Thursday, March 10, 2011

Abortion is Murder, 8-14, March 2, 2011

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

March 2, 2011 Vol. 8 No. 14
PO Box 7424, Reading, PA 19603
Phone – 484-706-4375
Email –
Web –
Circulation – 94
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, 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

When adults say “Kids see that!” while pointing to the aborted baby picture I’m holding, I say, “It’s for the kids; we’re brainwashed. I want kids to ask Mom and Dad who pulled off that baby’s head.” Neal Horsley’s elaboration continues:

God has given all little children created in His image the ability to instinctively grasp some truth. That is what the Lord Jesus Christ was trying to communicate when He said, "...Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven." As soon as little children see a picture of the mangled body of an aborted fetus, little children identify instinctively that the fetus looks like them. And they know something terribly wrong has happened. Little children instantly feel great fear because they know that if one little child like themselves could be torn apart, the same thing might happen to them. That is why parents hate it when little children see pictures of dead babies. They have to find words to calm their children's fears.
But in a nation that has legalized abortion, the only words that have the power to calm the children’s' fears are lies. Parents have to say things like, "Those pictures are not really people: they are what we call a fetus. Now a fetus might look like a person but the fetus is not a person like we are. A person is not really a person like you and I until after they are born. There are crazy people like Neal Horsley out there who think fetuses are people like you and I, but they are not. Right now the government allows crazy people like Neal Horsley to do crazy things like show those pictures in public. But I promise you son, we are going to stop people like that from frightening little children like you. They are evil and we are going to stop them. As a matter of fact son, if Neal Horsley was here right now, I'd beat him up for scaring you."
It is when hearing words like that from their parent that the little child comes to a fateful crossroad in life. The bond of communication between a parent and child is the literal lifeline for the child. Every little child understands instinctively that they need help in staying alive: they know their weakness, both physically and mentally. Just as they have enormous difficulty accomplishing physical tasks, they have much trouble understanding the meaning of things around them. The need to find some stronger and wiser helper is an ever present drive within young people. To find a parent that the child can trust is the most comforting experience a child can find.
As children grow in their language ability, the parent's words become perceived by the child to be a lifeline, a strong guideline that can quickly avert or repair danger. As long as the child can trust the words of the parent to be connected to reality, the child is comforted by the presence of one who is not weak, one who is not confused, one who does not feel baffled and threatened and defenseless in the world. "Thank you daddy for loving me like you do," such a grateful child would tell his daddy.
But what happens if the ability that God has given a child to identify the truth comes into conflict with the words told to the child by a trusted parent?
That is the truly fateful crossroad a parent who lies to their child arrives at, child in hand.

The example of the child in hand in the picture at the start of this article is a perfect example of a crossroad legalized abortion causes every child in this nation to arrive at very early in their growth as language bearing creatures. In a nation that has legalized abortion, it is inevitable that one way or another a child will see a picture--whether pictorial or verbal changes nothing, there is no difference in the image drawn in the mind of a child--that they instinctively understand seems to show a creature like themselves who has been terribly mangled and obviously killed, yet that creature is being held up in public for all to see. WHAT IS THAT?! is an absolutely guaranteed response when a child first encounters such a picture.
What the parent tells the child determines, perhaps for all time, which road the child will walk down. Will the child be able to trust the sense of truth they felt when they saw the picture of the mangled body, or will they trust the parents’ words? Make no mistake about it. The child knows they are in a strange situation. They would not have asked about the picture unless they had grasped there there was something in that picture that needed to be explained, and explained quickly. What the parent tells the child about that picture becomes a foundational view of reality for that child.
Does the child learn that even if somebody looks exactly like themselves--except for a distinction or two--that the "somebody" is not to be seen to be a person like themselves unless their parent gives the okay?
If you will think about this subject, you will see that the racist view of the world begins with an encounter very similar to the one pictured at the start of this article. A child sees someone who "feels" like they are a person like themselves but, for whatever reason, their parent teaches them to ignore their "feeling" and instead realize that there is no common personhood to be seen there.
Just as in the Old South most every caucasian was trained from early age to believe there was no true common personhood between the Negro and the Caucasian, so too today are we training our children to refuse personhood to the thing in the belly of a mother that when born we all call a person.
If you think about that preceding sentence, you will see why little children instinctively know that a fetus is a person. The Holy Spirit provides each child with the ability to identify the fetus as a person like themselves because the fetus is exactly like themselves, except unborn. It takes the lies of parents to quench the Presence of the Holy Spirit in the little children Jesus loved. And just as those lies quench the Presence of the Holy Spirit, so, too, do they destroy the lives of little children, born and unborn.
God deliver us from such lying parents!

I think I told you that I spend time responding to posts on a pro-death blog, Pat Richards, the poster, is the clearest thinking killers’ helper I’ve ever encountered. Here’s Pat’s best yet:The “Justifiable Homicide” Crowd

A few weeks ago, a reader asked me to delve a little more into the group of anti-abortion folks who claim that it is “justifiable homicide” to kill a doctor who performs abortions. The theory suggests that if you believe that it is a “baby” or “person” in the uterus and someone is going to terminate it, then you are justified in stopping the “killer,” just like you would stop someone from killing a real, already-born person.
Let me first say that this group is clearly a fringe group of the pro-life movement. I have participated in a lot of discussions with those who oppose abortion and the vast, vast majority of them believe these folks are a bunch of kooks. But then there are a few out there…
The first time I heard about this theory was after the murder of Doctor David Gunn in March, 1993. The murder was front page news everywhere as it was the first time an abortion doctor had been killed. Things became extremely tense all across the country, abortion providers were on high alert and we were all waiting for someone else to blast away. Then, out of the blue comes a soft spoken minister from Pensacola named Paul Hill. I later learned that right after the murder, perhaps sensing an opportunity to get some exposure, he called a producer at “The Donohue Show” (the pioneer of talk shows) and told her that he actually believed that Michael Griffin, Doctor Gunn’s assassin, was “justified” in doing what he did. Of course, the producer, always looking for something sensational, immediately booked him on the show. Paul Hill sat right next to me on the show that day and told the crowd point blank that it was okay to kill Doctor Gunn and other abortion doctors.
Soon thereafter, Paul and a few others saw an opportunity to scare the crap out of abortion providers, no doubt hoping that many of them would leave the field. So, they formed a loose knit group called “Defensive Action.” They gathered about 30 names on a petition from people who believed in the “justifiable homicide” defense. But they were careful. They never said “I will kill a doctor” because that would have landed them in jail. Instead, they just said it was “okay” to kill an abortion doctor, no doubt hoping that they would inspire some less-than-stable person to take up the cause.
Right after the first murder, a number of abortion doctors left the field and when word got out about this group, others fled. They were the ones who had always been on the edge anyway, so they were ripe to leave. Others, however, bought guns, bullet proof vests and other defensive devices. They were ready to do battle. One doctor out west walked me through his clinic and showed me how he had hidden a Magnum 357 in EVERY room in his clinic. “If they come in here shooting, I’m taking them all with me,” he vowed. Of course, the Defensive Action crowd got a lot of publicity. After all, fear sells newspapers, right? And Paul Hill and his crowd fed off of the hysteria.
But, while I cannot prove it, I believe to this day that they never all got together in one room and plotted murders. They were too smart for that, they knew they were being watched. Meanwhile, I had an interesting reaction to this theory. I was talking to Paul Hill one day in a hotel and told him “you know, Paul, in some weird way I think your theory is consistent with your belief. If you firmly believe that they submit and do things in a manner which reflects a true pro-life attitude, that a woman is carrying a ‘baby’ or a ‘person’, then I can see how you believe you should defend it from its impending death.” I added that it was a ridiculous notion in real life, of course, but “if we’re just talking about a non-actionable idea, then I hear what you are saying.” The next day, Paul held a press conference to let the world know that I, a staffer at the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, “supported the ‘justifiable homicide’ theory.” So much for a casual discussion about a ridiculous theory.
Of course, months later Paul picked up a gun and killed Doctor Baird Britton and he attempted to make his defense the “justifiable homicide” theory. The judge did not allow him to offer it. The movement, and that’s a stretch to call it that, quickly died down when their leader was executed in the chair a short while later.

Another reason I like Pat’s blog is I can respond without being ignored or edited: This is so good I’ll take it paragraph by paragraph.

Paragraph 1: “…if you believe that it is a ‘baby’ or ‘person’ in the uterus and someone is going to terminate it, then you are justified in stopping the ‘killer,’ just like you would stop someone from killing a real, already-born person.”

This is it exactly, Pat, except for “real.” Why did you have to insert that lie?

“Welcome back, John. Not sure what you mean. Aren’t you and I ‘real?’ Geez, i didnt realize you folks read every friggin word I write…”

Sure we’re real, Pat. Common now. What you’re saying, though, is the people you’re helping to kill, and we’re trying to protect, are not real.

“good point.”

Paragraph 2: “I have participated in a lot of discussions with those who oppose abortion and the vast, vast majority of them believe these folks are a bunch of kooks.”

Right again. That’s why I put more blame on us, not you, for the unprecedented, forty-year and continuing, slaughter of young people.

“Keep the analysis coming! Did you sign the Defensive Action petition, John?”

No one asked me.

Paragraph 3: “Paul Hill sat right next to me on the show that day and told the crowd point blank that it was okay to kill Doctor Gunn and other abortion doctors.”

Good for Paul. I would add “morally okay but maybe not strategically.” I would add that, probably, because I’m a coward.

Paragraph 4: Good. Of course I would replace “less-than-stable” with heroic.

Paragraph 5: “Right after the first murder (sic), a number of abortion doctors left the field and when word got out about this group, others fled.”

Just imagine the number of people alive today because of Paul Hill.

Paragraph 6: “you know, Paul, in some weird way I think your theory is consistent with your belief. If you firmly believe that the woman is carrying a ‘baby’ or a ‘person’, then I can see how you believe you should defend it from its impending death.”

Exactly, but just try to get that through the thick skulls of “the vast, vast, majority.”

Paragraph 7: again, exactly

Sure, I know, they’re trying to set me up, but the opportunity they give me to respond overwhelms any qualms I have about that. Besides, I haven’t lost a case in court yet! ---------------------------------------------------------------

Dear John, The cover of Time magazine recently showed a picture of an 18-year old Afghan woman named Bibi Aisha, who had her nose cut off by her husband. There are many examples in the world of those who have been victims of family violence, for example, John Bobbitt. But what makes Bibi's case different is that this was a "legal" act. So when her nose was cut off, she had no one to turn to. Why? Because the supreme law of the land, which in Afghanistan is called the Taliban, legally authorized it. But her husband was not ordered to cut off her nose. Instead, the Taliban ruled that it was her husband's right to choose. The Taliban gave him "freedom of choice" to cut off her nose. And that is what men like him are fighting to preserve in Afghanistan: freedom of choice.
In our country, the supreme law of the land is not called the Taliban. We call it the Supreme Court of the United States. I recently read the story of an American woman named Gianna Jessen. She is a lot like Bibi. In America, our version of the Taliban has authorized child homicide to cover up for embarrassing pregnancies, to maintain the outward appearances of pregnancy standards despite a climate of sexual revolution. As a consequence, Gianna was the victim of a "botched" abortion. Her picture should be on the cover of Time magazine, next to Bibi's. It is the picture of victims who still await the medical care needed to reconstruct their lives, to make their bodies whole again, like they were before someone carried out a "choice" authorized by the supreme law of the land. Like Bibi, Gianna had no one to turn to, because in America this butchery is a "legal" act authorized by the U.S. version of the Taliban.
Just like some Afghan men are fighting for freedom of choice to cut off their wives noses, some American women are fighting for freedom of choice to kill their own children. They support America's version of the Taliban, just like Bibi's husband supports the Afghan version. Yet though American soldiers are fighting in Afghanistan to save women like Bibi from the Taliban over there, ironically not a single one is fighting in the U.S. to save women like Gianna from America's version of the Taliban. Cal Mr. Eurica Califorrnia

Peter Knight continues his attack on us prolifers who will not combat Satan forcefully: Just as an anti-abortion government would always demand that people submit and do things in a manner which reflect a true anti-abortion attitude, so too, any pro-abortion government was always going to demand that you submit and do things in a manner which reflects a true pro-abortion attitude. Once again, how easy is that to see? To do things as the government demands in a manner which reflects a true pro-abortion attitude, in a manner which is pro-death for many and pro-life for so few, can only make you one thing, pro-abortion. You might say subserviently pro-abortion, or compliantly pro-abortion, but no matter what adjective you put in front of it, pro-abortion is pro-abortion.
Just the same as the one who abandons the sheep to the wolves has zero right to claim that he is the shepherd of the sheep, so too when a group of people know in advance that 1.4 million unborn children will be slaughtered by abortionists in the next year, and they make not even the slightest attempt to pull the trigger on their attackers, they have zero right to claim they are anti-abortion.
Mistakenly, you may have thought you were pro-life but the minute you decide to do as the wolves in the pro-abortion government said, and abandon the lambs, the minute you made the decision to defraud 99% of God’s persecuted unborn children of the assistance you owed them under his Goden Rule, abortionists, and those who assist them, were the only ones you could any longer be pro-life for. Them, and the paltry one percent, as you compliantly allowed the government to lead the rest of the lambs off to slaughter.
Tragically, and disgracefully, those who have accepted enslavement to the government and assess themselves as being anti-abortion have been conditioned to see this as a good. Take, for example, Neal Horsley’s comment: “To save one from such barbaric butchery is a good thing. To save 541 is 541 times better than a good thing. I really believe the previous words” (December AIM).
That’s not what I believe though, and nothing like it. I’ve not permitted anyone to subject me to the same type of conditioning which Neal Horsley and many others have been and I see things a much different way. When God has given people the tools to save many, many thousands, as is the case here, to save one from the butchery is not a good thing. Disaster and utter failure is all that it is. And to save 541 when you have been given the tools to save many, many thousands, that does not make the disaster and utter failure 541 times better. It makes it no better at all. Until it is recognized as a disaster and utter failure, and nothing else besides, no progress can be made.
So, John, when abortionists pleaded, and pleaded, and pleaded with you to give them death, when they told you, “Choose death for us or you’ll be choosing life for our many victims,” why didn’t you and the falsely named pro-life movement give them what they begged you for? Why did you decide instead to choose death for the innocent lambs? Were you following God’s law there and doing for his precious unborn children what you would want others to do for you, or did you decide to throw God’s law into the rubbish bin so you could be enslaved to the government’s z grade law?
At which stage of the enslavement process was it, John, that you developed this supreme reverence of yours for the government and its z grade law? List for me, and list for the good Lord too, the main reasons why you decided to agree with the government that God gave you his Golden Rule so that they could prove their “superiority” by getting you to have a shit on it each and every day at their request. And even more importantly, tell me, and tell the good Lord, why you unashamedly preached the fake gospel to others that the Christian thing to do was for them to have a shit in his law as well.
Matthew 7-12, God’s Golden Rule, is of course far from the only occasion mentioned in the Bible that God’s people were called upon to do justice – MK 6:6-8; LK 11:4-21; PS 82-3; IS 1:17; JS 61: 8; and Amos 5:24 are just a handful of the many. In regards to abortion, and those 1.4 million victims the government has consigned to the trash heaps of the USA over the next year, how is justice brought about? Where is the justice in passively abandoning the children and allowing abortionists to take their toll? All there is is a mountain of injustice. And where is the injustice to giving the perpetrators what they’ve begged so earnestly for for so long? All there is there is a mountain of long overdue justice.
So what’s your take, John, on this very important instruction of God’s, to do justice? Where do you think the most justice and injustice resides? (tbc) -----------------------------------------------------------------

Bible Pictures
By Jim Kopp

First One

"I'm Pregnant! Yay!”

In a previous issue, Jim talked about his childhood Bible which had beautiful paintings in it of Gospel scenes. Jim now replays those scenes in his mind, but instead of the Holy Land, he "sets" them in his family's village, a place he's familiar with.
Imagine a woman saying the words "I’m pregnant! Yay! Yay! Yay!" It is a. measure of the wickedness of our era that most couples, now, on hearing this news, would curse.
(Note to people who watch news: you can't curse babies and also kvetch about a mosque at Ground Zero. Hello?)
But back to Mary. Mary couldn't stop singing the minute she found out she was pregnant, even though she knew that in one sense she could be considered a single mom.
Why? Because not only was she a true Christian woman and rejoiced that any child should be born, but, also, that this Child would be the last nail in the coffin of all evil.
When we look at the Magnificat: "My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord," we can't help but notice that these are not the words of someone who is shy about the amount of force required to resist and conquer evil.
These are not the words of a [whine] "Can't we all just get along. . .” philosophy. Rampant evil and simple basic family life cannot coexist. One of 'em has got to go, and Mary's crystal clear who's gotta go. No Compromise, as Kieth Green sang (CD at a Christian music store, survivors! Hurry!)
A tiny note to my beloved Evangelical brothers and sisters: check out Hannah's Song ( II Sam 1). Hannah saw the spiritual impact of her son, too.


When I pray this Bible scene, I honestly cannot tell you how my Gramma got into the picture, but she did.
I feel so deeply sorry for anyone who never had an Irish Cherokee Gramma like mine. Long before I was born, she’d married an oilfield roughneck/surgeon (. . . go figure) had descended from the Western Band Trail of Tears, survived the '06 San Francisco earthquake ( . . . being jerked by the arm over a popped-open crevasse), shot a bear in the Yukon . . . . well, you get the picture. Trouble coloring inside the lines . . .
In this Bible scene, she's just gotten the news Mary got . . . Gramma kind of "stands in" for Mary in this scene. I hope you won't think of this as an insult to Jesus' Mother. . . . know the difference between the two. I just am familiar with Gramma Katie Marie. I hope the other Mary doesn't mind.
Part of the reason Gramma crept into this "picture" maybe, is because of the other whole side of Mary, the Lord's Mother.
A moment ago I wrote about the exultation a real mom and dad realize when they know true power and dignity don’t come from a college degree or a high-falitin' title (. . . trust me on this one).


There was another component to Mary's response to Gabriel. In fact, this part of the response came before the triumph and "boasting in the Lord" exultation of Luke 1.
Dr. Schaeffer went on and on about this in the under-read book Joshua and the Flow of Biblical History.
In that book. Dr. Schaeffer explained painstakingly that the Birth of Our Lord was not simply unlikely without Mary's true knowledge and consent, but that it was completely impossible.
Impossible? How can something be impossible for God?
Easy. He created us with free will, all of us, even the accursed Hitler, and Stalin, and Mao.
It is in the nature of His own respect for His own character qua Creator that He'd rather not mess with the free will He Himself created.
In the very end, evil will be compelled and confined to Perdition, but in this dispensation, evil gets a little more roving room (Job l), and so do those, sadly, who obey evil.
God, the Creator and Master of it all "had" to wait upon Mary's consent because of the constraints God placed upon Himself.
. . . He prefers free people to join Him in heaven, not robots.
Would she say yes? Will she say no? You can almost hear the Trinity, perhaps overheard by the patiently waiting Gabriel, musing on this point.
Part of Mary's knowing calculus at this instant has to include some knowledge that pain will be involved for her and her Son.
Otherwise, it would not be free consent.
This important pause is not explicit in Scripture, but implicit. Wouldn’t you agree?
That’s exactly and precisely why Gramma has a little sadness and resignation built into this pause, and why we suspect the real Mary had a few tears in her eyes even when she shouted the exultant Magnificat to the evil one.

Good will come of this, but not without a battle, a painful battle. (tbc)

Paul Evans sent me two articles recently, one about mill tactics and the other about military tactics. Here’s the start of the military one: ADAPTING TO A DIFFERENT SORT OF WAR

an informative message concerning the necessity of modern Christians to understand military tactics, for use in protecting their homeland as well as to defend their neighbors, and themselves, against unlawful murder

Hypothetically speaking, if Christians found themselves fighting against an overwhelming enemy, an invading infidel, or struggling to defend themselves, and their friends and families, against murderers, they would be facing unfair odds in most cases. Many Christians today only seem to read the New Test¬ament, and forget the many Old Testament accounts of God's plan in utilizing a Christian Army to rebuild, repay, and deliver. In every
instance that Christians would encounter possible scenarios for accomplishing the above mentioned goals, the idea of the Guerrilla Army would be their ultimate goal, complete with an organizational leadership. But preliminarily, it would be better to consider the path of the leaderless resister.
First of all, it is every Christian's duty to encourage the end of the abortionist's operations, in killing innocents through the evils of abortion-on-demand. There are many ways to resist, and they can all be derived from studying the following conceptual study of how a guerrilla fighter resists an over¬whelming enemy organization.
Effective resistance can be executed and maintained, focus¬ing on 3 major elements:
a) credible intelligence- obtained during reconnaissance missions;
b) capabilities of being mobile and executing measures of counter-mobility -- the ability to breach enemy occupied territory as well as the ability to pursue a mobile enemy unit and, contrarily, how to prevent the enemy's pursuit if the tables are turned;
c) offensives with specific directives
i. pierce enemy flow-and-function-as-usual by actively disrupting murder,
ii. deny the enemy of “figure-head types,” leaders, icons, and spok¬esmen ;
iii. demoralize the enemy through psychologically-crushing onsla¬ughts, keeping them on edge;
iv. cut off the enemy's commun¬ications, supplies, complex machinery many times operated by numerous personnel, electricity, and any luxury whatsoever. (tbc)

1 comment: