Abortion is Murder, 9-1, May 2011

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

May, 2011 Vol. 9 No. 1
PO Box 7424, Reading, PA 19603
Phone – 484-706-4375
Email – johndunk@ptd.net
Web – skyp1.blogspot.com
Circulation – 78
John Dunkle, Editor

Abortion is Murder, a weak, pathetic response to baby murder, is sent out at least once a month. If the gestapo hasn’t jailed you for defending the innocent realistically, you either have to tell me you want it or go the website. Faxes and emails are free but snail-mail is free only for PFC’s, $100 for others.
Because I believe we should use every legitimate means, including force, in our attempt to protect those being tortured to death, I want to hear from people who’ve been forceful. I’d also like to hear from those who disagree with me.
--------------------------------------------------------

Prisoners for Christ:

1. Evans, Paul Ross 83230-180, USP McCreary, P.O. Box 3000, Pine Knot, KY 42635
2. Gibbons, Linda, Vanier WDC, 655 Martin St., P.O. Box 1040, Milton, ON, Canada L9T 5E6
3. Griffin, Michael 310249, 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
---------------------------------------------------------------

A month ago my favorite killers’ helper, Pat, pretending to be a politician, posted the following on a remarkable pro-death blog, www.abortion.ws:

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I’ve been asked to give you my views on the abortion issue tonight. Generally it is not an assignment that the average candidate looks forward to but I guess I’m a little different. I’ve actually been excited about this prospect.
Let me start by saying that I respect those of you who are pro-life and those of you who are pro-choice. This is probably the most controversial issue of our time and I honestly believe that all of you are well-intentioned.
Unfortunately, the media love to focus on the negative, so they will cover the extremists on both sides. That is not fair because I firmly believe that the average activist comes from a good place, has deep- seeded convictions and is not shy about expressing them. Indeed, I applaud you all for standing up for what you believe.
Now, I’m gonna be straight with you. I’m not the typical politician who tries to have it both ways. You deserve to know where I stand.
I believe abortion must remain legal in this country. To me, it is a matter of a woman’s health. I am a great student of history and, as everyone knows, before abortion was legalized in this country, many women were dying from botched, unsafe back alley abortions or were being severely harmed. We can all quibble about how many women we’re talking about but, for me, the numbers don’t matter. Women will always seek out abortions and, if that is the case, then I prefer they be safe.
At the same time, however, I think the pro-choice folks need to fess up. Abortion is a form of killing. A woman sitting in the abortion clinic waiting room has something – and you can decide what you want to call that something – in her body. It is something that, if not aborted, will ultimately become a child. It is a living organism. Indeed, if it was a wanted pregnancy, we would be calling it a “baby” from day one. Then, when the woman leaves the clinic, that organism is no longer alive. To me, that is “killing.” It’s a sad process, one that no one wants to experience. It’s a very sad fact of life.
But here’s the good news. The number of abortions in this country is decreasing. It’s hard to say what is causing that trend, but I would like to give credit to both sides of the issue. For example, the pro-choice folks like to emphasize birth control education. The pro-lifers hope to “protect” women by pointing out how some women ultimately regret their abortions. Whatever the reason, the number is going down and that is a good thing.
Now, although I support abortion, I am very concerned that some women might be getting later terms abortions for less than compelling reasons. That’s why I would support banning third trimester abortions unless the woman’s life was endangered or if there was a possibility of her experiencing severe health consequences. I don’t think a woman should have an abortion at that stage for some less-than-serious reason.
I will add that I can support the work of so-called crisis pregnancy centers as long as they are totally candid up front about their opposition to abortion. If a woman clearly understands that she is basically going into a pro-life center and she still wants to talk to them, then go for it. I have no problem with that. In addition, I will vigorously support the right of pro-life activists to protest in front of a clinic. That is the essence of the First Amendment.
Although I support legal abortion, I am torn about the use of taxpayer’s dollars for abortions. I understand how the pro-lifers don’t want their tax dollars used to fund something that they find morally objectionable and they have all the right in the world to try to pass laws restricting the use of those dollars. Indeed, in my earlier days I supported efforts to de-fund the Vietnam War. On the other hand, I am troubled by the thought of a woman on welfare with four children not being able to use her Medicaid card for an abortion because it means we all will be paying more money to help her raise yet another (unwanted) child. It’s a tough one for me and I would like to sit down with representatives on both sides of that issue.

Abortion is not a black and white issue to me. It is very, very complicated. In the meantime, however, if I am elected to Congress I will work hard to make it easier for couples to adopt, I will support using federal dollars for contraceptives. I will support any educational effort that has the same goal as we all do – to eliminate the need for abortion in this country. I ask you all to consider supporting me. I support legal abortion but I will work as hard as anybody to eliminate the need for it.
Thank you very much.


I responded:

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I’ve been asked to give you my views on the slavery issue tonight. Generally it is not an assignment that the average candidate looks forward to but I guess I’m a little different. I’ve actually been excited about this prospect.
Let me start by saying that I respect those of you who are abolitionists and those of you who are pro–slavery. This is probably the most controversial issue of our time and I honestly believe that all of you are well-intentioned. Unfortunately, the media love to focus on the negative, so they will cover the extremists on both sides. That is not fair because I firmly believe that the average activist comes from a good place, has deep-seated convictions and is not shy about expressing them. Indeed, I applaud you all for standing up for what you believe.
Now, I’m gonna be straight with you. I’m not the typical politician who tries to have it both ways. You deserve to know where I stand.
I believe slavery must remain legal in this country. To me, it is a matter of the nation’s health. I am a great student of history and, as everyone knows, before slavery was legalized in this country, many citizens were suffering from dire poverty, some selling themselves into virtual slavery just to feed their families. We can all quibble about how many citizens we’re talking about but, for me, the numbers don’t matter. Land owners will always seek out slaves or virtual slaves and, if that is the case, then I prefer they be safe.
At the same time, however, I think the slave holders need to fess up. Slavery is a form of killing. A citizen who buys a slave knows that slave is something – and you can decide what you want to call that something. It is something that, if not enslaved, could be a citizen itself. It is a living organism. Indeed, if an abolitionist bought it, we would be calling it a “citizen” from day one. Then the slave owner would no longer have the power of life and death over it. To me, that kind of power is “killing.” It’s a sad process, one that no one wants to experience. It’s a very sad fact of life.
But here’s the good news. The number of slaves in this country is decreasing. It’s hard to say what is causing that trend, but I would like to give credit to both sides of the issue. For example, the slave owners like to emphasize birth control education. The abolitionists hope to “protect” the slave owners by pointing out how some of them ultimately regret their involvement in slavery. Whatever the reason, the number is going down and that is a good thing.
Now, although I support slavery, I am very concerned that some owners might be treating their slaves harshly for less than compelling reasons. That’s why I would support freeing third generation slaves unless the plantation would be in danger of going under or even if there were a possibility of its experiencing severe economic consequences. I don’t think a slave owner should own someone whose great grandfather was enslaved for some less-than-serious reason.
I will add that I can support the work of so-called “Help Centers” so long as they are totally candid up front about their opposition to slavery. If an owner clearly understands that his property is basically going into an anti-slavery center, and he still wants to allow that, then go for it. I have no problem with that. In addition, I will vigorously support the right of abolitionists to protest in front of a slave auction. That is the essence of the First Amendment.
Although I support legal slavery, I am torn about the use of taxpayer’s dollars to support it. I understand how the abolitionists don’t want their tax dollars used to fund something that they find morally objectionable and they have all the right in the world to try to pass laws restricting the use of those dollars. Indeed, in my earlier days I supported efforts to de-fund the French & Indian War. On the other hand, I am troubled by the thought of a slave owner with four children not being able to use his citizenship entitlements to buy a slave he could otherwise not afford because it means we all will be paying more money to help him support his endangered business. It’s a tough one for me and I would like to sit down with representatives on both sides of that issue.

Slavery is not a black and white issue with me. It is very, very complicated. In the meantime, however, if I am elected to Congress, I will work hard to make it easier for abolitionists to help slaves and I will support using federal dollars to aid needy slave owners. I will support any educational effort that has the same goal as we all do – to eliminate the need for slavery in this country. I ask you all to consider supporting me. I support legal slavery but I will work as hard as anybody to eliminate the need for it.
Thank you very much.”

“I’m serious here, Pat. I’m not making fun of your post. Maybe a politician like this (not Lincoln) could have prevented the bloodiest of wars. You have me thinking that maybe I’ve been wrong.”


Now, do you think Austin Ruse came across our exchange before he posted this today (TheCatholicThing.org, 4/8):

Memo to Rudy Guliani,

I never voted for you, not once, and – even though abortion is hardly an issue for the mayor of New York City – it was because of abortion. But there is a slight chance you could persuade me if you ran for president.

I start with this: What you did for New York was nothing short of amazing.
I lived in New York City for twenty-two years starting in 1981. I might not have seen the worst of it, the 1970s, but what I saw was pretty awful. The city was filthy with drugs, muggings, murder, graffiti, panhandlers, squeegee men, hookers and sex shops, danger around every corner.
Those were the Koch years and it made you kind of proud to have such a quintessential New Yorker as mayor, still the place was a mess. The incompetent fumbler Dinkins followed Koch and under him things only got worse. There were actual race riots that he and the dreadful Al Sharpton egged on.
When you ran in 1989, I did not vote for you. I cast one of my proudest votes ever for George Marlin, who ran a campaign right out of the Bill Buckley-Conservative Party-Street Corner Conservative playbook. George did not have a chance. You beat him and Dinkins, and you went on to be the one of the greatest mayors the city has ever seen.
Your second race came around four years later and I could see the amazing job you were doing. The streets were cleaner. Crime was down. Panhandlers were moved along. Squeegee men were shut down. The subways began the long haul to cleanliness. People from New York remember how awful and intimidating the subways were when they were covered over completely inside and out with indecipherable graffiti.
You fixed all that. There was so much excitement in the air, you could smell it and taste it. Still, I did not vote for you.
Then came 9/11. And you were well and truly inspirational figure. America’s mayor. I saw Teddy Roosevelt in you. Yet I did not consider you when you ran for the GOP presidential nomination in 2008.
Here’s why, and this will come as no surprise. It’s the social issues, primarily unborn babies, but also your support for the homosexual agenda.
Now, in your favor, you never fought with the Church over these things. Very smart that. Unlike the Kennedys and others, you never rubbed the Cardinal’s nose in your dissent from Church teachings. We are grateful for that because it showed respect for the Church. But at the end of the day, I can never support someone who supports the current abortion regime in the United States.

Still, there might be a way for you to get my support and the support of other pro-lifers if you decided to make a presidential run. It is a long shot and would require deft moves. But they are moves I know you have.
More than anything right now, pro-lifers want Roe overturned and abortion returned to the states. We believe we can win in most of them and, over time, could win even in the most recalcitrant states. It is Roe v. Wade, the ogre under the bridge, that stands in our way.
Here is the winning policy that you could adopt:
“I am pro-choice. I believe in a woman’s right to choose. However, I believe Roe v. Wade and the whole abortion regime has profoundly warped our politics and harmed our judicial system. Roe and Doe have to go.
Just like the left on abortion, I will have a litmus test. I will only nominate judges and justices who believe Roe was wrongly decided. I – a believer in a woman’s right to choose – will return the issue of abortion to the states. I may support states that maintain legal abortion, but I promise I will get abortion out of the present day gridlock so that the country can have a real debate at the state level.”
Pro-choice, but aggressively anti-Roe; that could turn some pro-life heads.
You would not arrive at this overnight. Starting now, you would meet with the leading lights of the pro-life movement. You would allow yourself to go to school under the tutelage of someone like Robert George of Princeton and he would introduce you to many others from all corners of the pro-life movement: the thinkers, activists, those who serve pregnant women. At the end of this process, your change could make sense, even to you.
You should be aware that the pro-choicers know that something like this is coming. They know in their hearts that Roe’s days are numbered. It might go down better and easier if one of their own shaped the funeral arrangements.
Would pro-lifers vote for a pro-choice candidate who pledged to do all this? They just might. Some will think of Nixon going to China and realize it can only be someone like you who can do this thing. You could untangle one of the thorniest knots in the history of American politics. Personally, I believe few could do this except you. It is the longest of long shots. But for me and many others like me, it is the only shot you have.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

This is from The Gospel in the Digital Age by Fr. Timothy Dolan who is now the Cardinal of New York. The first three paragraphs of an article I posted last month, “The Way We Are," though, offer the fourth and best reason for this attack on Catholic priests.

An Airport Encounter

As I was waiting for the electronic train to take me to the terminal, a man, maybe in his mid-forties, came closer to me. "I was raised a Catholic," he said, "and now as a father of two boys, I can't look at you or any other priest without thinking of a sexual abuser."
It was only the third time it had happened to me in my nearly thirty-five happy years as a priest, all three times over the last nine-and-a-half years.
Other priests tell me it has happened to them a lot more.
Three is enough. Each time has left me so shaken I was near nausea. It happened last Friday...

I had just arrived at the Denver Airport, there to speak at their popular annual "Living Our Catholic Faith" conference.
As I was waiting with the others for the electronic train to take me to the terminal, a man, maybe in his mid-forties, waiting as well, came closer to me.
"Are you a Catholic priest?" he kindly asked.
“Sure am. Nice to meet you," says I, as I offered my hand.
He ignored it. "I was raised a Catholic," he replied, almost always a hint of a cut to come, but I was not prepared for the razor sharpness of the stiletto, as he went on, "and now, as a father of two boys, I can't look at you or any other priest without thinking of a sexual abuser."
What to respond? Yell at him? Cuss him out? Apologize? Deck him? Express understanding? I must admit all such reactions came to mind as I staggered with shame and anger from the damage of the wound he had inflicted with those stinging words.
"Well," I recovered enough to remark, "I'm sure sorry you feel that way. But, let me ask you, do you automatically presume a sexual abuser when you see a Rabbi or Protestant minister?"
"Not at all," he came back through gritted teeth as we both boarded the train.
"How about when you see a coach, or a boy scout leader, or a foster parent, or a counselor, or physician?" I continued.
"Of course not!" he came back. "What's all that got to do with it?"
"A lot," I stayed with him, "because each of those professions has as high a percentage of sexual abuse, if not even higher, than that of priests."
"Well, that may be," he retorted. "But the Church is the only group that knew it was going on, did nothing about it, and kept transferring the perverts around."
"You obviously never heard the stats on public school teachers," I observed. "In my home town of New York City alone, experts say the rate of sexual abuse among public school teachers is ten times higher than that of priests, and these abusers just get transferred around." (Had I known at that time the news in last Sunday's New York Times about the high rate of abuse of the most helpless in state supervised homes, with reported abusers simply transferred to another home, I would have mentioned that, too.)
To that he said nothing, so I went in for a further charge.
“Pardon me for being so blunt, but you sure were with me, so, let me ask: when you look at yourself in the mirror, do you see a sex abuser?"
Now he was as taken aback as I had been two-minutes before. "What the hell are you talking about?"
"Sadly," I answered, "studies tell us that most children sexually abused are victims of their own fathers or other family members."
Enough of the debate, I concluded, as I saw him dazed. So I tried to calm it down.
"So, I tell you what: when I look at you, I won't see a sex abuser, and I would appreciate the same consideration from you."

The train had arrived at baggage claim, and we both exited together.
"Well then, why do we only hear this garbage about you priests," he inquired, as he got a bit more pensive.
"We priests wonder the same thing. I've got a few reasons if you're interested."
He nodded his head as we slowly walked to the carousel.
"For one," I continued, "we priests deserve the more intense scrutiny, because people trust us more as we dare claim to represent God, so, when one of us do it - even if only a tiny minority of us ever have - it is more disgusting."
"Two, I'm afraid there are many out there who have no love for the Church, and are itching to ruin us. This is the issue they love to end¬lessly scourge us with."
"And, three, I hate to say it," as I wrapped it up, "there's a lot of money to be made in suing the Catholic Church, while it's hardly worth suing any of the other groups I mentioned before."

We both by then had our luggage, and headed for the door. He then put his hand out, the hand he had not extended five minutes earlier when I had put mine out to him. We shook.
"Thanks. Glad I met you."
He halted a minute. "You know, I think of the great priests I knew when I was a kid. And now, because I work in IT at Regis University, I know some devoted Jesuits. Shouldn't judge all you guys because of the horrible sins of a few."
"Thanks!" I smiled.
I guess things were patched-up, because, as he walked away, he added, "At least I owe you a joke: What happens when you can't pay your exorcist?"
"Got me," I answered.
"You get 're-possessed'!"
We both laughed and separated

Notwithstanding the happy ending, I was still trembling... and almost felt like I needed an exorcism to expel my shattered soul, as I had to confront again the horror this whole mess has been to victims and their families, our Catholic people like the man I had just met... and to us priests.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Friends, Abraham Lincoln believed that politics, whether at the national or local level, cannot help but be nasty if its object is to decide who is to be defined into the human race and thus protected and who is to be left defenseless. He believed the very process of making detailed rules about slavery would corrupt the American People. Questions about who gets what, where, and how, and at whose expense, as well as which classes of people are to be somehow “protected,” subsidized, or entitled naturally lead to quarreling. In the Lincoln Douglas debates Lincoln categorically denied being in favor of extending civil rights to Negroes. Most abolitionists did not favor Civil Rights for Negroes. This injustice would have to fester for another 100 years before being rectified.
Most pro-lifers today do not favor restoring equal protection to babies slated for abortion. They may deny this but their deeds prove them to be liars. Two bills made it to the Iowa State Senate: Life is Protected at Conception HF153 and the Fetal Pain Bill SF39. HF 153 would restore the Right to Life of the pre-born as it was before 1973. It would outlaw ALL baby-murder in Iowa. But pro-lifers threw all their support behind the Fetal Pain Bill. Why? Pro-lifers do not wish to punish women who kill their children. Why? Pro-lifers believe baby’s life is somehow worth less than mommy’s life. Pro-lifers have a double standard. Would pro-lifers be against punishing mothers who kill their post-born babies? If they oppose punishment of toddler murdering moms would they not be unjust? Pro-lifers are equally unjust for opposing punishment for murdering pre-born babies are they not? Iowa pro-lifers are pro-choice indeed! They are pro-choice up to 20 weeks gestation when the babies are sure to feel pain; and this with exceptions! SF39 closes with the bill prohibits the imposition of a criminal penalty against a woman upon whom an abortion is performed, or attempted to be performed…
Pro-lifers are pro-choice in ALL of their legislation! Fetal Pain, Woman’s Right to Know, Informed Choice, Parental Notification, 24 hour waiting periods regulate rather than outlaw abortion. Laws we support or oppose define us.
Are we to applaud such weak-kneed, feel good, useless legislation? If it is enacted, Fetal Pain legislation is sure to be laughed out of court. Pain means nothing in establishing when human life begins! Pro-lifers seem content to project the beginning of life argument into the distant future. Meanwhile, 4000 Americans are killed each and every day. The American People are not ready to accept equal rights for pre-born people because Right to Life does not accept it. At bottom, Right to Life’s ideology differs little from their nemesis Planned Parenthood.
Pro-lifers are faithless pragmatists. They rely on political expediency rather than placing faith in the Almighty.
Right to Life has either refused to support or has actively opposed efforts to establish personhood in several states. They site bad timing, bad wording, and wrong leadership for their opposition of establishing personhood. Most personhood efforts do not allow for RTL exceptions. Exceptions nullify the bed rock premise that pre-born children are entitled to the same rights, privileges, and protections as post-born children. Abortion is murder and should be prosecuted as murder. Culpability issues should be raised at trial level not on the legislative floor. Years of experience of counseling at abortion clinics tell us that most women know exactly what they are doing.
Donna and I have a total of 65 years’ experience with Right to Life. Like many who oppose abortion we cut our pro-life teeth in a local Right to Life group and eventually ended up in leadership. I was President of Winnebago Co RTL in Rockford, IL; Donna was Director of S. Lee County RTL. We are not strangers to the movement. An honest person will eventually come to realize how great and widespread treachery truly is. Government steals our hard earned money to support causes which offend us. The Republican Party and third parties betray us. Churches bilk us while ignoring the plain teaching of scripture. Schools undermine the values we instill into our children. Television is the foul-mouth companion we invite into our living room. Newspapers propagate a sodomite friendly baby-killing agenda. Christian radio is puking religious pabulum. There is treachery in most of the pro-family organizations. We realize that even the pro-life organizations we come to rely on are also corrupt. What are we to do? We can quit supporting them! We can use the funds to buy our own literature and signs and go out and minister ourselves. Donna makes up literature packets and distributes them to all the area churches. She sends literature to all politicians, judges, and government officials. She distributes literature wherever she goes. It is not difficult to stand on a street corner holding a sign. If you limit yourself to 1½ hours per session you lessen the chance of being attacked. You can reach thousands of people and feel a great sense of accomplishment when you are finished. We know of many babies that have been saved by such endeavors.
Linda Gibbons, a Canadian grandmother, has spent the better part of the past 10 years fighting a Toronto abortion clinic injunction from inside prison walls. As bad as America is, Canada is far worse. Toronto is the armpit of Canada. A blanket injunction was imposed on those who counsel at this death camp. Linda violates the injunction whenever she is released from jail. She is arrested while counseling and serves time for Contempt of Court. She has done this again and again. She has been imprisoned for this last incident for over a year. She writes: “Daylight will break after the midnight of human ignorance – Wait for it! Count on it! The heavens do rule!”
Cletus Kiefer and his family are nearly destitute yet they continue to fight. He and his family have lost home, job, and possessions yet keep the faith. Through work or gift they rely on God’s provision for all that they need. They were without a vehicle this past month. God provided them the exact vehicle they had been praying for.
Ron Brock is on the road with his Truthtruck 24/7. He drives from one battle field to the next. He quit his business in 1990 to be doing the Lord’s work full time.
I could name many others: Anne Franczek, Cal Zastro, Bob Braun, Jim Soderna, Pastor Matt Trewhella, and many, many more. All of them come from different stations in life, all
minister apart from other organizations.
You have not resisted unto the shedding of blood. Hebrews 12:4 Most have not broken into a sweat, or put in a full day’s work.
Matthew 20:1-16 Dan Holman
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Here’s the rest of Peter Knight’s latest letter. He’s just finished quoting extensively from Paul Hill, the man Peter calls one of the greatest Americans:

It cannot be denied that Paul Hill spoke much truth there, especially in that last sentence. And by upholding the truths of the Gospel, also saying to those who refuse to uphold those truths and defend the unborn – I refuse to join you and preach the lies of your fake gospel.
From those words of Paul Hill, it’s obvious that he was a very mild mannered man. That was probably his greatest fault. I’m mild mannered too, but not to that extent, and I don’t think I would put things quite the same way he said them. I would simply say that a multitude of fake Christians, by refusing to deal with abortionists as they should have been dealt with, have proven that they have zero regard for justice and zero regard for God’s law. Zero regard, both in relation to justice for the unborn and for abortionists.
Yes, pretty pathetic stuff from people who call themselves pro-life and call themselves Christian. Did I say pretty pathetic? Absolutely pathetic and absolutely gutless is what it is. I don’t know where this fraudulent term, prolife, originated from or who dreamt it up. I do suspect though that it was dreamt up by someone in the government and applied to those who were to be 99% pro death as a psychological ploy to stop them from recognizing the truth of the situation – to stop them recognizing how pro death and how pro-abortion the government was demanding them to be, and to lull a multitude of gutless fools into believing that someone could be pro-life for the unborn by complying with their demands.
Since it was made impossible to be pro-life for everyone, since death to someone was bound to be the result of any decision you made, the question was never – Are you pro-life? The q question always was – Who are you pro-life for, the innocent, or the guilty. Anyone who tries to claim they are pro-life for everyone is a fool who cannot live in reality. And the most important question was – Which Gospel should I follow and preach, the government’s fake pro-life for the guilty pro-death for the innocent gospel, or God’s true, defend the fatherless Gospel?
People like Cunningham and Lefemine and Newman claim that Paul Hill was a failure who saved no one. When Paul Hill said, “But, most importantly, I knew this would uphold the truths of the Gospel at the precise point of Satan’s current attack,” he showed quite clearly that he knew what the most important question was and knew the correct answer to it. Whether people respond to that trumpet call is not the question either. Paul Hill knew it was his responsibility to sound the trumpet as loud as he could whether anyone responded or not. Ezekiel 3: 16-22 Preaching the true Gospel, sounding the trumpet is something that Cunningham and Newman place no importance on.
Not only was the Reverend Paul Hill the greatest American of the past thirty-eight years, he also had the most sense. Sense enough to know what the most important question is and the correct answer to it. That’s a million times more sense than brainless half-wits like Lefemine and Cunningham have. With the fake gospel they
preach, they didn’t act to stop abortion. At no stage have the methods they use shown the slightest sign of doing that. And in reality, they didn’t speak on behalf of anyone who was worth saving. Even the paltry handful they did save, would any of them be pleased by that and pleased with them when they learnt that they were too gutless to take any effective action on behalf of the 99%? They would be very self-centered and worthless people if they were.
Every day when they wake up, this is what they and anyone else who preaches their wait and wait for political change message should say: “Here it is, another day for me, not for others. Another day I’ll refuse to do justice. Another day I’ll be pro-death for 99%. Another day I’ll misrepresent God and preach a fake gospel. Another day that I’ll worship the government. And another day that I’ll have a shit on God’s law at their request.”
Say it, and recognize it as a fact. Every single day set aside a few minutes to say each of those things as soon as you wake up and reflect upon their truth.
------------------------------------------------------------------------