Wednesday, January 26, 2011

Abortion is Murder, 8-13, March, 2011

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

March, 2011 Vol. 8 No. 13
PO Box 7424, Reading, PA 19603
Phone – 484-706-4375
Email –
Web –
Circulation – 91
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, $10 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, Michael F. Griffin #310249 Walton C.I., 691 Institution Rd, Defuniak Springs, FL 32433 9/11
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, P.O. Box 300, 3057 Easton Tpk., Waymart, PA 18472
7. Little, David SJRCC, 930 Old Black River Road, Saint John, NB E2J 4T3
8. Moose, Justin – Piedmont Regional Jail, PO Drawer 388, Farmville, VA 23901 (new)
9. Richardson, Alonzo Lee 12898-021, FCI Pollock Federal Correctional Institution, P.O. Box 4050, Pollock, LA 71467
10. Roeder, Scott P. 65192, PO Box 2, Lansing Kansas 66043
11. Ross, Michael, Custer County Jail, 1010 Main St., Miles City, Montana 59301
12. Rudolph, Eric 18282-058 US Pen. Max, Box 8500, Florence CO 81226-8500
13. Shannon, Rachelle 59755-065, FCI Waseca, Unit A, P.O. Box 1731, Waseca, MN 56093 3/31
14. Waagner, Clayton Lee 17258-039, United States Penitentiary, P.O. Box 1000, Lewisburg PA 17837 8/25

The Lord has asked people to make sacrifices related to opposing abortion which all but a handful have had too weak a heart to make. And they’ve looked for any pretense they could conjure up to claim that the sacrifice wasn’t required. They even deluded themselves, as people often do, into “believing” the pretense was real . . . When they get what they’ll get, they’ll fully deserve it. Peter Knight

Peter Knight's attack continues. Prolifers who ignore God's law because we are too afraid to disobey man's law are the target:
Since whilst ever there are abortionists, there will be deaths for their victims, by demanding that you allow there to be abortionists, the government also demands that you submit and allow that there be death for their victims. How easy is that to see? Consequently, they’ve got both barrels aimed at you. The government demands that you be pro life for abortionists, and since y has an equal value and is the equivalent of z, if they can get you to be pro life for abortionists, then they’ve got you to be pro death for their victims. All this is derived from the very obvious fact, which can be seen in practical operation at every single abortion center, that when you make the decision to allow there to be abortionists, you’ve decided to allow there to be death for their victims.
So the question arises, in regards to abortion, just how many does the government demand that you be pro death for? The government permits you to remove from abortion centers those unborn babies who are brought there by very weak-minded parents who have been incapable of making a firm decision whether they want the abortionist to do what abortionists do or not. These ones, with such indecisive, unstable parents, are the only ones it is possible to remove by complying with the government’s objections, and they are the only ones who are removed. They amount to about one percent of those who are taken to abortion centers. By complying with the government’s restrictions, those who attempt this removal process do not have a hope in hell of removing the other 99%, and they are destined for the scrap heap. You cannot sell something like this to people who just do not want what you’re selling. So that one percent is the number the government permits you to be pro life for. Once again you may see this one to ninety-nine result in practical operation at any abortion center where picketers are present. There’s always been many, many less that one percent of the total number removed though, since in reality picketers are in attendance at very few abortion centers.
So there is a demand by the government that you be at least 99% pro-death, and provision is made for you to be as much as one percent pro life. That 99% translates to another 1.4 million babies in the rubbish bins of the USA by the end of the year. That’s what it translated to last year. That’s how many the government required you to be pro-death for the year before, and the year before, and the one before, and on and on and on. And yes, as you would probably realize after 38 years of it, if you once again decide to sign the government’s pro death contract, that’s what the inevitable cost next year and the year after that too.
The only way it is possible to avoid signing that pro death contract, and change that 1.4 million result, is to adopt the active policy and make the activated decision that all abortionists should be dead. Unlike some people, the government did have the very minimal amount of sense necessary to work out that whilst ever you choose to allow abortionists, you, at the request of the government, are choosing to give your consent to the killing of 1.4 million victims each year. And, attesting to their “superiority” over God and his Golden Laws.

That’s the easy part. The two thirds to come are tough.

Terry Hughes died recently. He taught science at the University of Maine and was an active pro-lifer, I never realized just how active. Here’s a letter he sent to friends:

Dear Hans and Julia: Yesterday I returned to Rapid City for one of my IV treatments for pancreatic cancer. The nurses found all veins in both hands had hardened or collapsed from earlier treatments so I had to have a minor operation to install a hose through a vein from my upper arm to my heart. In the process the doctors and assistants asked about all my scars. So I told them. I've known you both a long time, you've supported my career, so I owe you an explanation too.
The s-shaped scar on the inside of my right elbow was from an attempt to reconnect my right bicep, which had been ripped out by six cops who arrested me when I and 200 others were engaged in a peaceful sit-in at an Abortion Auschwitz in Providence, Rhode Island. That attempt was made after I spent a full field season in Antarctica with the detached bicep.
The scars on my left shoulder were from an operation to cut away arthritic spurs on my left shoulder joint that developed after it had been dislocated after cops who cuffed my hands behind my back, put a long billy club under the chain, and dragged me across pavements, up and down the stairs of police wagons, and (later) across the floors and up and down stairs in prisons.
Scars on my right knee were from knee-replacement surgery after cops had twisted my knee in un-natural directions while arresting me.
There are no scars from the times cops shoved their thumbs into my eyes, so many times my vision is now permanently blurred when it had been better than 20 - 20.

All of these injuries are a result of legal pain-compliance techniques cops use to force people to cooperate in being arrested. In my case, a baby would be ripped to pieces and murdered if I cooperated. I can endure a lot of pain if I can delay that from happening, and I certainly won't be an accomplice to it by complying. I'll let them murder me first. At least I'll be in solidarity with the victims.
You may believe, like many people, that abortion liberates women. That "liberation" consists in having their bodies being strip-mined of human beings in surgical abortions and made a toxic dump site in which no human being can survive in chemical abortions. All so men can have their three-second thrill without any consequences. Professional environmentalists love abortion. The fewer people the better. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg gave the real reason for legalizing abortion
in an interview published by the New York Times last year. She stated it was to get rid of "people we don't want too many of."
To that end, over 70 percent of Abortion Auschwitzes are in Black and Hispanic neighborhoods. Federal, State, and City Governments give over $400,000,000 every year to Planned Parenthood for this purpose (funding much increased by Obama, our Black president, and much more as Obamacare--Obamascare--goes into effect).
By the way, Bev. and I took two dozen sexually abused women into our home, aged from 2 to 34, and all but four pregnant. One had aborted nine babies by age 20 and ended up with cervical cancer. Abortion does not liberate women. It liberates men (and it doesn't even liberate men; it only encourages their selfish behavior).
As you probably know, I've had trouble getting much of my funded research published. Lately it's gotten so bad the editor of Quaternary Science Reviews couldn't find even one qualified reviewer in fourteen he contacted who was willing to just read a manuscript I submitted that is pertinent to the debate over catastrophic man-caused global warming: "A Simple Holistic Hypothesis for the Self-Destruction of Ice Sheets." If it gets published, it will be one of my most important and topical papers in my half-century as a scientist, including my years as a graduate student at Northwestern, as anyone who reads it will see.
In my reply to getting your Christmas Card, I mentioned the work I've tried to get published in 2010. At the end I added a short sentence, "Hughes versus the World." You may have found that puzzling. Many of my scientific colleagues are aware of my response to legalized abortion, especially those who have read the last chapter, Eternity Bound, of my autobiography, ICE MAN, either the original 2009 version or the 2010 version edited by John Splettstoesser and Henry Brecher. I can't help but wonder if their knowledge has led to some of them refusing to review my manuscripts, or to recommend rejection if they
do review them. In the past, reviewers have for the most part made quite constructive criticisms that made the manuscripts much better, as anyone can see who reads my Acknowledgments at the end of my papers. That still happens, but it doesn't account for refusing even to read my manuscripts and sometimes being "assassins" if they do submit reviews.
Lately, these kinds of reviews have affected the careers of co-authors, including graduate and undergraduate students
(Katherine Pingree and Max Lurie), new glaciologists (Aitbala Sargent--two Ph.D.'s), and top glaciologists (James Fastook). Fortunately, the editors of some journals have recognized this (the Journal of Geophysical Research, Quaternary Research, and Quaternary Science Reviews being outstanding in this regard), and found ways to get our work published anyway.
So perhaps you can understand from both these experiences in my personal and professional life that sometimes it seems to me like "Hughes versus the World." And yes, I know many scientists criticize reviews of their work. But I think I'm unique in also being a scientist who has been very public in a contentious social issue that has nothing to do with my scientific work. It's especially damaging when it affects my co-authors who agree to work with me in good faith. Best wishes in 2011, Terry

(Anniversary of Roe. v. Wade, 2011) I find it impossible to avoid sarcasm when I talk about the American Christian response to legalized abortion. That's because the American Christian response has been double-minded (on the one hand we say God wants legalized abortion stopped, on the other hand we do nothing with the power to stop it) from the first day American Christians were confronted with the fact that the federal government of the USA through the agency of the Supreme Court had literally legalized the murder of unborn children. How else except with sarcasm can I respond to the specter of Christians who claim to be instruments of the will of the Lord Jesus Christ when those Christians have found a way to tolerate such murder for 38 years?
Did I say tolerate? I should have said Christians not only tolerate the murder of unborn babies, they SUPPORT the government that authorizes such murder. In fact, the determination to support the federal government's increasingly insane "legal logic" has been the only consistent part for the last 38 years of the American Christian teaching on the meaning of what the federal government of the USA has done.
For the latest example that explains what I'm talking about (only one example in a string of similar examples that can be tracked back to the day the Supreme Court issued its decision in Roe v. Wade) look at how the pro-life movement is crowing today about having had an abortionist and his staff arrested for murder. Today on Roe v. Wade day, the headlines (everybody who thinks about it knows the timing of the headlines have been decided long ago) read, "Abortion Doctor Charged With 8 Murders".
And at first glance everyone thinks this is a great example of how the pro-life movement is making progress in bringing justice to bear on the plight of unborn babies who are being legally murdered by the millions in the USA. After all, the abortionist and his staff were caught red-handed murdering babies. They were arrested, refused bail, and today sit waiting for the wheels of American Justice to squash them into prison for the rest of their caught-red-handed-in-murder lives.
Nobody but me seems to even have noticed that the arrest of the abortionist and his staff not only does nothing to protect the life of one unborn baby, but is in fact a validation of the idea that the existing criminal justice system in the USA is worthy of the support of Christians.
Do you see what I'm looking at? Arresting and prosecuting a person for murder of born babies has literally nothing whatsoever to do with the battle that abortionist abolitionists have been fighting for the last 38 years. Nothing! Everyone knows it is murder to murder a born child! There is no argument--YET!--about whether born people deserve the protection of the American criminal justice system if somebody murders them.
When pro-life Christians get all righteous feeling because they have helped arrest a murderer of born children, they do nothing whatsoever to protect the unborn babies being legally butchered in this nation. Can you see that? Do you understand that we are supposed to be focusing our energy, resources, lives, fortune and sacred honor on defending the UNBORN babies who are being legally murdered in this nation? It's already understood to be illegal to murder born babies! Can you see why I can't avoid sarcasm when I deal with such self-imposed ignorance, such studied ignorance?
But, as this present arrest of the abortionist murderer of the born babies proves, pro-life Christians have an amazing ability to ignore, literally ignore, the unborn babies by shifting attention to the pro-life movement's ability to prosecute the murder of born babies.
All the pro-life movement does when it supports prosecution of murderers of born babies is support the existing criminal justice system! The very system we are supposed to be trying to change! Furthermore, giving Christians whose greatest desire in life is to ignore the fact that we the people are culpable in the slaughter of every baby being legally butchered in this nation a way to feel like we are defending the unborn babies who are literally being torn limb from limb under sanction and ORDER of the federal government of the USA while all we're actually doing is helping the government prosecute the murder of born children makes the whole world see that this generation of American Christians is in Denial--clinical denial, fleshly clinical denial. Rather than being an example of the Body of Christ on this green earth, our response to legalized abortion in this generation proves we are just like everybody on earth, totally shut off from the Spirit of Truth, totally committed to serving the flesh as the god of this world.
This criticism is not some Sunday School class: I'm trying to get you to see how our ignorance, how our ability to confuse these things literally perpetuates the slaughter of the unborn babies. Can you see what I'm talking about?
Okay, if you don't see it, here's how: the very feeling that pro-life Christians are making progress in helping the unborn babies who are being murdered when they successfully prosecute a murderer of born children totally takes the focus off what Christians should be fighting and makes Christians the fervent supporters of the American status quo--a status quo that allows any unwanted, unborn baby to be butchered alive up to the moment some appendage of that baby slips out the birth canal of its mother. When we act like the criminal justice system is working because it prosecutes murderers of born people, we literally take our eyes of the GOAL we are all supposed to focused on. The GOAL is to outlaw abortion, the murder of unborn people. Murder of born people is already against the law!
It is this process of continuing support of the federal government, the government that has legalized the murder of unborn babies, that Satan has used to allow this generation of Christians to feel like they're forever making progress in the battle against legalized abortion when, in fact, it's easier today for a mother to murder her unborn baby than it was 38 years ago. Literally any mother who wants to murder her baby can do so in this nation. There is not a State, City, or town where that unwanted child can find a place of refuge. Nowhere in the USA. That ease of slaughter occurs because Virtually Nobody is willing to focus on the federal government of the USA as the enemy of God that has to be corrected or destroyed. No third option.
Christian pro-life leaders are THIS VERY DAY parading themselves in front of a new generation of Christians talking about all the awesome PROGRESS that has been made by the pro-life movement.
I'm telling you, I don't know how to restrain the sarcasm that rises in my craw in the face of all this self-congratulation I hear from pro-life leaders and pro-life followers. It's enough to gag a maggot if the maggot had the capacity to see the bizarre, utterly macabre dance with death that the annual anniversary of Roe v. Wade has become in this nation. Neal Horsley

Neal, with Peter above, is obviously right here, isn’t he? Pro-lifers are more responsible for the legal killing of our young than those who support the culture of death, aren’t they? Only the incarcerated escape responsibility, don’t they?

The “Syllabus of Errors” concludes (from December):

63. It is lawful to refuse obedience to legitimate princes, and even to rebel against them.
64. The violation of any solemn oath, as well as any wicked and flagitious action repugnant to the eternal law, is not only not blamable but is altogether lawful and worthy of the highest praise when done through love of country.
65. The doctrine that Christ has raised marriage to the dignity of a sacrament cannot be at all tolerated.
66. The Sacrament of Marriage is only a something accessory to the contract and separate from it, and the sacrament itself consists in the nuptial benediction alone. -
67. By the law of nature, the marriage tie is not indissoluble, and in many cases divorce properly so called may be decreed by the civil authority.
68. The Church has not the power of establishing diriment impediments of marriage, but such a power belongs to the civil authority by which existing impediments are to be removed.
69. In the dark ages the Church began to establish diriment impediments, not by her own right, but by using a power borrowed from the State.
70. The canons of the Council of Trent, which anathematize those who dare to deny to the Church the right of establishing diriment impediments, either are not dogmatic or must be understood as referring to such borrowed power.
71. The form of solemnizing marriage prescribed by the Council of Trent, under pain of nullity, does not bind in cases where the civil law lays down another form, and declares that when this new form is used the marriage shall be valid.
72. Boniface VIII was the first who declared that the vow of chastity taken at ordination renders marriage void. --
73. In force of a merely civil contract there may exist between Christians a real marriage, and it is false to say either that the marriage contract between Christians is always a sacrament, or that there is no contract if the sacrament be excluded.
74. Matrimonial causes and espousals belong by their nature to civil tribunals.
75. The children of the Christian and Catholic Church are divided amongst themselves about the compatibility of the temporal with the spiritual power.
76. The abolition of the temporal power of which the Apostolic See is possessed would contribute in the greatest degree to the liberty and prosperity of the Church.
77. In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship.
78. Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship.
79. Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all, of overtly and publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism.
80. The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization. You’re welcome, Jimbo

Cal writes from Hawaii:

John, I had a chuckle when you wrote in the December 2010 issue, "Wow! Many of these 59 grounds are even longer than “B”!. Can you imagine what work went into this?" I had a chuckle because apparently Jimbo filed the whole thing--in the dumpster! I still have not heard from him as to why he decided to go with something else instead. But he still has a chance if he wants to pursue it as a straight habeas corpus case, not a motion attacking sentence. Or, he could add it as an amendment.
I also wanted to ask if you have had any contact with the Moose. My letter to him was returned. See the January 2011 issue for a copy. I have re-sent it to him at his new address at the Piedmont Regional Jail, but I have not received any response. I would bet the judge disregards the plea deal and gives him the maximum sentence anyway. That is what happened with Evans, who got 40 years. So the plea deal is really just a carrot-on-a-stick. The same happened with Scotty. He thought he would be allowed to confess in court to a voluntary manslaughter defense, but after he took the stand to confess, the judge reeled in the carrot and slapped him with the maximum sentence--a hard 50!
The moral of the story: Duplicity has become the rule. So I would advise the Moose to take his chances with the First Amendment. At worst he will get the maximum sentence he will probably get anyway. But at least he will get to raise important issues in the process.
I also wrote the Moose's court appointed attorney, but he has been unresponsive. I feel the Moose needs to stand up for his First Amendment rights, as outlined in my letter. If child pornographers have First Amendment rights, why shouldn't those who actually want to protect children instead? I think this is an important issue to raise, and one that deserves national attention. But if he does not withdraw his plea, he will lose the opportunity.
Perhaps you could make the trip to NC and talk with him in person. Ideally, he needs to withdraw his plea before March.

Cal’s second letter arrived last week:

John, What I think is happening here is that the federal government has taken a new step. For example, with electronic stalking, the government is now crawling at will
under people's cars at night and attaching electronic tracking devices without a warrant. The courts then chime in with a chorus that goes: "Dey can do dat. Dey can do dat. Let us turn our backs." But this does not appear to be the only area where the government has taken a new step. In the old school, the government used informants to obtain convictions. But in politically motivated prosecutions, the government faces an additional problem: Preventing politically sensitive issues from being drawn out in court and reaching the ears of the public.
So let's analyze the government's new strategy.
You find a small fry to pick on, perhaps someone a little
confused. You publicize the arrest to make it look like you
are really cracking down, and that the people who have
political motivations contrary to the government's are
dangerous nutjobs like the guy under arrest. Sounds simple, but it could backfire. What if the defendant is coaxed by someone with legal savvy into pursuing legal strategies that turn it all around and rub everything back in the government's face? What if the defendant uses the trial and related procedures to spotlight the issues? How would you avoid this?
Well, let's say you have a prominent political dissident who gets a lot of publicity for his anti-abortion views but then gets himself into a bit of trouble. The government cuts the guy a deal--if he will work as the government's conman. From then on, when they arrest someone on anti-abortion charges, the conman serves as the arrestee's confidant.
Because the conman is known as a prominent activist, the arrestee thinks he is on his side. But little does he know that he is working as the government's conman by tricking the arrestee into taking legal courses that avoid any meaningful confrontation with the government over the issues. For example, the conman might convince the arrestee to take a plea bargain, so that no issues come out in court and there are no appeals. Then, to top it all off, the judge disregards the "bargain" and doles out the maximum sentence anyway! The government has make its point without having to face any (potentially damaging) points from the other side.
So, when politically sensitive issues are involved in the prosecution, it appears the government isn't just relying on informants anymore. Instead, the government now appears to be using conmen, who trick the arrestee into pursing legal strategies that steer clear of the issues.
When the government is finally caught at it, the courts will probably chime in with the same chorus they use now after being caught doing electronic stalking: "Dey can do dat. Dey can do dat. Let us turn our backs." After all, the original prosecutorial conmen have long been the public defenders anyway. So why not allow a little outside help as well? In return, the conman is let off the hook, or rewarded in some other way, just like traditional informants have been.
In the Moose's case, the First Amendment issues are VERY prominent, and have GREAT potential to be
politically DAMAGING to the government. For example, how can the First Amendment protect child pornography advocates more so than child protection advocates?
But by convincing the Moose to plead guilty, no issues will be raised. There will be no trial, no jury, and no appeal. The public will never have to learn about the
political issues, and there is no risk of a backfire. To top
things off, the judge will probably dole out the maximum
sentence anyway, or something close to it. For example,
Evans received 40 years in return for his guilty plea.
There can be other variations as well. For example, the conman can get the defendant to confess.
In Kopp's case, the federal government employed his state attorney as a conman to coax him to confess in return for favors for federal defendants who were his friends. In other words, the government obtained his conviction by way of conning him through a breach of attorney-client privilege.
Remember, a gang that kills its own children to cover up for the sexual imbecility of its females is not going to lose sleep when it stoops so low as to cheat at cards. The government's desperate effort to keep abortion policy intact has led to all sorts of political cheating. Cal

When adults point to an aborted baby picture and say, “Kids see that,” I say, “It’s for the kids; we’re brainwashed.” Neal elaborates:

Why Parents Hate Dead Fetus Pictures

Parents hate the pictures because they force parents to lie to their children. It's one thing for a parent to tell a helpful lie like Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy so that your child can be delighted and comforted in the world, but it's quite another thing to lie to your child when your child knows full well you are lying, not to serve them, but to protect yourself.
I focused on this subject because I recently received a message from an irate father. He said:

I went to a local restaurant last night and before I was seated, my 2 sons and I went to the bathroom to wash our hands. My boys are 9 and 6. My oldest turned to me and said dad, what is abortion???? He had found a pamphlet of yours...My question to you is this, is there any other way to get a point across that will not completely mess up the mindset of a 6 and 9 year old???? I honestly feel like you need to redirect your tactics.
I was so MAD last night that I would have been ready to fight the person that put that pamphlet in the bathroom. Please think about what reality is. Yes abortion is wrong but kids do not need the violent pictures in your ads. My kids do not comprehend life or death. Please read this and think about what you are doing to the innocence of the children who see this!!!!!!!!!!!

Here's how I replied to the man:

You know as well as I do that if your son is old enough to ask you about abortion, he is beginning to do what you say he is not capable of doing, namely, "comprehend life or death."

What you are really angry about is you are having to explain to your six year old child why he lives in a nation where his daddy lets people get away with murder. What you call anger is really shame that you feel for yourself because you are having to try to find words that will allow your son to avoid having to figure out that his daddy is a man who allows little babies even younger than your son to be legally murdered every day around you.

The anger you feel toward me is the spirit of murder you are collaborating with every day of the week because you do nothing with the power to arrest the legalized murder you consent to.

The real tragedy is when you figure out how to explain things to your son you will end up teaching him that it's all right for him to be the kind of man who collaborates with people who make a living killing defenseless little babies.

Unless you want your son to have to grow up to be the kind of man you are now, you need to change and join us in arresting legalized abortion. (tbc)


John Dunkle said...

1/25 nots (thenotsodailyherald)

“reification”! “fictive”! please use a dictionary before you post stuff.

John Dunkle said...

1/28 nots

It says that there are not enough prolifers.

John Dunkle said...

1/28 nots

Kate, you're embarrassing yourself again. To use as an authority someone who would write "that fewer than 1 percent consider abortion a priority," and then to copy her, embarrasses even me, your opponent. Months ago I offered to be your editor, and the offer still stands.

John Dunkle said...

1/30 nots

Ooooh -- all this just because I tried to help you express yourself?

John Dunkle said...

1/31 eers

Gotta say good-bye, Young Ladies. Been fun talking at each other. I'm quitting you and Kate (thenotsodailyherald) because it's just getting too much fun (and time consuming) over at

John Dunkle said...

I no longer read what those preaching to the choir say, The Abortioneers and thenotsodailyherald, because is so much more interesting, and time consuming. All of my comments here from now on will be directed to

1/29 Pat, did this letter arrive pre- or post-Monica?

John Dunkle said...

2/12 aarragh (to get here go to

"I believe abortion must remain legal in this country."

A prolifer accepting that, Pat, is like an abolitionist accepting this, "I believe slavery must remain legal in this country."

Now do you know why, when you promised to write a speech acceptable to both sides in this war, I said, "It'll never happen"?

What you say before and after that, and no one could have said it better, is meaningless.

John Dunkle said...

2/14 aaarragh (

Boss, sure it’s your blog and you can do what you want with it, but I’m not going to respond if you don’t post. The next time I email something that doesn’t appear, I’m gone (What a threat!).

John Dunkle said...

You might have figured out by this time that I no longer read They followed Kate's lead quicker than I thought they would and stopped posting my comments.