Tuesday, August 31, 2010

Abortion is Murder, 8-6, August, 2010

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

August, 2010 Vol. 8 No. 6
PO Box 7424, Reading, PA 19603
Phone – 484-706-4375
Email – johndunk@ptd.net
Web – skyp1.blogspot.com
Circulation – 114
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. Gibbons, Linda - Vanier WDC, 655 Martin St., P.O. Box 1040, Milton, ON, Canada L9T 5E6
2. Griffin, Michael 310249, Okaloosa Correctional Institution, Crestview FL 32539-6708 9/11
3. Howard, Peter Andrew 57760-097, FCI, Box 900, Safford, AZ 85546
4. Jordi, Stephen 70309-004, FCI P.O. Box 33, Terre Haute IN 47802 6/30
5. Knight, Peter CRN 158589, Port Philip Prison, P.O. Box 376, Laverton, Victoria, Australia
6. Kopp, James 11761-055, USP Canaan, 3057 Easton Tpk., Waymart, PA 18472
7. Little, David SJRCC, 930 Old Black River Road, Saint John, NB E2J 4T3
8. Lo, Erlyndon Joseph LE#234894, Collin County Detention Center, 4300 Community Avenue, McKinney TX 75071
9. McMenemy, David Robert 08168-030, FCI Elkton, P.O. Box 10, Lisbon OH 44432
10. Richardson, Alonzo Lee 12898-021, PO Box 474701, Des Moines, IA 5094
11. Scott P. Roeder KDOC#0065192, El Dorado Correctional Facility, P. O. Box 311, El Dorado, KS 67042
12. Ross, Michael, Custer County Jail, 1010 Main St., Miles City, Montana 59301
13. Rudolph, Eric 18282-058 US Pen. Max, Box 8500, Florence CO 81226-8500
14. Shannon, Rachelle 59755-065, FCI Waseca, Unit A, P.O. Box 1731, Waseca, MN 56093 3/31
15. Waagner, Clayton Lee 17258-039, United States Penitentiary, P.O. Box 1000, Lewisburg PA 17837 8/25
16. Weiler Jr., Robert F. 39385-037, FCC – Petersburg (Low), PO Box 1000, Petersburg VA 23804
17. 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

Here’s the rest of the letter Cal sent me last month:

But, the truth of the matter is this is precisely what you have been telling them all these years! You have been telling them it really is okay to keep killing babies, but that you are just there to deny your complicity. In fact, you don't even bother to thank them for clearing the pews, school desks, and homes for you, to get rid of flavor-of-the-month pregnancies so scandalous that you just hold signs and look the other way while Dr. Wolf conveniently takes care of them for you.
The reason why the new signs will scare the abortion providers is that once they see you now have the courage to take down the ultimate false cover, they can rest assured that the few remaining facades will be quick to follow in rapid succession.
But as long as the bogus 'pro-life' camp continues to cling to the false pretense of a fake "debate" to keep its cover, the abortion providers know their jobs are safe. As a case in point, denial in the bogus 'pro-life' community is so strong that even when all five in the Roe-supporting camp at the U.S. Supreme Court in Casey tried to rub the absence of any meaningful debate over the children's rights in the other camp's faces, the nation still accepted the blackout. Why? Above all, it was really the 'pro-life' camp that did not want to hear the true story, so the press did not force them to!
The existence of a "debate" is central to their hoax. It is the source of the big excuse behind the false antics of their complicity-denial. Without it, they would have to thank the abortion providers for clearing the pews for them!
Either that or they would have to stand up and defend the children (which would also mean having to face the flood of flavor-of-the-month pregnancies that are otherwise aborted, and that might cramp the style of their traditionalist objectives). So, when all is said and done, the 'pro-life' camp would prefer to cling to the false existence of a debate, even when the other camp contradicts them!
As the benchmark example, even when the Roe-supporting Justices banded together in Casey to contradict the false pretense of a debate, the 'pro-life' camp clung pathetically to the cover of the press blackout, rather than admitting it! That is how two-faced the bogus 'pro-life' camp really is, and that is why the children keep dying.
The bogus 'pro-life' community embraces the blackout, hiding behind the cover of a false debate while the wolf clears the pews, all-the-while congratulating itself for its feigned efforts to inch ever closer to the day when children will be safe. The efforts are feigned, of course, because what the bogus 'pro-life' camp is really waiting for is NOT another 'pro-life' Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. There are NONE in this charade. Instead, what they are really trying to inch forward to is a day when, just maybe, their females will finally stop swamping the community with non-traditional pregnancies of the sort only that only Dr. Wolf seems to know how to take care of.
This is why they have been waiting idly for so long to "save" the children--idly and for so long because our females are not returning to traditional pregnancy anytime soon. But in the meantime, because all good people know life is a wonderful choice, we still need to make the rounds and deny complicity with the means of abortion being used to maintain traditional appearances on the outside. That way we look traditional. Want to be a pro-lifer? It's easy. At pro-life boot camp, your drill sergeant says, "Repeat after me: Life is a wonderful choice, we're closer now than ever before. Hold your sign up high to deny complicity. Show passersby your hands are really tied by a big "debate" to explain why you have to let the wolf keep working; and, finally, pray for a day when our females return to their senses so abortion clinics are no longer needed to maintain the appearances of traditional pregnancy."
Oh, and ask "Father" to bless you. After all, his pews get the clearing anyway In other words, the mission of the bogus 'pro-lifer' is to make sure everyone knows that we good people have truly denied our complicity, without actually having to face all the pregnancy scandals we would learn about otherwise without legal abortion. That way we can deny complicity while still using a non-traditional way to maintain tradition.
With the blackout removed, the true story of Roe v. Wade is a simple one: The bogus 'pro-life' camp denies its complicity while the other camp conveniently clears the pews, school desks, and homes of awkward pregnancy scandals. Sincerely, Cal.

And more of Chapter 3 of Abortion, the Irrepressible Conflict:

A body of thought has grown out of the classical liberal tradition that has tried to identify justice without reference to the ends that it serves. John Rawls’ book A Theory of Justice (1971) tried to articulate this view. It is based on two claims. First, that certain individual rights are so essential that society’s interests should never be allowed to override them. And second, that those rights should not depend for their justification on any particular moral or religious conception of the good life.
Rawls’ theory was a break with tradition. Traditionally the concept of justice was related to the ends that it served. Aristotle thought that you had to determine the most desirable way of life before you could define justice. John Locke and Thomas Jefferson thought that the purpose of justice was to protect the individual’s natural right of life, liberty and property. And John Stuart Mill believed the end of justice was to promote happiness. All these definitions of justice are utilitarian. Relying on Kant’s concept of rights, Rawls objected to the utilitarian approach because it relies on a particular conception of the good life. Society, said Rawls, is composed of persons with differing conceptions of the good life. People have different interests, different aims, different gods; therefore, society is best organized on principles of justice that do not themselves presuppose any definition of the good life. This allows each citizen the freedom to choose his own ends. And it lessens the chance that a majority believing in one particular definition of the good life will persecute minorities who hold different beliefs. Such an arrangement respects the individual as a being capable of choice, and treats him as an end rather than a means. Justice is therefore an end in itself.
Rawls’ theory of justice is built on a hypothetical position he calls the “veil of ignorance.” Parties to his social contract must first be stripped of any knowledge of their place in society. They don’t know their religion, sex, class, race, age, wealth, intelligence, talents or abilities. Nor do they know what ideas they have about the good life. They only know that they possess some of these attributes, and that such attributes are worthy of being protected. Rawls’ purpose in placing the parties behind this veil is to prevent their decisions being prejudiced by the contingency of natural and social circumstances. It is assumed that all parties will choose principles of justice that protect even the most disadvantaged person in society because no one knows whether he may end up being that person.
In his book Liberalism and the Limits of Justice (1982), Michael J. Sandel demonstrated that a social contract built on Rawls’ veil of ignorance is impossible. A theory of justice without reference to the attributes of the parties involved and without reference to any particular conception of the good life is meaningless, said Sandel. Not only is Rawls’ veil of ignorance a hypothetical situation, which is true of most social contract theories, it involves a type of human being that has never existed, one without identity. Because the parties behind the veil have no beliefs, ideas, attachments or experiences, they lack identity. Also, as I alluded to earlier, justice is impossible apart from the circumstances that give rise to the virtue of justice. Behind Rawls’ veil there are no circumstances. And bargaining or even discussing rights or interests in order to arrive at a contract requires that the parties have some differences of interests, opinions, knowledge, aims and power.
Behind Rawls’ veil of ignorance is a universe without purpose, without telos, as the Greeks called it. This perspective has plagued Western thought since the seventeenth century. Unlike Greek or scholastic conceptions, Rawl’s and Kant’s universe is a place devoid of inherent meaning. “Only a world ungoverned by a purposive order leaves principles of justice open to human construction and conceptions of the good to individual choice.”53 In such a world the purpose of justice is to give the individual unfettered choice. Once free of God, Nature, or his role within the organic social group, the individual is crowned with sovereignty over all his choices.
Rawls’ sovereign rational being is merely a conception. And a society that adopts his theory of justice is promoting divisions that will ultimately undermine social order. Like it or not, we are tied to our identity. Any decisions we arrive at, whether about justice or anything else, must necessarily depend on who we are. We cannot regard ourselves as independent in the sense that our identity is never tied to our aims and attachments…without great cost to those loyalties and convictions whose moral force consists partially in the fact that living by them is inseparable from understanding ourselves as the particular person we are—as members of a family, or community, nation, or people, as bearers of this history, as sons and daughters of that revolution, as citizens of this republic. Allegiances such as these are more than values I happen to have or aims I espouse at a given time. They go beyond the obligations I voluntarily incur and the “natural duties” I owe to human beings as such. They allow that to some I owe more than justice requires or even permits, not by reason of agreements I have made but instead in virtue of those more or less enduring attachments and commitments which taken together partly define the person I am.54
It is impossible to arrive at principles of justice without making value judgments that some choices are better than others. Take a look at the issue of religious liberty as contained in the First Amendment. Traditionally what makes religious activity more worthy of legal protections than other activities is the role it plays in the good life, the type of character it produces, and from a political perspective its abilities to mold good citizens. Rawlsian liberalism, on the other hand, says that religious activities are important not because of their content, but instead because they are the result of free and voluntary choice. There is nothing that distinguishes between what believers consider to be vital claims of conscience, and what others see as mere preference. And thus demands that the laws not unduly burden the free exercise of religion are no more deserving of respect than demands to protect any other preferential choice. If, for example, religious believers are permitted a special day off from work for a religious observance, why can’t baseball fans demand their own special day off to watch games? To give religious activities greater weight in law than sports activities is to say that religion is more central to the individual’s self-definition in his quest to live the good life. This was the meaning the Founding Fathers gave to the First Amendment. But it runs counter to Rawlsian Liberalism.
Rawls’ intent was to create an individual free of prejudice, capable of making unbiased decisions, but in actuality Rawls’ “free and rational agent” is a person without character or moral depth:

For to have character is to know that I move in a history I neither summon nor command, which carries consequences nonetheless for my choices and conduct. It draws me closer to some and more distant from others; it makes some aims more appropriate, others less so. As a self-interesting being, I am able to reflect on my history and in this sense to distance myself from it, but the distance is always precarious and provisional, the point of protection never finally secured outside the history itself. A person with character thus knows that he is implicated in various ways even as he reflects, and feels the moral weight of what he knows.55

What that means is exactly what Rawls’ theory tried to guard against: a society composed of sovereign individuals is an abstraction; and a society cannot accommodate all manner of diversity. A society must find its principles of justice in some conception of the good life. And a society with large groups of people holding very different ideas of the good life will eventually come unraveled. The current conflict over abortion is a classic example of this. Rawls’ political liberalism dictates that we keep our private morality apart from our public life. When we run into a contentious issue like abortion, where one side believes it is an essential human right and the other believes it is murder, Rawls advises us to bracket the issue out of political debate. But if abortion is in fact murder, as pro lifers contend, then bracketing it out of the debate runs counter to one of the basic purposes for having a society—to protect individuals from unjustified homicide. Why have a society at all when an entire class of persons are bracketed out of protection simply because the idea of protecting them is contentious to one segment of society? Telling pro-lifers to ignore the issue of abortion because millions of people are in favor of it is untenable. (tbc)

And more of Peter Knight’s attack on us pro-lifers -- who are more responsible for this holocaust even than the pro-deathers:

Twenty-five percent of people who are brought into existence in the USAA (one and a half million unborn children each year) are wiped back out of existence by abortionists. I don’t think many people would need to be told what would have happened had the government placed one and a half million 36 year olds into the exact same position as those unborn. The exact same position, that is, with the one exception -- that they retained their present means of defending themselves against abortionists.
There would not have been a single one of the 36 year olds who showed the slightest concern about depriving an abortionist of his eight millionth chance to repent. There would have been no mention by any of them of waiting till the next election to see if the problem could be fixed then after they’d been killed. No mention of waving photos of dead 36 year olds about the place outside the killing centers in the hope that maybe 1% of them might be saved. These are the sort of crackpot ideas that get into people’s minds and the sort of responses they give when it’s someone else’s life on the line, not their own. When it turned out that they needed help, and were starved of it, they could have been doing everything they could to place as much pressure as possible on every single person to help defend them. There would have been no suggestion by any of the 36 year olds that it was not everyone’s duty to do what was necessary to defend them.
There would have been no mention that the government must be obeyed. None of them would have been saying, “If it’s murder for an abortionist to kill thousands of us, then it’s murder for us to do what’s necessary to stop him.”
So the people who do say any of these things, they don’t speak for the murdered unborn, they just speak for themselves. When Greg Cunningham says that everyone should wait and wait and wait for the series of election victories he fantasizes about, how many of the millions it’s guaranteed will be murdered in the meanwhile as a result of that waiting does he speak for? He doesn’t speak for a single one of them. He’s not the voice of the murdered unborn. He just speaks for his own gutless self.
And that’s the question that should be put to all those who harbour these ideas. How many of the millions will be murdered in the meanwhile do you speak for? How many words did you say on their behalf? Are there any words you’d like to say now on behalf of any of them?
And the only words that any of the government worshippers who reject Paul Hill’s methods can say is “the government has granted these children their right to be murdered, and no consideration should be given to taking their right from them till they have been.” That’s what their methods and instructions are guaranteed to bring about, and that’s what they say every single time they open their mouths. That’s what the government wants them to say, so that’s what they say. What has the givernment ever done for them that deserves such servitude?
Even if they had their chosen politicians elected, what do they expect to get from them? What has all past experience shown they will get? When abortion was supposed to be illegal in the 1960’s, what did the government offer them? Did the government shit on them or not? Did their so-called anti-abortion government see to it that the law they were elected to enforce was enforced? There were countless numbers of illegal abortionists killing across all states. Countless numbers of them openly violating the law without a hand laid on them. How so? Were their politicians bought off by the abortionists, or what? This is what their hero government offered them when abortion was illegal. Even when these suckers played the game the way the politicians told them to and won, they still lost when the government tipped the scales sideways on them. What sort of brainless sucker would someone have to be to take any notice of these cheats and liars and fakes and frauds when they tell you to play the game their way?

And, truth be told, that’s what Greg Cunningham and his followers are too. Fakes and frauds. They don’t believe any of this bull about a wave of simultaneous jihads. When they had no concern for the millions of children guaranteed to be destroyed as a result of the course of inaction they promoted and advanced. It’s a sick joke for them to ask you to believe they had tremendous concern for the abortionists’ chance to repent afterwards. If it was necessary for them to kill a mass murderer to save their own lives, they’d do it no matter what the government said. They haven’t mistaken the government for God. They know they’ve got a duty to do it when it’s someone else’s life at stake. Their fake excuses are just a charade and just a facade to cover up the real reason they failed to carry out their duty – COWARDICE.. (tbc)

The Beowulf poet said life lasts as long as it takes a small bird to fly in one window of the banquet hall and out the other. What glory will envelop these brave men and woman, like Peter.

I guess I told you I spend lots of time on the internet fighting the killers’ helpers. One of my favorite antagonists is Kate Ranieri. Kate teaches “education,” which should tell you a lot. Kate, though, can write, when she’s not trying too hard. Here’s one from her blog, thesnotsodailyherald:

A young woman exited the clinic with an older woman this morning. By all appearances, we could assume by the young woman’s demeanor that she was uncomfortable, walking guardedly. And by all appearances, one protester made the leap that this young woman had had an abortion. But rather than the compassionate offer of Rachel’s Vineyard (touted so readily among those who believe that all women regret their abortion), this protester took out her hostility on me. And, in the process, said the unimaginable such that these two women heard everything.
Actually, it’s not unimaginable when you consider how crass this protester has been in the past. I’m always stunned at how low she stoops in her creatively sick and twisted messages to women like the baby road kill story or the abortion will haunt you at night tale or, the all-time obvious, you-can-scrape it out honey but you can’t get it back. Anyway, rather than compassion, this protester announced, “Look at this broken woman. Broken spiritually, emotionally, and physically. Broken. Shame on you, Kate.” [like I had anything to do with this young woman].
How can saying something this nasty, within easy earshot of clients, be considered compassionate? I care less about this protester’s comments toward me. But to inflict verbal barbs on an already compromised young woman, a “broken woman” as she claimed, makes this protester appear mean and callous. Her behavior illustrates what I mentioned in my last post—that there is increasing hostility among the protesters.
In fact, this woman seems to be following John Dunkle’s lead. He yells “Mommy, Daddy, don’t let them tear my arms and legs off” to women entering the clinic. Claiming he does it to make them remember this as the worst day of their life, like going through the gates of Hell, I’m wondering if this protester admires him because she said the same thing to a woman entering the clinic today. Perhaps this is what we can come to expect from her in the future.-

Cobra, I mean Tobra, strikes again:

When barrett and britton drove through pensacola town
It was hot that july day
When HILL shot them down
But not as hot
As britton and barrett got

Happy Anniversary America
May it be your last july 29
As folks get angry enough
To put an end to your bloody and perverted ways
Bringing an end to america's days

In the August 30 edition of the New York Times, Abrahma Verghese includes the following in a typical anti-Catholic article on evolution:

We get old because old age had so little weight in the scales of evolution; because there were never enough Old Ones around to count for much in the scales. The first half of life is orderly, a miracle of ‘detailed harmonious unfolding’ beginning with the embryo.”

Hmm, “beginning with the embryo”! See how these anti-Catholics accept the Truth when ideology doesn’t interfere with their thought process?

Robert Weiler’s defense of the Mormons continues:

Cal proposes to hold a worldwide, fourteen million member church responsible for the legislative actions of one member. This is as silly as saying all Protestant ministers will kill their followers because Jim Jones did, or that all Lutherans are good people just because Rev. Michael Bray happens to be one. Does this mean that the LDS Church is responsible for pro-abort Senator Harry Reid (D-NY)? How about Senator Bob Bennett (R-UT)? If they are on opposite sides, which one represents “The Mormons”?
There are three major problems with Cal’s second paragraph. Here’s the list:
1) Cal incredibly claims that 40% of women in LDS “singles wards” are unchaste and have had abortions. He cites no authority for this statistic, he simply asserts that what he asserts is true because he asserts it. Is there even an abortion clinic in Utah besides the planned murderers in Salt Lake City? (SLC being one of very few cities in this state to be more than half non-Mormon.)
2) LDS women also serve two-year missions for the church. Serving a mission is not a prerequisite to marriage in the church. However, few members of the church would wish to spend eternity with a partner who would shirk the important duty of preaching the Gospel to all lands.
3) The Church of Jesus Christ of Later-Day Saints teaches and practices the law of tithing. I hope Cal does not mean to degrade this clearly established Biblical principle . . . There is no such thing as a “Temple Tithe.”
Spencer W. Kimball was the President/Prophet of the LDS Church 1973-1985. In his book “The Miracle of Forgiveness,” he spoke of how we cope with past sin and make restitution for it. He stressed how difficult it is to recover from breaking the law of chastity. “This is especially true if pregnancy results from the sin. In this situation it is the girl who suffers most. She must not have an abortion, for that would add serious sin to serious sin.” (“The Miracle of Forgiveness,” p. 196)
I would like to add that I am saddened when people feel the need to attack other churches. If the truth is really on your side, all you must do is preach those true principles boldly by the power of the Holy Spirit and in the name of Jesus Christ. The errors of others will reveal themselves. Truth and error standing side by side present a spectacular contrast. This certainly does not mean that you should ignore plain error when you hear it. As I am now, you should always correct error that is presented to you. But one should not maliciously attack another. Such assaults only promote strife and bitterness amongst people who otherwise could accomplish awesome thing together.
In case anybody missed the news, our tax dollars are now being used to murder military babies. The “President” has ordered the Pentagon to stock the abortifacient “Plan B” pill in all military pharmacies. Now when G.I Joe is tired of killing the enemy, she can slaughter her own child.
It is not natural for women to kill. Even when justified. It is the proper role of men to engage in violence. Man is the hunter and the protector. The god-given role of women is to bring forth new life into their world and to nurture it. Is it any surprise that women who already pervert their role will go so far in denying it as to kill their own child? Women naturally and properly engage in violence only as a last line of defense for children and themselves. (Thought I better include that last line or Shelley might come find me!!).
Dan, read about your experience at the Tea party. The problem with the Tea Party is that it is a fiscal conservative movement. Most Tea Partiers don’t care about social issues. They are happy to let the baby blood flow as long as it doesn’t cost us much. You don’t hear any anti-abortion speeches. They just don’t want to pay for them!
Thank you John for AIM and your faithful commitment tothe POC’s. Your brother in Christ, Robert Weiler
“Jack Steele” -- A notorious anti-abortion sniper serving a murder sentence in the U.S. will not face justice in Canada for suspicion of attacks on three doctors here, The Canadian Press has learned.
That's because police say the doctors -- each wounded by a bullet for performing abortions -- are content to let James Kopp live out the rest of his days in a Pennsylvania prison.
Authorities are also content to let the matter rest and that has an angry American undercover operative fuming that Canadian police are cheapskates for withholding his reward for crucial help in capturing Kopp. "I stopped a murderer, a terrorist," Jack Steele said from an undisclosed location in the United States. "I put my life on the line; I infiltrated a very dangerous group of people."
Steele is the pseudonym for an American operative whose two years of undercover work led to the conviction and life-imprisonment of Kopp. Kopp sparked outrage across North America in 1998 when he gunned down an upstate New York physician who performed abortions.
Recruited by the FBI with the promise of lucrative reward, Steele infiltrated a homegrown terrorist network of anti-abortionists and eventually uncovered Kopp's secret French hideout -- leading to his extradition and arrest in 2001 for the 1998 murder of Dr. Bernard Slepian.
For his efforts, the U.S. government paid him $700,000. But he says Canada owes him another $547,000 because Kopp was the prime suspect in the shootings of the Canadian doctors -- crimes that remain officially unsolved.
The FBI and Canadian police had formed a cross-border task force -- now essentially dormant -- to hunt down Kopp. Their wanted poster identified Kopp as a "person of interest" in the shootings of the Canadians, and offered the $547,000 reward for any information that led to an arrest and conviction for those crimes.
Steele says he earned his payday. But since Kopp was never charged with the Canadian shootings, law enforcement has concluded Steele doesn't deserve a loonie. "It's not my fault that the government of Canada didn't catch him first. It's the promise that they made," Steele said. "There's a betrayal there."
All three of the Canadian doctors were shot through windows in their homes: Dr. Garson Romalis was hit in the leg in Vancouver in 1994. Dr. Hugh Short was shot in the elbow in Ancaster, Ont., in 1995. Dr. Jack Fainman was injured in the shoulder in Winnipeg in 1997.
On Oct. 23, 1998, Slepian was killed by a single shot through the kitchen window of his Amherst, N.Y., home.
Despite strong evidence linking Kopp to the Canadian shootings, the case is no longer being pursued. "In Canada, there's not a statute of limitations. They're all 'open' cases. Although I would suggest nobody is actively investigating them, they are not closed," said Winnipeg police Sgt. John Burchill, a former spokesman for the Canada-U.S. task force.
Burchill said he's not aware of any Canadian plans to extradite Kopp to face justice for the lesser charge of attempted murder in Canada since he is serving life in the U.S. and will likely never be released. Police asked Romalis, Fainman and Short for their views and they are content to let Kopp spend the rest of his life in U.S. prison, said Burchill. "My understanding is that the doctors are satisfied with the current situation," he said. "I suppose if he was extradited and brought back to Canada and he was convicted here of those offences, I suppose that was a possibility he (Steele) could collect but I can't speak for what representations were made to him way back when originally." Neither Romalis nor Fainman were available for comment. When contacted by phone Friday, Short said: "I have nothing to say."
Steele said he was originally told his reward would exceed $1 million. He said Canadian law enforcement strung him along for the better part of a decade, saying they would deal with his portion of the reward once Kopp had exhausted all appeal avenues.
Two years ago, Canadian police tried unsuccessfully to interview Kopp in prison. Last year, when an appeal court in Manhattan slammed the door shut on Kopp, Steele thought he would finally get his payday. But the Canadian Medical Association, which put up the reward money, concluded Steele did not meet the criteria to collect. "There were some limited conditions on the reward -- namely, that the information had to lead to a conviction in the cases concerning the specified doctors and any arrests in these cases had to have been made by June 1, 2003," the CMA said in a statement. The CMA says none of those conditions was met.
The FBI is also distancing itself from Steele's request for a Canadian reward. "If Mr. Steele believes he has earned a reward, he should seek remedies through the appropriate venue," said the FBI's media office in Albany, N.Y. Joyce Arthur, a co-ordinator with the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada, said it is disappointing and frustrating that Canadian police agencies have decided to drop inquiries into three unsolved Canadian shootings.
She said she has no doubt Kopp was responsible for the Canadian shootings. She tried to independently investigate some of the "tantalizing connections between Kopp and Canada" and give them to police but nothing conclusive ever turned up.
Winnipeg police have information that Kopp's car crossed the Manitoba border into North Dakota four hours after Fainman was shot in Winnipeg.
Kopp was brought to justice in 2001, two years after the FBI recruited Steele to infiltrate his network of true believers. Kopp fled the United States, through Mexico, and made his way to London and eventually Ireland after he killed Slepian in 1998.
Beginning in 1999, Steele worked hard to prove his loyalty to Kopp's circle of anti-abortionists. He took part in vandalizing abortion clinics to ingratiate himself. His dramatic breakthrough came on a rain-swept day in Brooklyn in March 2001 when he was enlisted to run a key errand -- go to a Western Union outlet and send cash to Kopp at a secret location in Europe. Steele asked for a photocopy of the receipt -- with the address of where Kopp would be picking up the money. He could see his accomplice's car in the partially obscured window on the street outside as he bent down to tuck the photocopy into his right boot. His heart was pounding and he was shaking and sweating. "I could see getting my ass caught and that's the end of me."
Steele worried about phoning his FBI contacts on his cell phone because members of the anti-abortion group listened to calls with a scanner. In a driving rain, Steele drove to a phone booth 15 kilometres away and called his special agent handler. "I said to him, 'I have it.' And I could hear a pin drop," Steele recalled.
He pulled the piece of paper from his boot and read out an address in Dinan, France. He repeated the information twice more. The agent told him to "go home and take a rest. I could hear the sigh," Steele recalled. "And the rest is history."

The abortion industry's 'BloodMoney' By Matt C. Abbott

Today (Aug. 29) I had the opportunity to see the recently-released gripping and informative documentary "BloodMoney," featuring several pro-life leaders: Dr. Alveda King (niece of Martin Luther King, Jr.), former abortion facility owner Carol Everett, Joe Scheidler, Norma McCorvey, Fathers Frank Pavone and Tom Euteneuer, Troy Newman and former abortionist Bernard Nathanson.
The film also features testimonies from post-abortive women, whose stories are gut-wrenching. For example, one woman recounts, in detail, the horrific experience of procuring a late-term abortion from the late George Tiller. Another woman tearfully recounts having to tell her young daughter that she had an older sister. Told by her mother about the abortion, her daughter's face took on an expression of fear, her mother said.
If you're concerned about seeing graphic abortion photos (which I generally support, by the way), don't worry — you won't. There is a brief scene showing a Face the Truth tour, but the graphic images are blurred by the camera. While I did find that slightly disappointing, I can understand why the filmmaker decided not to show the images. To its credit, however, the film does not sanitize abortion in any way, particularly with regard to the verbal descriptions of what goes on inside an abortion facility. Also to its credit, "BloodMoney" explains the inseparable link between contraception and abortion, along with Planned Parenthood's insidious sex education and racist agenda.
Finally, the film does a commendable job of explaining and showing the science and beauty of human life's earliest stages, and how abortion-on-demand became the law of the land — and, for better or for worse, it does so without being overtly religious. (David K. Kyle, the film's producer, writer and director, was present for the screening I attended and told the audience in a Q and A session afterward that he wanted to do a more secular portrayal of the right-to-life issue.)

All things considered, "BloodMoney" should be promoted by everyone in the pro-life community, as should Life Dynamics' "Maafa 21."


Charles said...

Abortion is NOt murder because a fetus is not a human. A fetus is a collection of cells. Would we consider a tumor to be a human? After all, it is a collection of cells with significant growth potential.

When a child is born, its rights can be considered in a legal sense. Until then, it remains a collection of cells, not a human. Therefore, abortion is not murder.

John Dunkle said...

8/31 eers

You're fighting a losing battle, PS. Killers always lose in the long run, killers like Nazis and American Slave Advocates, but it might take a long time; for you, probably, not until you're dead.

John Dunkle said...

Nobody reads "Abortion is Murder"; so, these comment on three pro-killing blogs: the Abortioneers (eers), thsnotsodailyherald (snot),and Abortion and Reproductive Rights Advocate (aarragh).

John Dunkle said...

I know Charles, and he's smart. But even smart people have to resort to absurdities to promote baby killing. Imagine, confusing proliferating dead cells with live ones! Think that's bad? His four other pro-death arguments are equally absurd. Here they are: 1) "John Dunkle and my father are sickos." 2) "Anyone who tries to save a life must be wiling to support that person until death." 3) "Killing young people is the best way to prevent later suffering." 4) "New Hampshire borders Vermont."

John Dunkle said...

8/31 snot

Wow! I scored -- two big pictures and three paragraphs! I'll just correct the errors here. Paragraph 1: Kate confuses the killers' helpers activists with the kayhaitchers in general. Everyone not prolife is a kayhaitcher (killer's helper). And the zombies who do nothing (prolife and pro-death) are worse than any of them.
Paragraph 2: I don't visit Jennifer or John with Gerry anymore. He gets too emotional and that could be dangerous. So, no Mass there.

John Dunkle said...

9/1 eers

I'm movin'! Anybody know a house for sale there?

John Dunkle said...

9/2 snot

really small, I'll bet

John Dunkle said...

9/2 eers

"Thank you for being there for me, and just think, it only cost me five hundred bucks!"

John Dunkle said...

9/4 snot

What? Now Kate, don't go erasing this stupid posting the way you erased those two this morning. (Actually, I think your one on Kathy was pretty funny.)

John Dunkle said...

9/4 snot

Having to call killing a child "pregnancy termination" and the place where she's killed a "health care clinic" leads to the anger that cause this ogress to lash out so.

John Dunkle said...

9/5 eers

Yes, most of the time it is the man's choice, isn't it.

John Dunkle said...

9/6 snot

Kate forgets that this holocaust is ongoing. If Dr. Mengele had switched sides during the last holocaust, he'd a been feted same as Bernard. That said, I never cottoned up to Bernard's attitude -- "Hey, listen to me. I killed tens of thousands! I'm boss man!"
Also, Kate is getting close to her one effective pro-death argument -- "You pro-lifers don't even believe abortion is murder. So why should we?"

John Dunkle said...

9/8 eers

Yeah, we'll throw that little doll smack hard against that wall. Her blood and brains will be all over the place. Yeah, we'll solve your problem.

John Dunkle said...

9/9,10 snot

Kate Ranieri, the Offensive Lineman, is at it again, protecting her quarterback, the killer inside the mill, by heaping dunghills of scorn on her enemies. I have another antagonist, calls himself Charles Gregory, who does the same thing ("we can kill anybody we want to because you prolifers are sickos"). Is Charles Kate?

John Dunkle said...

9/9 eers

There are some hands Dizzy can't hold, some backs she won't pat, some notes she'll never get, for sure -- those of the younger people she helps kill.

John Dunkle said...

9/10 snot (2)

Thank you, Kate. And happy holiday to you too, if you have one -- maybe January 22, 1973?

John Dunkle said...

9/10 (1) snot

Kate knows there's a difference between walking into a psychologist's office in the mistaken belief that this phony can help you and carrying a child into a killing chamber where a failed doctor will torture her to death. She does, doesn't she?

John Dunkle said...

9/10 eers

"horrifying chaos" -- yes that is what happens to the baby as the killer revs up the killing machine and secures opening to her place of refuge, and then begins to probe.

John Dunkle said...

9/11 snot

Kate refers here to Cindy who did not attack but was attacked -- by Ellen Bell. Ellen is turning into the most aggressive attack dog the killers have. A few weeks ago I intercepted a couple as they drove into the parking lot. A few words and they left, and the baby was safe.
As they backed out of the lot, I noticed Ellen outrunning Sharon to make the kill. I raised my arms, "You're too late, ladies, she got away." Sharon mumbled something about my getting up on the wrong side of the bed, but I still find it hard to look at Ellen and realize she has such acceleration!

John Dunkle said...

9/12 snot

I'll just comment on a couple of Kate's seemingly endless posts: no, Kate, the product of conception is not always called a fetus. Sometimes she's called an embryo and sometimes she's called Kate Ranieri.
Secondly, I did not say you should ignore us. I said you should disguise what about us most upsets you. That way I would not realize that "Mommy, don't let them pull off my arms and legs" is so effective. And I would not realize how powerful that Auschwitz sign is. (Teaching is in my blood. Even if aids my enemies, I can't help doing it.)

John Dunkle said...

9/11 snot

Kate is the pro-death Kathy: she has no idea what helps or harms her cause, this time by spreading Commander's damaging (for Ellen) observations. Let's call her Baffled.

John Dunkle said...

9/13 snot

How does one respond to such mishmash as today's three posts! Verbal diarrhea?

John Dunkle said...

9/14 snot

Snot posts twice today, the first about pro-death banners for clinics. Doesn't concern me -- I visit two Auschwitzes, no clinics. The second is the typical anti-Catholic blather from the intense anti-Catholic Kate.

John Dunkle said...

9/15 eers

"Roe v. Wade may never even be overturned..."
Ah, Sparks, such wishful thinking: it is only a matter of time.

John Dunkle said...

9/15 snot

A summary of Kate's friend's list of ways to kill fewer kids:

1. Poison women.
2. Make killing kids free.
3. Separate kids from their mothers.
4. Encourage pederasty and statuatory rape.
5. Mutilate men.
6. Throw money down the drain.
7. Kill the really young ones first.
8. Force businesses to join the killing regime.

Kate couldn't have said it better herself.

John Dunkle said...

9/14 aarragh

Why does my name come up? Me, the slinkiest, cowardliest, all-talkiest pro-lifer around! O Lord I am not worthy.

John Dunkle said...

9/16 eers

Some of you killers cannot help telling the truth, like me. Encouraging.

John Dunkle said...

9/17 snot (two posts, so far)

"A military commander"! The truth will out! It was bad enough when all those were men. Make a woman one and this is what you get.

So that's why she eschews the combat fatigues.

John Dunkle said...

9/18 snot

I couldn't get to the part about the children of the rapes. But nobody should be executed because of what her parents did. That's all Gerry was saying in the first video.

John Dunkle said...

9/20 snot

an example of how boring Kate can be when she doesn't get personal