anyone with a pulse and beta waves ... we can all benefit, in this discussion, with a nice, big, soppy, 91/2 yard dose of (respectful hush) ... loud fanfare! (“Common Man,” by Aaron Copland will do)
Ta, ta-ta-ta!


Yes, boys and girls, our Dan is so on the money, he, with his unerring Godly intuition (enhanced, perhaps?, by the added time in durance vile occasioned by rough handling on the Upper Peninsula...?, Dan, I say, has happily and felicitously stepped on the Syllabus turf.
Sad pause
Deep sigh
It’s at this point in the discussion where I need to bring up Old Issues. Have I politely requested that this august journal re-print the Syllabus? Oh, let me count the ways. Better yet, why don’t we just cut to the chase and I’ll give you an excerpt from whyjohnwon’, a conspiracy website linked to Alex Jones (juuust kidding=))
1)John already did print it, but The Government filtered it out somehow (15,723 hits)
2) The filtering out was done by “Safe Schools Czar” Jenkins, a non-Congress approved Obama appointee (12,201 hits)
3) Jenkins is a former member of NAMBLA, a notorious child-molesting-as-culture group, and
4) Jenkins is a member of some sodomite group with an acronym like GLBTTF (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transvestite Task Force), and \ 4) Jenkins, while a high school principal, refused to police or prosecute sodomite statutory rape of a minor male student under his tender care, and
5) Barack Obama knew all this when he thrust Jenkins upon vulnerable school children, and
6) This makes Barak Obama guilty after the fact of statutory sodomistic rape of a minor (7,233 hits). (tbc)

What’s going on here, Jimbo? You want me to post all eighty parts of the Syllabus of Errors? Some of them are longer than this page! And just look at them! You and I are believers, but here, for one, is #77: "In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship."

In other words, if you ain’t Catholic, you can’t worship! And that’s not the hardest-hitting!

If I weren’t Catholic, I’d be more anti-Catholic even than Tobra!

More from Paul Ross Evans:

Further instructions are bestowed upon God’s law enforcers in Exodus 21:12, 14 –
He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death
But if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbor, to slay him with guile, thou shalt take him from mine altar, that he may die.


Manslaughter is mentioned in our criminal law also. The clear definitive breakdown lies obviously in the intent. In Exodus 21:13 God makes known to us that if a man kills in self-defense or protection of others, or even during an accident, we are not to hold such a man criminally liable. If such a system of civil law demands he be liable, or if for instance the slain individual from an accidental death has friends and family who bear grudges, a place of concealment shall be appointed unto him.

Exodus 21:13
And if a man lie not in wait, but God deliver him into his hand, then I will appoint there a place whither he shall flee.

It should be said at this point that we only bring to the table various laws in each section of this text. Some of those laws, and their descriptions, may even seem brief. But the specific laws we bring up are important, and sometimes are even hard to juxtapose to help explain God’s way. In examining how some crimes are treated in comparison to others, we see what is and isn’t important to our father. After studying and scrutinizing the previous two criminal laws concerning murder and manslaughter, more is revealed to us about the intent and mission of the Father’s will.
Those, who out of vile financial gain and out of pure hatred kill one another, they also shall be put to death. They must be killed by God’s law enforcers. Those however, who kill out of self defense, protection of others, and out of sheer accident shall certainly be spared all punishment, for these actions are not murder


Many forms of assault are given mention in the Bible, according to how the theocracy should deal with such mischief. Distinctly, when man, out of hatred, anger, or vengeance strikes his fellow man, he shall see to his safety and allow him to be thoroughly mended after such a dispute. (see Exodus 21: 18, 19 Later in this same chapter of Exodus, where God Almighty lends us so much wisdom for specific situations and how to handle them, He commands us to punish a man with death if he even, accidentally, while striving or fighting with another man, causes a woman to have a miscarriage (Exodus 21: 22, 23). Clearly such NONSENSE should never be tolerated, as the fruit of the womb is give from God to be returned, from the point of conception, at all costs. I feel it important to make clear of specifics now in these matters: the key guilt and condemning factor in such matters is malice. Accidents aren’t to be treated with the “eye for eye” logic of Exodus 21: 24. These punishments are only to be conveyed upon murderers, those who cause women to lose children prematurely, and many other instances involving malice, self-centeredness, and arrogance. In other situations, however, when we are not protecting God’s law and His People, we are to follow what Christ fulfilled and commanded, by “turning the other cheek” and lending forgiveness.
For in every society there must be order. When the occasion arises, we must, however, show forgiveness. Biblical laws must be upheld, but there are many instances when malice is not present, we should forgive. Here we catch a glimpse of God’s vast wisdom as He judges all the Earth. (Next – kidnapping)

More of Peter’s pro-force argument:

Greg Cunningham claimed in 2008 that Paul Hill was a failure, suggesting that since he was not given support, his actions saved no unborn children. Since it is not the true Christian’s principle responsibility to save the lives of unborn children, whether or not Paul Hill saved any is not the question. The question is this – what field should the true Christian preach in. Where are the people breaking Jesus’ house rules more than anywhere else? Where does the record most need to be set straight? Where do people have the most misconceptions about what the house rules are? And what field are so many fake preachers giving out false information about what the house rules are?
There is nothing that has separated people from Jesus near as much as their failures in regard to abortion murder. Nowhere else have they shown near so much contempt for his house rules. The things that Jesus hates and preached against; their apathetic attitude and indifference towards those suffering great affliction; their lack of compassion; their cowardice; their pride; their sexual immorality; their selfishness; their deranged ability to call good
bad and bad good; nowhere have they exhibited these traits near so clearly. And nowhere has their delusion that they don’t have those traits taken such a strong hold of them.
Nowhere too have they and their traits been responsible for bringing about anywhere near such destruction of human life. So that clearly is where the house rules so desperately need to be explained, and where it is the duty of any true Christian to set the record straight. Explained, and hammered, and hammered, and hammered into them. You will not find a field where it is anywhere near as important to preach as this one. And you will not find a field which has been more neglected.
The fact should be made to shine as brightly as the sun that in view of the enormous benefits it would have brought, there should not just have the necessary two hundred Paul Hills in North America willing to put a stop to abortionists by Paul Hill’s methods, there should have been many many millions who were willing. And the fact that there weren’t many many millions, the fact that there weren’t even the lousy two hundred, the fact that the number of Paul Hills could be counted on one hand, and that the situation has been repeated across the world means that this planet is now in a far worse state than Sodom and Gomorrah.

Unlike other preachers, Paul Hill did not chicken out and search for somewhere else to preach where less would be asked of him. Somewhere, where people’s bad traits were less pronounced and having less disastrous effects. He told people in the best way possible, the only proper way, by non-hypocritical practical demonstration, what God requires of them in a situation such as the situation is with abortion. He told them where their most serious breaches of Jesus’ house rules are and so carried out his principal duty. That was Paul Hill’s achievement.
James Dobson, Chuck Swindall, and all the rest of them, are pathetic failures. Anyone who has ever bothered to spend a small amount of time necessary to find out what they are all about should know that they waste their time on trivial nonsense. Reason being, that it is far easier for them to preach elsewhere than in the much more important field that Paul Hill took on with gusto. If you are too weak to be capable of preaching in what is by far the most important field, and preaching the right message in the right manner, then you are not fit to be preaching in any field. Yes I know the objection that’s raised when it’s said to people that they have a duty to preach – I’m not knowledgeable or gifted in that area. If they have the necessary courage, and the necessary concern, and any consideration for those suffering severe persecution, then there is nothing whatsoever that would prevent anyone preaching in the very important field that Paul Hill took on. You don’t need to know the virtually useless trivia that so many second-rate preachers involve themselves with in order to preach. All you need to know are the important basics which the second-raters do not know, will not accept, and will not put into practice.
We know what Paul Hill achieved. So what has Greg Cunningham done and what have his achievements been? Rather than accept that it was never right to wait until millions of innocents had been slain, rather than accept that there was a 100% proper and effective means available that would wipe the problem out overnight, which he and others had no excuses for not asking use of, rather than accept that his methods could never change the views of any more than 1% of pro-abortionists (90% of them already know anything he can tell/show them, and nine of the ten others won’t be led to change their minds either). Rather than do that, he makes the ludicrous claim that the handful of Paul Hills are responsible for all his failures -- his failures to change people’s views and obtain the easy hollow political victories he fantasizes about.
So apart from blaming others for his failures what else has Greg Cunningham done? By telling people that the coward’s way is acceptable to God, by telling them there’s a coward’s way to heaven, Greg Cunningham has committed a monstrous sin comparable to the sin of the abortionists. He has led the many people who wee keen to believe that the road to heaves was a downhill run rather than a steep uphill climb into hell. That’s what Greg Cunningham’s achievements have been. And the same applies to all others who have told people that it is not their responsibility to follow Paul Hill’s example. (tbc)

Here’s the last claim in Cal’s Habeas Corpus for Scott Roeder. I’ve posted all but claims 4 and 5. Anybody is welcome to have me send him hard copies of the whole document.

In addition to the cause presented in claims 1-6 above, there is cause for a writ of habeas corpus to free me on the basis of technicality: the court failed to allow a voluntary manslaughter defense under Kansas law in view of United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285 (2008), thereby depriving me of my rights to due process, a fair trial, and the equal protection of the laws under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States and § 10 of the Kansas Bill of Rights, in a manner egregiously violating my right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty under Kansas law and the Constitution of the United States.
Even if the jury felt my use of force was unreasonable in absence of the requisite necessity defense, the jury still should have been allowed to decide that I had an honest belief that deadly force was justified, so as to convict me on a lesser charge of voluntary manslaughter. Instead, District Judge Warren Wilbur ruled out a second-degree murder conviction, saying, "There is no immediate danger in the back of a church [where George Tiller was killed]." However, the court's view on a lack of an immediate danger serves only to question the reasonableness of my use of force; it does nothing to question the honesty of my belief that deadly force was justified. Implicit in the court's ruling therefore is a presumption that I did not hold an honest belief, which amounts to a clear denial of the presumption of my innocence with respect to first degree murder in view of alternatives such as voluntary manslaughter.

In Williams the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that an honest yet unreasonable belief has prosecutorial merit only if the belief can be supported, as an objective matter, by matter that plainly conveys the belief that was engendered. Id., at slip opinion p. 10, Opinion of the Court. Analogously, it is fair to suppose merit would likewise be found lacking in a defense setting where one is unable to show that his belief is supported, as an objective matter, by matter that plainly conveys in an honest way the belief that was engendered. By preventing counsel from presenting objective matter to prove the honesty of my belief, the court obtained the self-serving result of making it appear that my suggestion of an honest belief lacked merit.
Instead, the same standard of belief-predicated-on-objective-matter used by prosecutors to convict Williams should have been allowed conversely in my favor in the hands of my defense to acquit me of first degree murder. I have the right to present "objective matter" to confirm the honesty of my belief. For, absent a showing of objective matter to prove honesty, the legal merit of suggesting that one's actions were based on an honest belief is limited.
Using a gaping double standard, in contrast to the prosecution in the Williams case my defense was not allowed to present objective matter to confirm that my belief was engendered in all honesty by matter plainly conveyed, namely, by evidence that Tiller killed children without restraint. For example, if supported AS AN OBJECTIVE MATTER by a coroner's statement, photographs of children victimized by abortion providers such as Tiller will do no less to convince a properly instructed jury that I was led to believe I was preempting homicide of an actual child by shooting an abortion provider than photographs in a case like Williams will convince a jury that someone would be led to believe actual children were victimized by pornographers.


Having been unlawfully deprived of my constitutional rights in the manner stated above, and having been unlawfully incarcerated by my custodian in the manner stated above, I pray for the issuance of the Great Writ to obtain my freedom.
The petition for a writ of habeas corpus should be granted.
Respectfully submitted, Scott P. Roeder
Dated: ___________________