Saturday, July 10, 2010

Abortion is Murder, 8-5, July 2, 2010

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

July 2, 2010 Vol. 8 No. 5
PO Box 7424, Reading, PA 19603
Phone – 484-706-4375
Email –
Web –
Circulation – 111
Editor -- John Dunkle

Abortion is Murder, a weak, pathetic response to baby murder, is sent out at least once a month. If the gestapo hasn’t jailed you for defending the innocent realistically, you either have to tell me you want it or go the website. Faxes and emails are free but snail-mail is free only for 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 SJRCC, 930 Old Black River Road, Saint John, NB E2J 4T3
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 – Peetersburg (Low), P. O. Box 1000, Petersburg VA 23804
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

The May, 2010, issue of Gray Lady includes a long article by A.G. Sulzberger, “Defiant Judge Takes On Child Pornography Law.” The judge, 88 year old Jack Weinstein, doesn’t see much harm in enjoying child porn and has been ignoring mandated prison terms for its customers. Jimbo saw it coming:

I have been convinced for about twenty years now that, slowly but surely, laws which punish child molesters will stop being enforced in the face of “constitutional rights” for sodomites, the source cohort for 80% of all child molestation.
Judge Weinstein needs to take a two mile trip up to John Jay College to confirm the above and cure his ignorance. Or he could simply join the human race; i.e., mothers and fathers and uncles and aunts who wonder how their children can be safe in the sick perverted world created by Weinstein.
Or, Weinstein could go watch the annual Sodomite Parade in Manhattan and notice the steady increase in the NAMBLA cohort each year. The “North American Man-Boy Love Association” goal is to eliminate jailing of child rapers.
Weinstein is in the exact circuit that made certain Laci’s Law would not be enforced in US v. Kopp. In the Gray Lady photo, Weinstein’s desk and office is completely devoid of the tiniest scrap of paper; now I know where my appeal was filed!
Sequence: Medieval Christian faith; blessings of God; prosperity; wealth; power; arrogance; independence from Jesus thereby; loss of blessing; sin; decadence; selfishness; booze and drugs; sex revolution; sterility; ennui with same; Marquis de Sade “variation”; sodomy; ennui with same; snuff videos qua entertainment (vide cable, caveat emptor); Obamacare concomitants (slave race cloning, public school nurse menses checks; continued ignoring of public school teacher child rapists)...
Evil is expanding so quickly it’s hard even to observe it, Oremus

I think I will complete Eric’s Chapter 3 in five more issues:

From the conservative perspective, there is more than enough substantive justification in the Federal Constitution, the state constitutions, and the common law to compel an already pregnant woman to care for her unborn child, for at least the nine months of pregnancy. Blackmun’s assertion that the “state has no right to conscript a woman’s body” is nonsense. The state conscripts all of our bodies for a number of reasons. All that is needed for it to do so is find a “compelling state interest.” The laws themselves are a form of conscription, for they compel the citizen to behave in a certain way. Any two-bit anarchist knows that. The threat that foreign enemies have posed to America’s existence in the past justified conscripting millions of men. America has lost over one million men in all of its wars. Abortion kills approximately 1.5 million U.S. citizens every year. And since Roe v Wade, 50 million have been murdered. If preventing the murder of 1.5 million citizens in the coming year is not a “compelling state interest,” I don’t know what is. The fact that millions of citizens are in favor of this form of murder is no legitimate argument for abortion. At one time, millions of Americans were in favor of owning slaves. That thousands of citizens every year decide to murder other adult citizens has never been a legitimate argument for overturning the murder statutes. No one is forcing a woman to bear children for the state. The state is merely forcing her to care for the child she has already conceived. By whatever means, she has already conceived a child, and the state is more than justified in protecting the unborn child. This is the same rationale behind all parental laws. If the mother doesn’t like this, she can move to China or the Amazon jungle.
From the egalitarian perspective, Roe v Wade is the case most often cited as an example of “proper” substantive due process. Blackmun ruled that Texas’ interest in “protecting potential human life” should not outweigh “a woman’s right to privacy,” which includes her “decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.”51 This was a value judgment. Blackmun stretched the concept of individual liberty into the “right of privacy,” and he declared that the unborn child was not a person deserving of constitutional protections. The convoluted nature of his decision makes it plain that Blackmun was social engineering, in accordance with his egalitarian values. He was designing a new due process framework for abortion-on-demand. Why? Because in his opinion women needed abortion to achieve equality.
Conversely, the Texas anti-abortion statute that Roe overturned was based on a substantive balancing test in exact reverse of Blackmun’s. The legislators who passed the statute and the judges who upheld it for one hundred years believed that the state’s interests in protecting unborn children outweighed a woman’s liberty interests. The anti-abortion statutes treated the unborn child as a special dependent, without the full rights of the Fifth Amendment, but with more than enough to justify protection. These were value judgments too. Both Roe and the anti-abortion statutes depended on the value judgments of those writing and interpreting the law. Roe was an expression of egalitarian values; the anti-abortion statutes were expressions of Western Christian values.
Roe is not a case of faulty constitutional interpretation. Like many decisions in the 1950’s and 60’s and 70s, Roe represented a changing of the guard on the High Court. Blackmun was well aware that the right to an abortion was not in the Constitution, not in the Common Law, nor in the Western legal tradition. He knew that the Framers of the Constitution would have been revolted by his ruling. As Rehnquist and White said in their dissent, Roe v Wade was “an exercise of raw power.” Blackmun had the power to change the law, so he did it. He was exactly correct when he said “the Constitution was designed to serve human values.”52 And in Roe v Wade the law served his values.
Blackmun was merely expressing an inescapable fact: It is impossible to establish a set of laws that will never change upon interpretation and application. Although it is possible to enact an Amendment that expressly prohibits abortion, for instance, this would not solve the underlying problem of Roe. Laws serve the values of the community. When the laws no longer reflect the values of the community, they are changed or reinterpreted. Laws must be enacted, interpreted, and enforced. No set of laws, for instance, can guard against corrupt legislators, judges, and policemen. Nor will the laws that reflect the values of one community stand forever, when those who take the legislator’s bench, the judge’s gavel, and the policeman’s gun hold very different values. The laws will eventually come to reflect the values of the new legislators, judges, and policemen.
Conservatives such as James Dobson have suggested electing Supreme Court Justices so as to weed out liberal judges like Blackmun. But this won’t permanently guard against decisions like Roe. What happens when the majority of voters are TV-watching morons, raised on the gutter values of Hollywood? What kind of judges do you think they will vote for?
It simply is not possible to write laws that will not change, if the values of the community change. The Ten Commandments are no exception. Don’t kill; don’t steal; don’t lie—pretty simple, right? Wrong. There has never been a uniform interpretation of the Ten Commandments. Those who wrote the Commandments certainly had a different interpretation than even the most traditional of Bible believers today. Only a fool would suggest executing Sabbath-breakers today, as was done in Ancient Israel. Conservative Christians, for example, believe that killing in self-defense and in time of war is moral, while pacifist Christian sects do not. As for stealing, David took the shewbread from the Temple and Jesus and his disciples plucked corn in the fields. And the Church has never condemned starving people for stealing food. Rehab the prostitute lied to the soldiers of Jericho about hiding the spies of Israel, and yet she is celebrated throughout the Bible for her actions. All of our criminal laws have evolved over time. Years ago there was only one punishment—death. Horse thieves and pick pockets were hanged alongside those who had committed pre-meditated murder. But today we recognize different “levels” of offense, for murder as well as theft. Each level of offense carries its own peculiar punishment. And the punishment reflects the community’s current opinion as to what is appropriate punishment for that particular offense. Laws reflect the values of the community that enacts them and applies them. (tbc)

Dear John, When I was in college, I overheard some journalism and political science students talking about "press blackouts." They were asking each other, "Just how hard is it to get the story out over a concerted blackout by the mainstream press?"
To be honest, I thought they sounded pretty dumb at the time. "If you want to get the story out," I thought to myself, "just TELL people!" But because they sounded serious enough, I still kept the idea in the back of my head anyway.
As the years went by, on a few occasions it did come to my attention that from time to time the press did engage in concerted blackout efforts, even admittedly. So I continued to think about the problem, in the back of my head. But what still puzzled me was that it seemed like you should just have to TELL people the story to get it out.
Then one day, reading a Supreme Court case on abortion called Planned Parenthood v. Casey, I came across what I now consider to be the benchmark example of just how hard it is. How hard is it to get the true story out over a press blackout? It is so hard that even when a majority of the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court band together to report the true story, even THEY cannot get the story out over a major press blackout.
In Casey, all five of the Roe-supporting Justices, a 5-to-4 majority, tried to get the true story out over a major press blackout. It turns out that the press has been lying to us all these years: There are NO pro-life Justices on the Court; none of them has ever so much as even "questioned" whether the children have rights; the only dissent in Roe was over the states rights, not the children's rights; and, if the states rights Justices have their way (the ones the press bogusly calls 'pro-life' Justices), then states will be allowed to force women to abort "as readily" as to make them keep their babies instead.
The story is that the Justices have never questioned, let alone debated or dissented from, the Court's denial of the children's rights; and, if the misnomered 'pro-life' Justices had their way, they would give the states discretion to implement an even more extreme version of abortion than already allowed under Roe, including unlimited forced abortion! The true story (the one the press has been hiding from us) is published in 1992 in United States Reports, vol. 505, where the Court reported Casey.
Justices O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter chime in at page 859 to tell us that the ones the press bogusly calls 'pro-life' Justices would allow states to decide abortion on their own, to the point of letting them force women to abort their babies "as readily" as to make them keep their babies. At page 913, Justice Stevens chimes in to say that "no Member of the Court has ever questioned this fundamental proposition," namely, whether the children have the right to the equal protection of the laws as persons, as demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment; he also points out, citing the opinion of Justice Rehnquist in Roe, that there has been "no dissent" over the specific issue of the children's rights; instead, the Roe-dissenting Justices have only wanted to overturn Roe to let the states do as they please with the children, not in favor of the children's rights. At page 932, Roe's author Justice Blackmun chimes in to say that even the Solicitor General, who represents the Government before the Supreme Court, has never so much as even "questioned" the children's rights either.
The reason why no Member of the Court has ever questioned the children's rights is that all of them are well aware that a true questioning of their rights, in the manner of due process of law, would lead to an outright ban on abortion in under five minutes. Since no Member of the Court wants that, none has ever "questioned" it. As former president George W. Bush once said, the nation isn't ready "to totally ban abortions," which would happen if the children's rights were upheld. So the Court's Justices have unanimously agreed not to question the children's rights because they all know where that question will lead to in a legal heartbeat: to a total ban on abortions thanks to due process of law.
Here are the excerpts from the actual text of the Justices' opinions in Casey:
Justices O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter, at p. 859: If indeed the woman's interest in deciding whether to bear and beget a child had not been recognized as in Roe, the State might AS READILY restrict a woman's right to choose to carry a pregnancy to term as to terminate it, to further asserted state interests in population control, or eugenics, for example. (Emphasis added.)
Justice Stevens, at p. 913: In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense. [Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1972)] Id., at 162. Accordingly, an abortion is not "the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection." Id., at 159. From THIS holding, there was NO DISSENT, see id., at 173 [Rehnquist dissenting]; indeed, no Member of the Court has ever QUESTIONED this fundamental proposition. (Emphasis added.)
Justice Blackmun, at p. 932: No Member of this Court - nor for that matter, the Solicitor General [Republican Kenneth Starr], Tr. of Oral Arg. 42 - has ever QUESTIONED our holding in Roe that an abortion is not "the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection." (Emphasis added.)
Blackmun was Roe's author; together with Justices Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter, they formed the Roe-supporting majority at the time of Casey, nearly 20 years after Roe. Bogusly termed 'pro-life' Justices, the remaining four of the nine were Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices White, Scalia, and Thomas.
The true story of legal abortion that the Roe-supporting Justices were trying to get out is that none of the Supreme Court Justices has ever "questioned" the children's rights, let alone debated them. Since there cannot be any meaningful debate without someone at least questioning the matter, this means there has been no debate at all. So why would the press do a blackout on the true story, and one that is so severe that even a majority of the Supreme Court Justices cannot get the story out to us?
The answer is that the most powerful press blackouts do not revolve around what a few sneaky reports agree to in the basement of the newsroom. Instead, they derive their power from what the American people simply do not want to hear. The people do not want to put our press on a pedestal, only to have the press point the finger at them in embarrassing contradiction. So the reason for the biggest blackouts is that people do not want to hear certain stories. That is why it is so hard to get the story out. That is why you cannot just TELL people the story to overcome the blackout.
The pretense of a big debate at the Supreme Court--a debate that has never really existed--has been the main source of cover that cowardly Americans have been hiding behind through all these years of killing children.
"Why aren't I a coward for letting children be killed? Well, let me tell you about the big debate that's going on. You see, the higher-ups at the U.S. Supreme Court are vigorously debating the children's rights versus a woman's right to choose, and even the higher-ups can't decide. They're divided into pro-choice and pro-life camps, just like us mainstream Americans. It's one of those insoluble debates that will probably never be solved. So who is little-old-me to pretend I have the definitive answer? But even though you don't know how strongly I feel about that issue, I show what a good citizen I am by letting our courts legally decide what we all must go by, despite this difficult debate."
Without the pretense of a vigorous debate by the higher-ups at the U.S. Supreme Court over the children's rights, the whole facade collapses, and then Americans would no longer have a cover to hide their cowardice behind, ESPECIALLY the ones claiming to be in the 'pro-life' camp. But, thanks to a massive blackout on the true story, with the big facade safely in place Americans can safely pretend they are not a bunch of cowards who let children be killed after all. Instead, they're DEBATING.
That is why the press tells us over and over again what Americans want to hear: This is all a big debate, and even the higher-ups, our Supreme Court Justices, can't come to an agreement in this difficult debate. They want to be flattered by a press that tells them the "restraint" (complacency) they are showing is admirable.
What Americans do not want to hear is that there has never been so much as a shred of meaningful debate at the U.S. Supreme Court because no Member of the Court has ever so much as "questioned" the children's rights. Americans, especially those who claim to be in the 'pro-life' camp, do not want to FACE the fact that they are evil cowards turning their backs on children all because their religious, conservative, and feminist leaders cannot think of a better way to maintain the appearances of traditional pregnancy in an era of sexual revolution and drug-related chaos. Instead, they want to hear that they have no choice but to let it happen, because it is all a big debate. So if you try to cover the true story--by telling them there is NO debate--they will black it out themselves!
That is why I told you before: if you REALLY want to scare abortion providers, forget about the sticks-and-stones approach. Instead, just show up with signs that read on one side "It's Okay to Keep Killing Babies" and on the other side "We're Just Here to Deny Complicity." Of course, some of the most diehard protesters might object to this, saying, "We can't tell them it's OKAY to keep killing babies, because it's NOT!" (tbc)

I am about half way through Paul Ross Evans’ text, The Militant Christian. This ends Chapter V “Military Law and Rules of Engagement,” in this ten chapter work:

Our Army’s justification is based upon Biblical Law, and we answer to one God. Our moral law determines a right/obligation to engage in warfare based upon:
a) the right to defend our Christian beliefs and to ensure thefuture of Christendom.
b) the right to resist foreign/domestic aggression and engagement and to inflict retribution against tyranny
c) the right to protect the unborn child from being murdered

Commitment and dedication to Militant Christianity is based upon the justification that our militant struggle has been ongoing throughout history and that the Army is a direct representative of God, and as such they are the lawful military of Christian territories. The armies of God have a moral right and obligation to claim jurisdiction over territory, airspace, mineral resource, production, distribution, and over all of its people regardless of race, creed, or loyalty.
The Army of God, as the moral representatives of God and legitimate military of His people, is morally lawful in embarking upon campaigns against enemy personnel, as well as all collaborators. Members of the army must feel morally obligated, as the legal government, to carry out such campaigns of force. For the most part our legal army has been forced underground and by overwhelming numbers and enemy violence. Members of the Army should take oaths of allegiance to this true and legal Army, and to swear that they shall never support false seats of government which do not adhere to God’s moral and criminal laws. Members should swear to defend the Armies of God, and God’s People against all enemies, foreign and domestic, at all costs. If taken seriously, and if individuals give themselves wholly to this agenda, we have a future ahead of us. If they do not, inevitable destruction is what Christianity is headed for in the coming years, strangled as we are by liberal doctrine and socialism-based government regimes. An insurrection is an absolute necessity at this point.
The following military-related laws are covered in God’s word also. Some of those are:
* age of soldiers 20 and up....Numbers 1:2,3
* keeping a clean camp....Deuteronomy 23: 9-14
* selective drafts approved of....Numbers 31: 3-6
Universal conscription....Numbers 1:3
* exempt from service (some individuals)
1) fainthearted...Deuteronomy 20:8
2) Levites...Numbers 1:49
3) certain others...Deuteronomy 20:8
* war notices...Deuteronomy 20:5-7
* compensations....Kings 3:4
* treatment of vegetation....Deuteronomy 20: 19, 20
* treatment of captives of war....Deuteronomy 20: 16, 17
Numbers 31: 17. 18
* loot/spoils of war....Deuteronomy 20:14
* slaves obtained through war....Numbers 31: 9

Several specifics are mentioned above, as can be seen, summarizing assorted war-related subjects. As stated before, this text is intended to simply serve as an outline of some of the Law and certainly doesn’t encompass it all. Through certain portions, the Christian man or Christian soldier can begin to grasp and develop God’s mission as a whole. In all manner of living may he project an inner spirit and an outward strength established firmly in the Word of God. At times one must keep in mind the order of things; there must be a patriarchal order at all times even in military matters, where every human answers to a superior, building up to the ultimate authority, the almighty God, Himself.

Recall (two issues ago) that Peter Knight is examining what a pro-lifer should do these days:

Some people like to try to play favorites with this too. But the minute you try to play favorites, the minute you say it was not brother’s or sister’s or son’s or daughter’s or mother’s or father’s duty to do as Paul Hill did, since their situation is very little different to his situation or anyone else’s. then you are saying it was no one’s duty.
Jesus did quite rightly teach against being a hypocrite and demanding more of others than what you are willing to give yourself. But you commit a far more major error if you do what Greg Cunningham does, and lead people into Hell by having them believe that an unacceptable standard is acceptable. Leading someone into Hell is of course not really playing favourites with them at all. God did not attempt to play favourites in this manner with his Son. He asked a very great deal of him. The same as he does anyone he loves. The same as any true Christian does of someone he or she loves.
When I consider the situation with abortion murder, I’m not at all reminded of the slogan, “all gave some, some gave all,” as Paul Evans is. The following is a more honest description of people’s response to abortion and it’s the one that comes to my mind – “when called upon to give 50%, some, a handful, gave 50%. A few hundred gave about 8% and managed to delude themselves into believing they’d been wonderful. The remaining multi-millions gave nothing, not so much as a brass farthing, and also managed to delude themselves into believing they’d been wonderful too.”

Paul Hill wrote these words in relation to his actions – “But, most importantly, I knew this would uphold the truths of the Gospel at the precise point of Satan’s current attack (the abortionist’s knife). While most Christians firmly profess the duty to defend born children with force, (which is not being disputed by the government), most of these professors have neglected their duty to similarly defend the unborn. They are steady all along the battle line except at the point where the enemy has broken through.”
Neglected the duty, and refused to accept that they have such a duty. Paul Hill does people a credit here, which they do not deserve, by saying, “Most Christians firmly profess the duty to defend born children with force.” The only reason most so-called Christians profess that duty, the only reason they have not rejected and denied it too, is that have not been called upon to perform it, and if it required the same from them as defending the unborn currently does, you would find that they would soon deny that they had a duty there too. If they are able to reject one, why would they not reject the other duty too if the government puts its finger on them.
They are steady, and ready, and eager to do battle for others, where it’s easy to be steady and ready and where there is no battle to be fought. Everywhere there is a battle to be fought the enemy has broken through and made huge inroads. Nevertheless, abortion is where they inflicted the mortal wound on themselves. That is where they have chopped their head off, rather than where they have just amputated an arm or a leg.
I do not particularly like talking to people in terms of what their duty is. I would much rather talk about what it pleases a good person to do. Principally, help bring people to Jesus; preach and promote the Gospel; point out, and demonstrate when necessary, where people are seriously falling short; and step forward to do what’s necessary to help and defend needy and persecuted people. However, when it’s obvious people do not have those good desires, then the only way they can be talked to is in terms of duty. The only way is to point out to them where they are falling short in regard to their duty, and illustrate how stupid the insane reasons they put up for falling short are.
In view of the fact that they’ve failed to fight this war (if the one-sided affair it is could be called a war) it does make me wonder why people, at the request of the government, have been willing to fight in much less important wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere.
Unlike other wars, this is a war where your payment in this world is likely to be long years in prison rather than a large weekly wage. It’s a war where you will be asked to fight the battle alone. A war where you will not be called a hero and have people patting you on the back for having fought it. And because it’s a war which everyone had a duty to fight, and which none of them did fight, there is a need for them to label you a criminal and a murderer to attempt to cover up their own failings. Those factors and the fact that the abortionists have caused far more damage than Saddam or the Taliban or Al Qaeda have or ever could, are about the only real differences I can see between the two.
So, since it is a far more important war to fight, is the reason they didn’t fight it because all soldiers are pro-abortion, or is it because all soldiers are cowards who can’t stomach fighting a war where they will be branded criminals? (tbc)

Now it gets a little antsy. Boy, I sure wish I didn’t promise Jimbo I’d print these out. Don, Mike, David and other friends are going to get pissed, and I don’t blame them. If I weren’t Catholic, I’d be anti-Catholic for sure.

15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true.

16. Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation.

17. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ.

18. Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church. (tbc)

Go back two issues to “The Tiny Foot.” Here’s the conclusion:

Through the many years that I have been here, there has developed in our hospital a pretty custom of staging an elaborate Christmas party each year for the employees, the nurses and the doctors of the staff.
There is always a beautifully decorated tree on the stage of our little auditorium. The girls spend weeks in preparation. We have so many difficult things to do during the year, so much discipline and so many of the stern realities of life, that we have set aside this one day to touch upon the emotional and spiritual side. It is almost like going to an impressive church service, as each year we dedicate ourselves anew to the year ahead.
This past year the arrangement was somewhat changed. The tree, on one side of the stage, had been sprayed with silver paint and was hung with scores of gleaming silver and tinsel ornaments, without a trace of color anywhere and with no lights hung upon the tree itself. It shown but faintly in the dimly lighted auditorium.
Every doctor of the staff who could possibly be there was in his seat. The first rows were reserved for the nurses and in a moment the procession entered, each girl in uniform, each one crowned by her nurse’s cap, her badge of office. Around their shoulders were their blue Red Cross capes, one end tossed back to show the deep red lining.
We rose as one man to do them honor, and as the last one reached her seat and we settled in our places again, the organ began the opening notes of one of the oldest of our carols.
Slowly down the middle aisle, marching from the back of the auditorium, came 20 other girls singing softly, our own nurses, in full uniform, each holding high a lighted candle, while through the auditorium floated the familiar strains of “Silent Night.” We were on our feet again instantly. I could have killed anyone who spoke to me then, because I couldn’t have answered, and by the time they reached their seats I couldn’t see.
And then a great blue floodlight at the back was turned on very slowly, gradually covering the tree with increasing splendor: brighter and brighter, until every ornament was almost a flame. On the opposite side of the stage a curtain was slowly drawn, and we saw three lovely young musicians, all in shimmering white evening gowns. They played very softly in unison with the organ—a harp, a cello and a violin. I am quite sure I was not the only old sissy there whose eyes were filled with tears.
I have always liked the harp, and I love to watch the grace of a skillful player. I was especially fascinated by this young harpist. She played extraordinarily well, as if she loved it. Her slender fingers flickered across the strings, and as the nurses sang, her face, made beautiful by a mass of auburn hair, was upturned as if the world that moment were a wonderful and holy place.
I waited, when the short program was over, to congratulate the chief nurse on the unusual effects she had arranged. And as I sat alone, there came running down the aisle a woman whom I did not know. She came to me with arms outstretched.
“Oh, you saw her,” she cried. “You must have recognized your baby. That was my daughter who played the harp—and I saw you watching her. Don’t you remember the little girl who was born with only one good leg 17 years ago? We tried everything else first, but now she has a whole artificial leg on that side—but you would never know it, would you? She can walk, she can swim, and she can almost dance.
“But, best of all, through all those years when she couldn’t do those things, she learned to use her hands so wonderfully. She is going to be one of the world’s great harpists. She enters the university this year at 17. She is my whole life, and now she is so happy . . . and here she is!”
As we spoke, this sweet young girl had quietly approached us, her eyes glowing, and now she stood beside me.
“This is your first doctor, my dear—our doctor,” her mother said. Her voice trembled. I could see her literally swept back, as I was, through all the years of heartache to the day when I told her what she had to face. “He was the first one to tell me about you. He brought you to me.”
Impulsively I took the child in my arms. Across her warm young shoulder I saw the creeping clock of the delivery room 17 years before. I lived again those awful moments when her life was in my hand, when I had decided on deliberate infanticide.
I held her away from me and looked at her.
“You never will know, my dear,” I said, “you never will know, nor will anyone else in all the world, just what tonight has meant to me. Go back to your harp for a moment, please—and play “Silent Night” for me alone. I have a load on my shoulders that no one has ever seen, a load that only you can take away.”
Her mother sat beside me and quietly took my hand as her daughter played. Perhaps she knew what was in my mind. And as the last strains of “Silent Night, Holy Night” faded again, I think I found the answer, and the comfort, I had waited for so long.

A while ago Robert Weiler sent me his disagreement with Cal’s attack on the Mormon Church:

John Dunkle & AIM, I finally located the AIM issue containing Cal’s attack on the LDS (Mormon) Church. This took some effort because I am perpetually disorganized. (me too, Robert, that’s why this is late). I had to empty nearly my entire locker. Anyway, now I can respond to the assault.

Cal claimed “when Senator Jesse Helms and Representative Henry Hyde proposed the Human Life Bill at the U.S. Congress, the Mormons swiftly responded with the Hatch Amendment to defeat it, proposed by Mormon Senator Orrin Hatch.” And again “...the Mormon Church proposed the Hatch Amendment...” (Abortion is Murder, Vol.7, No. 11 (December, 2009)
Cal proposed to hold a worldwide, fourteen million member church responsible for the legislative actions of one member. This is a silly as saying all Protestant ministers will kill their followers because Jim Jones did, or that all Lutherans are good people just because Re. Michael Bray happens to be one. Does this mean that the LDS Church is responsible for pro-abort Senator Henry Reid (D-NV)? How about Senator Bob Bennett (R-UT)? If they are on opposite sides, which one represents “The Mormons”? (tbc)

Thursday, July 01, 2010

Abortion is Murder, 8-4, July, 2010

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

July, 2010 Vol. 8 No. 4
PO Box 7424, Reading, PA 19603
Phone – 484-706-4375
Email –
Web –
Circulation – 111
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 SJRCC, 930 Old Black River Road, Saint John, NB E2J 4T3
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

When I am not putting together this newsletter, I visit pro-death blogs like The Abortioneers and thenotsodailyherald. My favorite is Abortion and Reproductive Rights Advocate ( The blogger, Pat Richards, is as committed to death as I am to life and we are having quite a “go-round.” Here’s part of one of our exchanges (May 19):

Pat, Paul was executed about two years ago. He actually invited me to his execution, but that’s another story…

Me, Dag, Pat, I wish you’d gone to Paul’s execution. I was there. It was the only time in my life I was witness to the supernatural.

Pat, Welcome back, John (I’d been away for eight days). You were at Paul’s execution? Yikes. Give me some details!

Me, Here’s what happened. As I was standing there at 5:30 waiting for the 6 p.m. execution, I saw black (I mean black) thunderclouds approaching and felt the rain. I told someone, “We’re not just going to get wet, we’re going to get drenched.” Lightning was dancing and I got scared. At 6 the lightning danced over the execution chamber, about a half mile from where they made us gather. Fifteen minutes later I was the first of about thirty to leave the area and walk back to the parking lot. When I got there, I remembered the rain, and it was now coming down lightly, and I was dry as a bone.

Pat, I remember reading about the storm. Paul and I had talked about lots of stuff over the years and I think he kinda respected me. I remember asking him one day why he hadn’t killed someone if he thought that’s what people should be doing and he said he was the messenger, not the doer. Then about 6 months later, he killed Dr Britton. I called him once after he was convicted and that’s when he asked me to come to the execution. I told him I didn’t support capital punishment so would not do it.

Me, In this holocaust, Pat, you are the guru! Who else knows what you know, has done what you've done? I am amazed, again.

Pat, I just happened to be in the thick of things for many years John. Also, as you can probably tell I am a different kind of pro-choice person in that I acknowledge the very tough issues. It got me into trouble at times with my friends. I also believe strongly in talking to the other side. Paul and I were on a major television show together after David Gunn was killed and I really wanted to try to get into his head. One day I will reveal how my relationship with him may have saved the lives of about 80 abortion providers.

Me, The more I listen to you, wow! I thought Jesus said it would be difficult to love your enemies.

Dear John, Hello, Hello! How are ya?
Well, I’m writing my annual letter – or at least that’s about the gist of it.. Especially since I enthusiastically enjoy reading your great newsletter each month and have been the recipient of your Good Graces – THANK YOU ... My guilt for not writing you has the benefit of reminding me to pray for you. Again, Thanks Again!
Hey, at one time you and Tom O’Connor were on my e-mail list but got dropped off – probably due to inactivity because you guys probably didn’t know you even got e-mail from me since it doesn’t automatically notify you but you have to check a web site for your mail. Bummer, I know. But, it’s fixin’ to be more common as more prisons use it since they make a profit off it. It costs about five cents a minute which adds up surprisingly fast if you’re a slow typer. It’s not too bad for me as I don’t have to hen-pick but can type about 40 words a minute – I like typing so I do e-mail when I can afford it. So, if you’d like me to try to re-establish e-mail with you, just lemme know. (Please do that Brother Jordi.) I wouldn’t bother you except I saw in one of your newsletters that another pro-life prisoner wrote about the same e-mail website. So maybe you check it now every so often. (I try but I fail.) Well, God willing, I’ll get out of here shortly! My outdate is 8-8-12 but I’m praying I can get to a half-way house near by. Nine months is more likely but six months is the usual. Just in time to witness the end of the world. Since I’m not Aztec, I’m not planning on dying Dec. 21st, 2012. gonna be just another disappointment like Y2K. But hey, there’s always Y3K!
One of the things I’m actually looking forward to is paying for your newsletter (no) and paying many back for all the help for all these years (no). I owe you all thanks and I am in your debt. I know the economy sucks out there which makes the sacrifices to bless others with your resources and your time and services that much more precious – God Bless Ya!
Hey, in one of your newsletters one of the Christians wrote in to say that we are forbidden all vengeance. This is not correct and not that simple. A closer look shows us that we are not to avenge ourselves but forgive. But to stretch this concept of revenge to every situation is un biblical. A Naves Topical Bible or concordance would clear this up.
Well, I continue to study my Bible in Hebrew, Greek and Spanish with my interlinears, still waiting years now, to talk to my kids. Please pray for them and me. May God bless you and yours Mightily! Brother Jordi.

Continuation of Eric’s Chapter 3:

This is not to say that all of these decisions to abridge individual liberties were justified. Some of them certainly were not. They are extreme examples, used to demonstrate that in the balance between society’s interests and the individual’s it is society that must ultimately prevail. In order to establish law and order and protect the nation from foreign threats the state, any state, needs this basic authority over the individual. That is the price the individual pays for living in an organized society.
If you are laboring under the illusion that you have absolute rights, let me enlighten you. Beside the part about the colonies severing their political ties to Britain, the Declaration of Independence is a statement of abstract principles, not law. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” Jefferson wrote excellent rationalist poetry. You will remember that in John Locke’s social contract theory, which is where Jefferson got these ideas, man was supposedly a sovereign free agent before the creation of society. His Creator had supposedly given him the inalienable rights—life, liberty, and property. He was his own little country, so to speak. But when once he fell from classical liberal grace and decided to band together with other sovereign men, he traded in the inalienable portion of his rights for the protections of society. He empowered society to be his judge, including in matters involving his life, liberty, and property.
In other words, a man's rights may belong to him by nature and inhere in his person by virtue of God's creative act, but the demands of living in society necessarily limit these rights. A man's rights must be balanced against the common good, public order, and the rights of other individuals. If the state could never take a man's life, liberty, or property, then the laws could never be enforced, and organized society would not be possible. Any man charged with murder could simply stand on his “sovereign” rights and refuse to be tried.
Jefferson’s rhetoric in the Declaration of Independence is a statement of principles, based on Locke’s theory of the supposed origins of the social contract. He is writing about man as he existed in the classical liberal Garden of Eden, before the social contract. The United States Constitution, on the other hand, is concerned with life after the social contract.
The Constitution mandates a balancing test between the “rights of the individual and the demands of living in an organized society.” What the Founding Fathers intended was that the greatest amount of freedom be given the individual consistent with good government, what classical liberals used to call “ordered liberty.” As I’ve shown, the needs of government change with the situation. In time of war, individual liberties are severely limited; and in time of peace, liberties are increased. But in the balancing scales, society’s interests outweigh the individual’s interests.
The Fifth Amendment prevents the federal government from depriving U.S. citizens of “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” And it prevents the government from taking private property “for public use, without just compensation.” The Fourteenth Amendment extended these protections to the states. The key phrase here is “due process.” What angered classical liberals like the Founders was arbitrary power, power without due process. The Constitution is aimed at curbing arbitrary power. Under feudalism the nobility was privileged with a great deal of arbitrary power. In many courts, men decided what the law was. Whether you got justice depended on the man who sat as judge in your case. The Constitution writers wanted to replace the rule of men with the rule of laws. So now when the state wants to take your life, liberty, or property it must provide you due process of law. In other words, the government can still kill you, put you in prison, or take your property away; they just can’t do it arbitrarily. “The touchstone of due process is the protection of the individual against arbitrary action of government.”46
Due process, however, is not a concept written in stone. It has never been reduced to a particular formula, and it is therefore quite flexible: “Due process of law has never been a term of fixed or invariable content.”47 As noted earlier, due process has always assumed a balancing test: “Considerations of what procedures due process may require under any given set of circumstances must begin with a demonstration of the precise nature of the government function involved as well as of the private interest that has been affected by government action.”48
There are two types of due process: procedural and substantive. To have procedural due process, the government must establish “fundamentally fair” procedures before it can deprive you of your rights. This is pretty straightforward. Substantive due process, on the other hand, is more nebulous. Under this type of due process, before the government can deprive you of your rights, it must have a “reasonable justification.” So even if the government has erected a decent set of court procedures, it must “demonstrate a valid reason for the deprivation,” and there must be a “compelling state interest” involved.49 Just what exactly constitutes a “valid reason” and a “compelling state interest” is a matter of interpretation. There is the rub. Substantive due process, at any given time, is dependent on societies “current understanding of what is allowable government conduct.”50 (tbc)

Dear John, I think many of your readers will benefit from a heads-up letter on Sarah Palin I sent Jimbo recently.
Sarah Palin does not support overturning Roe in favor of the children having rights we are bound to respect with the equal protection of the laws, which is the fundamental proposition of the Fourteenth Amendment. Instead, she supports overturning Roe in favor of the states' rights, so that states will be allowed to decide when to force women to have abortions (e.g., because of drug use) and when to prohibit abortions. Reread the notes I sent you regarding Roe [exposing Roe's dirty secret: forced abortion]. Palin won't support you. She won't support the children. Instead, she supports letting states decide whether they want to force women to abort or if they would prefer stopping women from aborting. Reread the exceptions clause in Laci and Conner's law [exempting two categories of forced abortion in addition to women's choices].
So don't be tricked. The citizens of Georgia thought the Catholic Church would support their personhood amendment. Surprise! The Church got together with the Mormons to derail it. The same thing happened to Montana and Colorado. The same thing happened with the Human Life Bill of Jesse Helms and Henry Hyde.
Every murder has a motive. The greatest MOTIVE for child homicide by means of legal abortion is held by religious and conservative leaders, who want to clear the pews, school desks, and homes of the flood of pregnancy scandals they would have to face otherwise. However, to trick people, they act two-faced, to deny complicity and cover their crime.
I know this is hard news to swallow. But that is why you are behind bars and the children are in the dumpster. If you want to win, you have to stop trying to please people who are only pretending to be on your side, or on the children's side. Instead, you have to start rubbing the truth in their faces. You have to start rubbing, and rubbing, and rubbing without stopping. Due process all the way!
After legalizing abortion-on-demand in California years before Roe as governor of California, as soon as he became president Ronald Reagan appointed Sandra Day O'Connor as a ringer to the U.S. Supreme Court to make sure abortion would stay legal. He then pretended that Sandra was on "our" side, so that, to be fair to the "other" side, he had to appoint Justice Kennedy, another Roe-supporter. Then, to make sure if Roe ever really was overturned it would be in favor of letting states like California and New York keep abortion legal, and not in favor of the children's rights, he appointed Justice Scalia. His successor, the senior Bush, first appointed Roe-supporter Souter, and then Thomas, who in likeness to Scalia only wants to overturn Roe in favor of letting states do what THEY want, not in favor of the children.
The end result? When Casey was handed down, it was O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter (all appointed by Reagan and Bush, two Republican presidents) who wrote the plurality decision upholding Roe.
So get wise, my friend! How can you protect the children when you can't even watch your own back? Sincerely, Cal.
Here’s another of Cal’s latest bumper stickers. Interested?


Hello, Mr. Dunkle, Melody Victor wrote, "Women abort their babies [ultimately] for one reason ... They feel they cannot handle the situation. ... Love those women and you will heal this issue."
I suppose most murders happen because the murderer feels he or she could not handle the situation of having had his/her victim continue to live.
Ms. Victor does not seem to be aware of the huge efforts being made, and that have been made for many years, to help women in crisis pregnancy. Some of us have given thousands of dollars and/or many hours of time to help women be able to "handle the situation" of motherhood.
I never cease to be shocked to hear women tell of an abortion in their younger years, that their one thought was that they felt at the time that they had no choice, that they would not be able to stand the shame if their family, friends, or people at church had known that they had become pregnant. What a waste, what a horrible reason for which any child might have to die! Families and churches need to stress to young girls, over and over, "if you should happen to become pregnant, for goodness' sake, don't kill your baby -- we will help you!" -- and then follow through and help, and don't condemn.
But it is not an either/or situation, Melody. One can be opposed to legalized killing of children not yet born and at the same time work to help those women who have gotten into a situation that is difficult. You are reasoning from a false dilemma fallacy.
Finally, being opposed to childmurder is not a sign of pride, contrary to what you indicated in your note to Mr. Dunkle. My experience in opposing legal abortion has done exactly the opposite, in fact. It continually exposes my own weaknesses to me, something that probably would not have happened had I never been faced with this conflict.
Sincerely, David Rydholm


Jimbo’s latest: This essay is Part IV in a series about treating all kids like our own, no more, no less. This essay is meant to be read along with the others:
Part I: In defense of Scott Roeder. Mainstream prolifers’
motives for criticism of force is not prolife (unpublished letter
to the editor, Weekly Standard, 2009)
Part II; Kids are Kids, (unpublished letter to the editor, New Oxford Review, 2009)
Part III; Letter to Judge Arcara by Dr. Raphael Waters, Philosophy Professor, Niagara U., Emeritus, Director, St. Thomas Aquinas Society. 2004/2007
Part IV The Essay on Imminence, Legally speaking, (DV 2010)
All four parts are published in

No Imminent Danger to Kids in Kansas? Wrong!

During the recent trial in Kansas of Scott Roeder the judge there
said that imminent danger to children did not exist when considering an attack on a serial child murderer, Dr. Tiller. The attack took place the day before he was scheduled to kill again, as
he had for the previous several decades, and despite innumerable-protests, rescues, and even a previous use of force, to try to stop him..
This essay deals with the legal issue of "imminence": is force justified the day before a child is scheduled to be murdered?
A good and pious friend recently defended the judge in Kansas thus: you can't use force until danger is imminent, for example, if an attacker in a bar fight actually has a knife to the throat of a potential victim. But is this an appropriate comparison? -- a knife fight involving alcohol that erupts in a bar, being made equivalent to an abortion?
No, they do not stand together. Abortion is a phenomenon sui generis; it stands by itself, to be analyzed separately, in ways and by considerations known to any experienced prolifer.
In this discussion, by the way, don’t worry too much about the pagan-in-the-street, bless his heart. Start by asking your fellow prolifer, who's been in the CPCHsidewalk/rescue trenches, whether she or he can recognize these following traits of AB. The in-the-trenches prolifer answers with his heart, yes:
1) Does the drunk in the bar know ahead of time he will attack someone, anyone, say, 24 hours in advance of the incident? No, he’s not even sure he’ll be drunk.
The abortionist knows to a certainty. It’s in his appointment book.
2) Does the drunk in the bar know who he will attack ahead of time? This guy or that guy? An acquaintance with whom he has a long simmering disagreement, or a total stranger whom he finds out seconds before the combat is sleeping with his wife? A fight over sports? Over nothing? No. When he walks into the bar, he's seeking, per minimum, mild bonhomie.
The abortionist knows. He can read the name of his victim's mom right here in his appointment book.
3) Does the guy in the bar know if he will have a weapon? If he will need it? Should he use it? NO. Most men in most bars can't carry guns anyway, and the few that carry knives don't think of them as offensive weapons
The abortionist knows that waiting for him, neatly plugged into the public utility, is a suction machine sufficient to dismember a small, helpless child. It’s expensive, and perfectly maintained, kept in a room guarded 24/7 by the absolute best the local and fed. Police can offer. They will happily throw ten thousand people in jail for life before they will allow one prolifer even to touch that pump. (...try it!) (tbc)

Dear John, Your newsletter of June 2010 arrived safely here in the Custer County Jail of Miller city, Montana, and is appreciated.
The writing ability of the contributors is surprisingly high, particularly Eric Rudolph. I assume Eric is in what’s called Supermax in Florence, Colorado, which is much worse than this podunk jail. I’ve read about and heard of Supermax, a clear violation of prisoner care and prisoner rights, where the inmate is locked away from human contact and in many cases treated worse than an animal. I would not be surprised if more than one prisoner has gone insane in there.
I’m not new to the anti-abortion movement, in case you are wondering. I was first “blooded” in 1993, in Missoula, Montana, when Operation Rescue National was at its height. I was convicted of threatening via letter Mass Murderer Susan Wicklund of Boyerman, Mont., and spent 5 years, 2 months in prison, released in 1999.
I have never regretted one single day I spent locked up on behalf of the wee ones. My recent incarceration is pretty much a replay, although much toned down, but another prison term is possible. My nemesis is one of the leading pro-aborts in Southeastern Montana, and Caroline Fleming, a high ranking officer in the local First Presbyterian Church, who has referred hundreds of pregnant teens to aborters in Billings. This evil woman is an extension of the Pharisees. Yes, the Pharisees and Scribes are alive and well in the present generation. Jesus had harsh words for them, calling them dead men’s bones. How applicable.
I am not by nature a violent man; thus, I can’t support those who murder abortionists. However, I felt much relieved when I heard of the death of Tiller the Killer in Kansas. I hope and pray abortion will be outlawed in my lifetime. I’m nearly 67,
There is no doubt whatsoever that Tiller’s death will save hundreds if not thousands of innocent lives. When God pours out his fury on this foul country, I hope I will be present to see it, either on earth on in Heaven.
I’ve read that we are very slowly winning the battle on the county and state levels. Is this true? I would appreciate a reply from you on this. (Yeah, I read that too, Michael; then I read the opposite. So who knows.) The Supreme Court will continue to be an impediment and will only become more liberal under Obama. During my first incarceration, the names of Linda Gibbons, David Little, and Rachelle Shannon were familiar. I corresponded with some of them.
As I see it, we are winning without violence, thank God.
John, you may be curious to know that the infamous Susan Wicklund, who’s gone national with her campaign (PBS and others) of victimization (Hers, of course), is opening a death camp in Livingston, Montana, to better reach pregnant girls in my neck of the state. Livingston is only thirty miles east of Boyerman.
Will close for now. I await your next newsletter, John. Please mail it to my home address. I may get out on O.K. on May 24, Monday.
I am a sold-out Christian. Jesus Christ is my life. I lean to the Baptist doctrine and am very wary of radical Pentecostals, Yours in Christ, Michael Ross.
P.S. The first time I appeared in court (March 19) I literally waved a blood red shirt at the judge to symbolize the shed blood of Christ and his babies. The judge let me submit it as evidence! Surprise and hallelujah.

Seven more errors from the Syllabus:

8. As human reason is placed on a level with religion itself, so theological must be treated in the same manner as philosophical sciences.
9. All the dogmas of the Christian religion are indiscriminately the object of natural science or philosophy, and human reason, enlightened solely in an historical way, is able, by its own natural strength and principles, to attain to the true science of even the most abstruse dogmas; provided only that such dogmas be proposed to reason itself as its object.
10. As the philosopher is one thing, and philosophy another, so it is the right and duty of the philosopher to subject himself to the authority which he shall have proved to be true; but philosophy neither can nor ought to submit to any such authority.
11. The Church not only ought never to pass judgment on philosophy, but ought to tolerate the errors of philosophy, leaving it to correct itself.
12. The decrees of the Apostolic See and of the Roman congregations impede the true progress of science.
13. The method and principles by which the old scholastic doctors cultivated theology are no longer suitable to the demands of our times and to the progress of the sciences.
14. Philosophy is to be treated without taking any account of supernatural revelation.

Paul continued:

Tactics in all operations are dictated by the existing conditions of each individual operation of each individual operation. There is a certain amount of liberty involved in the specifics of the decision-making processes for guerilla warfare strategy. However, the three main objectives which were previously mentioned should at all times be kept in mind. These objectives should determine any specific target selection or attack. Once specific targets are chosen, and a very loose objective is defined – ALL OFFENSIVE PLANNING SHOULD BE PUT ON HOLD AND DEFENSIVE PLANNING SHOULD SUPERCEDE ALL OTHER PLANNNG MADE.
Once the defensive strategy is devised, and great care and concern has been taken to ensure safety of all unit members, commencement of the offensive strategy should begin.
Resistance is created, first and foremost, and then transforms into a ship-shape efficient machine. Two sections of such a resistance are formed:
a. those who are active aggressive members of guerilla combat
b. those who circulate literature, attempt to gain financial and sympathetic support, and do not, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, participate in forceful action.
The importance of possessing a faction of supporters who do not, under any circumstances, have involvement in violent acts lies in breaking down civilian perception that those non-violent individuals will not be arrested, harassed, or killed. They inevitably will. This will help to gain supporters once our enemies’ masks of “noble procedure” become unveiled.
Isolation is how our enemy kills us. Isolation is how our enemy dissects and destroys us. The only answer to such an enemy, and to such tactics, is using them against that same enemy. We use their predictable isolation and victory-by-numbers techniques against them. We, in turn, isolate them. Army involvement and guerilla engagement of specific units are absolutely necessary – especially those who are arm-bearing units of anti-Christian regimes.
There is merit in this stage in mentioning (other) groups who bear resentments against our enemies, or those groups out there who, at this time, have our common enemy to “deal with.” Although respect should be given to any man or woman who sacrifices for what he or she believes in, we cannot afford to involve ourselves with other groups in guerrilla operations. We cannot afford to involve ourselves closely with the heathen, in general. Army involvement in any way is completely unacceptable. Other guerrilla operations, in past conflicts, have encouraged such army involvement with any/all anti-enemy sentiment. This cannot be acceptable in our mode of operation as Militant Christians. We live and operate by strict Biblical law, mentioned in preceding chapters of this text. We must separate ourselves from groups who do not adhere to our long-term objectives: establishing and maintaining a theocratic society based on Christian Law and Virtue. We must bear in mind that other groups could eventually become our direct enemies. All measures should be taken to avoid conflicts, at this point, with other groups. We must concentrate primarily on the enemies at hand, those who occupy our God-given territory.
Individuals should understand clearly the issues and principles involved previous to joining these endeavors of modern militant Christianity. Motives should be examined thoroughly before joining such a crusade. Militant Christians are expected to wage (at times a one-man) war against enemy forces and personnel. The enemy is numerically and technically superior in force. Our armies employ violent guerilla warfare strategies, and casualties are expected on both sides. Our beliefs, our loyalties, and our convictions bind us all as one army. Beliefs and convictions strong enough to allow a volunteer to commit violence in protection of God’s Law is what is called for on all fronts at this point.. (tbc)

Remarkable, but in this war I use “violence” to name what the baby killers do. I call what we do “force.”

Hello, Clayton Waagner requests prayer for his 28 year old son, Clay Jr., who is undergoing serious heart problems. He was just admitted to the intensive care unit in Akron, OH.
God bless, Drew Heiss

The following is a prayer request from Clayton Waagner:
Monday - June 28, 2010 Saturday night I called my wife's cell phone and caught her at the Akron Children's Hospital just before they took Clay into the Intensive Care Unit. Unknowing to me, Mary had taken Clay to the local Western Pennsylvania hospital Thursday night. Clay had gained considerable water weight and his heart was beating irregularly (meaning not normal for him, and there is nothing normal about his heart). From there the "life-flighted" Clay to Akron Children's Hospital, who has a cardiologist on staff who has worked with the Mayo Clinic and knows Clay's condition. They treated Clay as best they could, then on Saturday, just as I called, they moved him to ICU. Mary was worried, which is never a good sign. I also talked to Clay, who seemed strained but unconcerned.
I then called Drew Heiss and asked him to email everyone with an urgent request for prayer. Drew prayed with me for my son on the spot, then sent the prayer request. The next news I received was Sunday evening when I learned from a daughter that Clay had been released from the hospital and he and Mary were on their way home. She had just received a text message to this affect, and had no further news. As if this writing, Monday morning, that is all I know as I've been unable to reach anyone since. This lack of information is frustrating, but not uncommon given my circumstances.
Regardless of today's circumstances, Clay is in need of your prayer support. Clay was born with half of a normal heart. He has two chambers in his heart, not the normal four chambers. It is a "birth defect", and as birth defects go, Clay's is listed as the rarest of all birth defects. I don't know the numbers, but this is a very rare condition. Most born with this birth defect die as infants. Some make it to pre-teen years. Other than my son, the longest survivor with this condition died at fifteen years old. At twenty-eight years old Clay has survived this dangerous birth defect far longer than anyone ever has. Even the Doctors at Mayo Clinic, where he is treated, call Clay a medical miracle. If you spoke to a doctor who works with either heart defects or birth defects, odds are he would know of my son and his rare case of survival.
Clay has had five heart surgeries, the first when he was ten days old. We've been told he wouldn't make it through the night more times than either Mary or I care to remember. Yet our Son defies all predictions and survives. Many well intended people have told all in our family to "be thankful for the time we've had with him". Meaning, don't be unthankful if Clay dies. It is a sentiment that none of us have ever accepted. We have seen too many miracles in Clay's life to believe that God is not going to perform the ultimate miracle with his poorly formed and weakening heart. We have always believed that God is going to completely heal Clay by making his heart complete and normal. All the scar tissue he has prohibits further surgery, and prevents any consideration of a heart transplant, so the only treatment he can receive today is medication to ease the strain of his failing heart, but that is becoming less and less effective. My son's only hope of surviving much further is through God's healing.
I ask that you pray for my Son. I ask that you beseech God for a complete healing of his failing heart. Since Clay was a toddler Mary and I have believed that God would completely heal our son as a testimony to His power. Between Clay's standing as a "Medical Miracle" and his dad's notoriety as a pro-life extremist, I can not imagine that his healing would go unnoticed by the world. Please join our family in asking for a complete healing of Clayton Lee Waagner, Jr.'s heart. Stand with Mary and I in this as if Clay were your own beloved son. And because I am totally convinced of the power of corporate prayer, I ask you to pass this message on to everyone you know who prays and believes in God's ability to answer our prayer. I also ask that you remember Mary in your prayers as my wife has been through a great deal of difficulties lately, to which Clay's medical problems are adding additional strain. With all my heart I thank you for your prayer support, Clay
Peter and others: I haven’t lost your writings. I‘ve just gotten lazy again recently.