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 – johndunk@ptd.net
Web – skyp1.blogspot.com
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)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

75 comments:

賢林賢林 said...

睇完之後覺得有d頓悟..感謝分享...................................................................

John Dunkle said...

7/11 eers

Sharron Angle, eh! Can't wait to tell my Reno prolife friends. And that troglodyte interviewing her? Typical killers' helper -- "We will kill whomever we wish and you will not even question our action because if you try, I will interrupt you and drown you out and make sure no one can reflect on what you say."

These comments refer to three blogs: eers (The Abortioneers), snot (thesnotsodailyherald), and aarragh (abortion and reproductive right advocate going to hell -- www.abortion.ws)

John Dunkle said...

7/11 snot

#1, I don't demean young men of disordered sexual inclination but, otherwise, I say these same things! What is this young lady's secret that causes Kate to become apoplectic? I've been there when the two have come into contact, and I think it's jealousy.

#2, Beware when doctors are called physicians, lawyers are called attorneys, teachers are called professors, and journalists are called scientists. You'll end up like Kate.

John Dunkle said...

7/12 eers

Sure, I'm old, but you'll be dead long before me if you continue to ingest those poisons. You are just so gullible, you killers' helpers, so gullible.

John Dunkle said...

7/12 eers

Ahem, aag, I'm not a priest but a maker of priests. I volunteer to talk to this woman who's causing you concern. Try me -- jdmd@ptd.net

John Dunkle said...

7/14 eers

Good God you folks are bankrupt! I just went there. It's pathetic -- severely damaged human beings bonding to tell each other they're not damaged. Boy, am I glad I found this blog.

John Dunkle said...

7/16 aarragh

The difference between killing a child and marrying someone is night and day. Palin's right.

John Dunkle said...

7/15 eers

Dizzy as ever.

John Dunkle said...

6/17 snot

Nah, I think most are in it for the money; but the movers and the shakers, like Kate herself, are in it for an ideal, the Catholic Church must be crushed.

John Dunkle said...

7/17 eers

Dizzy as ever. (Please tell vulvalicious@hotmail.com that if she doesn't respond to my email, I just might have to write again!)

John Dunkle said...

7/18 eers

"When I awoke, I still felt the desperate urge to relay how important it is to keep abortion available and affordable, free from stigma, violence and shame."

You might be able to keep child killing available and affordable, SL, but it will never be free from stigma, violence (the act itself is incredibly violent!), and shame -- not so long as normal people walk the face of the earth

John Dunkle said...

8/19 aarragh

Good summary and comment as usual, Pat. My job, though, is to point out what's wrong with the Times article, as I began doing in that other posting. Mainly what's wrong with it is the Catholic issue. Kayhaitcher Balezon finds two "Mario Cuomo Catholics," Godfrey and Ann, and builds her article around them. Believing, practicing Catholics abhor child killing. They would not kill children themselves, as Godfrey does, nor would they aid and abet a killer, as Ann does.

More to follow.

John Dunkle said...

7/18 snot

Merton brought more into the priesthood than any other Catholic of my generation, but then Satan got to him and he started writing kookie stuff like Kate's two quotes. God zapped him in the Far East before he went completely off his rocker.

John Dunkle said...

7/19 eers

Katherine, say "I help kill babies. Got a job for me?" I bet you'd double your salary by working for an employer who values honesty.

John Dunkle said...

7/19 snot

I know who Kate's talking about, but I can't say. If I offer so much as a Good Morning, she'll call her lawyer!

John Dunkle said...

7/21 eers

RV, what does your handle mean?

John Dunkle said...

7/21 snot

Did Kate really write this? Where's the vitriol? Why it's almost "nonjudgmental"!
Course any post that begins with "typologies" makes me uneasy. My uneasiness grows as in the following few short paragraphs I read "comparative politics," "cleavages" (is Kate talking here about that Italian cook?), "operationalized" (operationalized!), "messaging," and "impermeable."

To tell you the truth, I prefer the vitriolic Kate to the pedantic Kate.

John Dunkle said...

Oh yeah, homogeneity, I forgot homogeneity.

John Dunkle said...

7/22 snot

Ah, now we're back to the vitriolic Kate and she's in top form. Joyce is still #1 on her hate list, but I think I am closing in. I love it when she asks -- me?, moi?, I?

I'm goana havta post this sucker, too.

John Dunkle said...

7/23 snot

in addition to Kate the pedant, and Kate the viper, we have, as in this post, Kate the winer: "They push, they shove, they say mean things, they do illegal stuff, they are really bad." Call the cops, Kate! Don't wine!

John Dunkle said...

7/23 snot

I spelled it that way because I've had too much -- Don't whine, Kate, it's unbecoming.

John Dunkle said...

7/24 eers

It's not beautiful, it's grotesque. The woman has indeed chosen what enters her. All she's doing here is railing at the consequences.

John Dunkle said...

7/24 eers

It's not beautiful, it's grotesque. The woman has indeed chosen what enters her. All she's doing here is railing at the consequences.

John Dunkle said...

7/25 aarragh

Well, Pat, you have to base everything on the fact that no one may kill someone else.

John Dunkle said...

7/25 snot

Kate's in denial here. A while ago I began noticing the empty, even forlorn, looks on the kayhaitchers' faces after a couple drove into the parking lot, sat in the car for a while, and then left. So when that happens now I always ask them, "Are you sad when someone decides not to kill?" So I think the notch comment is right on.

John Dunkle said...

7/28 snot

Talk about rubbing salt into a wound! Masculine impotence? What about masculine and feminine impotence? While the enemy has tortured to death close to sixty million of us here in the United States alone, since murder was legalized in 1970, we've dispatched swiftly how many of them -- four? When this particular form of Satanic activity ends, God will say, "I had to do it myself. Look at how few people helped me. Look how impotent even they were."

John Dunkle said...

7/27 snot 1

You don't have to be so negative, Kate. I've always thought a woman is a more effective anti-child-killer than a man. But we need everybody.

John Dunkle said...

7/27 snot 2

These two "scientists" Kate quotes simply reverse the standard accusations leveled against promoters of the culture of death. Yeah, sure, life is tough no matter what you do. That doesn't give the stronger the right to kill the weaker.

John Dunkle said...

7/28 eers

When you gonna learn, AA, baby killing IS the man's issue. Seven men made it legal and wannabe men keep it legal. Nothing has hurt women more than allowing men this option.

John Dunkle said...

7/28 snot 1&2

shoddy writing, shoddy research, shoddy scholarship, filled with educationeeze

胡維倫 said...

Learning makes life sweet.

John Dunkle said...

7/29 eers

I love it: "a presence in the uterus." All we pro-lifers have to do is wait. These folks will stop killing us on their own. Course that means another two hundred million before they wake up. But who's counting?

John Dunkle said...

7/30 snot

Kate's beaten me. Even I can't keep up with the turgid mess of these last two or three posts. Commander seems to upset her most because he uses common sense to refute her "scholars" (teachers of "education" and "psychology" that form Kate's intellectual life). But Mary, Sandy, and especially Joyce are also succeeding where I'm an utter failure. What do those four do that I've not yet learned how to?

John Dunkle said...

7/30 snot

Talk all you want, Kate, but when one person wants to kill an innocent third party and another person wants to stop him, the latter has the morally superior position. I'm not saying the latter is the morally superior person but his position is obviously the morally superior one. Why don't you start from there and cut out all the fake "scholarly" crap.

John Dunkle said...

7/31 aarragh

Another well-written post, Pat, but based on a false premise - killing an older child is worse than killing a younger one. In any tragedy the ages of the victims are mentioned, and the younger, the worse.

洪志源 said...

Judge not a book by its cover.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

John Dunkle said...

7/31 snot

Kate obviously thinks her video makes Gerry look bad. Actually it does just the opposite. Eventually she'll realize that and tank it, but I hope as many people as possible watch it first.

John Dunkle said...

8/1 snot

Kathy Kuhns doesn't send us her Pro-Life Berks newsletter, so I don't know what Kate's talking about here.

John Dunkle said...

8/2 eers

Let me see if I can "misconstrue" Sparks again here. She blames me for upsetting her! It's not me, Sparks, it's normality. It's just not normal to help kill people. If I and all others who recognize that disappeared from the face of the earth, you'd still be upset.

John Dunkle said...

8/2 snot

It's numbers that determine Kate's morality. More people are for than against keeping child-killing legal, more perverts than normal people show up at pro-marriage gatherings -- that's all that counts.

恩宛玲如 said...

It is easier to get than to keep it.......................................................................

John Dunkle said...

8/3 eers

You folks got no shame! I can remember Bill Baird in the late '60s showing that picture of the woman kneeling. Sixty years go by and after killing, in a far more horrible manner, sixty million younger people, you use it again: "See, this is why we have to continue to torture to death these folks." No shame whatsoever.

John Dunkle said...

8/4 eers

I watched it. It was so racist. It was so anti-Semitic. Don't you killers ever learn?

John Dunkle said...

8/5 eers

Deli delivers kind of a strange post here -- close to finding out is one is a good parent, and then, if not, killing the kid. That will be the next step, of course. See how these horrors inch forward?

John Dunkle said...

8/5 snot

Guess if you have nothing to say, you'll say something.

John Dunkle said...

8/8 eers

You can tell how effective someone is by the squeals she elicits. This young lady is quite effective.

John Dunkle said...

8/10 aarragh

This is one of your favorite themes, Pat, but it’s getting old. Anything that makes it harder for one person to kill another is good; anything that makes it easier is bad.

John Dunkle said...

8/10 aarragh

This is one of your favorite themes, Pat, but it’s getting old. Anything that makes it harder for one person to kill another is good; anything that makes it easier is bad.

John Dunkle said...

8/10 eers

If AAG cleared up her life, the language would follow.a

張韓涵旺建宇 said...

每日都有新日光,每日都有新希望。.................................................

John Dunkle said...

eers 8/11

What the heck is AA talking about?

John Dunkle said...

eers 8/11

What the heck is AA talking about?

John Dunkle said...

8/12 aarragh

This more recent strategy of you kayhaitchers, asking prolifers to list their other good deeds, backfires: Jesus said that when it comes to good deeds, you should not let your right hand know what your left hand is doing. If you yourself are not even aware of them, how can you list them? Charles, are you paying attention?

John Dunkle said...

8/12 snot

Kate lives in a dream world. Change "normalization" to degradation in that last paragraph.

John Dunkle said...

8/13 aarragh

This is news to me. All I know is the authorities got tough (I myself got fined $20,000), and we "defenders of the defenseless" slunk away into the dark. Well, not everyone. Paul Hill stood up to them, and Jimbo and Shelley and a few others.

John Dunkle said...

8/13 aarragh

This is news to me. All I know is the authorities got tough (I myself got fined $20,000), and we "defenders of the defenseless" slunk away into the dark. Well, not everyone. Paul Hill stood up to them, and Jimbo and Shelley and a few others.

峻胡邦慧v帆 said...

你怎麼能經過一片海,而忘記它的藍?......................................................................

John Dunkle said...

8/13 snot

Well, thank goodness, back as the star of the show again.

John Dunkle said...

8/15 snot

I knew that sign would upset Kate. A black eye, eh? Except for that, then, the pro-life agenda, so far as Kate is concerned, is just fine?

凡柯柯豐柯柯柯 said...

絕不要羞於承認自己不知道的事。..................................................

John Dunkle said...

8/16 eers

I didn't get too far in this crap by PS. Anyway, live without me for a while. I'll be gone till Saturday.

John Dunkle said...

8/20 snot

Just got back from a trip to see that Kate's scatter-gunning. I'll skip most but the one on Pius XII show us again what fuels kate's anger -- Catholics. She hates 'em. She accepts and promulgates every anti-Catholic lie. This could get interesting.

John Dunkle said...

8/20 (more) snot

How did Kate get hold of Kathy's video? For once I agree with Kate -- Kathy did badger Pastor. She had the truth but she should have asked me to do the interview.

John Dunkle said...

For her own sake I think Kate should drop that "linebacker" stuff. Linebackers have to be in great shape. Not so offensive guards, those short, fat, immobile interior linemen. I wouldn't say this myself because I'm not mean, but I've heard others call Kate an "offensive guard."

John Dunkle said...

8/21 snot

Sure, Kate tries to embarrass Kathy by posting her unfortunate interview with Pastor, but still I am amazed how much alike they really are. Kate finds, as Kathy found, that I am spiteful, offensive, disgusting. But where did Kate discover pedantic? Oops, from me.

fdsaf said...

被你的人氣吸引過來~~.................................[/url]...............

John Dunkle said...

10/21 snot

Oh no, Kate's not anti-Catholic; she's just revolted by our behavior at the AWC. One of us must be Pope Pius XII then because that's whom she seems to hate most.

John Dunkle said...

8/22 eers

Wow, this is a long one, one long lie.

John Dunkle said...

8/23 snot

To whom is Kate referring?

John Dunkle said...

8/26 snot

Ah, the "non-sentient fetus" again. "I can help kill them because they don't feel a thing." That's chutzpah grotesquely magnified.

John Dunkle said...

8.26 eers

This is not Dizzy as usual. This ain't bad.

John Dunkle said...

8/27 snot

Wow, three post in one day! I can't keep up with this. Leave it to Kate, though, to use the anti-Catholic Commonweal and the anti-Catholic Kaveny in one breath, and to deny she's anti-Catholic in the next.

John Dunkle said...

8/29 snot

How come Commander gets all the ink. What about me! God knows I try.

John Dunkle said...

8/29 snot

Kate's discovered how to disguise her stupidities -- if she piles one on top of the other, people will forget 'em all. I don't have the time to comment on these latest thirty-six, but I do see that I am mentioned in one. That's a relief.

John Dunkle said...

snot

On aarragh a guy named "Charles Gregory" has been using one of Kate's arguments all summer: we can continue legally to kill babies because John Dunkle, and all the other prolifers, have psychological problems. So! "Charles Gregory" is Kate Ranieri!