Formerly,
Abortion is Murder, and, before that, skyp (stop the killing of young people)
February, 2013, Vol. 10
No. 11
PO Box 7424, Reading, PA 19603
Phone, 484-706-4375
Email, johndunk@ptd.net Web, skyp1.blogspot.com
Circulation, 235
Editor, John Dunkle
“Contraception” 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 to the
website. Emails are free but snail-mail
is free only for PFCs, a grand for others.
Because I believe
we should examine 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 and from those who defend them.
I’d also like to hear from those who oppose the prolife use of force and
call it violence.
Prisoners
For Christ:
1. Burt,
John 209999, Raiford State Prison, P.O. Box 628, Lake Butler, FL 32054
2. Evans,
Paul Ross 83230-180, FCI, PO Box 1500,
El Reno, OK 73036
3. Griffin,
Michael 310249, BRCF, 5914 Jeff Atles Rd., Milton, FL 32583-00000
4. Grady,
Francis 131471, Wisconsin
Resource Center, PO Box 220, Winnebago, WI 54985-0220
5. Holt,
Gregory 129616, Varber super Max, PO Box 600, Grady, AR 71644-0600
6.
Kopp, James 11761-055, USP
Canaan, 3057 Easton Tpk., Waymart, PA 18472
7. Mower,
Donny Eugene 65828-097, FCI ,PO Box 3997, San Pedro, CA 90731
8. Roeder,
Scott 65192 PO Box 2, Lansing,
Kansas 66043
9. Rogers,
Bobby Joe, Santa Rosa County Jail,
PO Box 7129, Milton, FL 325872
10. Rudolph,
Eric 18282-058 US Pen. Max, Box 8500, Florence CO 81226-8500
11. Shannon,
Rachelle 59755-065, FCI Waseca, Unit A,
P.O. Box 1731, Waseca, MN 56093
12.
Waagner, Clayton Lee 17258-039, USP, P.O. Box 1000, Lewisburg PA 17837
Why Waste the Youngins When They Taste So Good!
In The Meaning of Life in the Laboratory noted ethicist Leon Kass
looks at something we will have called cannibalism:
On the
other hand, we would, I suppose, recoil even from the thought, let alone
the practice–I apologize for forcing it upon the reader–of eating such embryos,
should someone discover that they would provide a great delicacy, a “human
caviar.” The human blastocyst would be protected by our taboo against
cannibalism, which insists on the humanness of human flesh and does not permit
us to treat even the flesh of the dead as if it were mere meat. The human
embryo is not mere meat; it is not just stuff; it is not a “thing.” Because of
its origin and because of its capacity, it commands a higher respect.
Don’t be fooled by Kass’s seeming repulsion of the activity. Words like “I suppose,” “great delicacy,”
“caviar,” “our taboo,” and “which insists on” give him away.
Kass has just spent part of a book promoting his belief that if you are
very young, you do not command the higher respect he assumes for himself. And then he thinks his ilk will not act on
that belief? The satire is missing in this latest edition of “A Modest Proposal.”
____________________________________
------------------------------------------------------------
Nancy
Udhe’s Insight:
So being against murdering innocent people is just an OPINION, or a RELIGIOUS BELIEF now?
I'll tell you what a religious belief is, it's saying that a person's life begins at "quickening" or 40 days from conception, or 3 months from conception, or even some time after birth. THOSE are just opinions, or beliefs that have absolute zero basis in reason or scientific fact.
Saying that a person's life begins at conception is based solidly on reason and scientific fact. Saying that every person is entitled to equal protection is solidly based on very clear language written into The Constitution of the United States of America.
So there. I'm not the one imposing my beliefs and opinions on others. That would be YOU, Mr or Ms Pro choice, or Mr or Ms 'Personally' pro life.
Case in point: Mitt Romney in this fantastic interview (whoever this radio host is, I vote for him for President):
http://m.youtube.com/index?&desktop_uri=%2F#/watch?v=IFkaCji-UDA
I’m not able to connect with that link of Nancy’s. If you are, let me know how you got it.
______________________________________________
----------------------------------------------------------------------
More From the Great Mr. Eurica Califoniniaa
Dear John, The
U.S. Supreme Court has a long history of masking for problems. Examples include
making it illegal: to sue state-sponsored academic institutions that are caught
copying the work of others, rather than to expose their inability to make the
grade on their own; to file a criminal complaint for domestic violence against
members of law enforcement; to sue military physicians for domestic malpractice,
rather than to allow lawyers to expose their under par status; to subject
washed out physicians to the scrutiny of even the most basic medical
regulations, so that they can perform abortions under a safe haven policy; and,
to sue for prosecutorial misconduct.
Once the Court has made the decision to mask for a problem, a petitioner's ability to address the problem is limited. As former U.S. attorney general John Ashcroft explains the predicament, attorneys who want to be successful have learned not to devalue their "currency" with the Court in view of what the Court "has signaled very clearly it doesn't want to deal with" or is "unwilling to deal with"; to do otherwise, he explains, is a "losing proposition" and interferes with "the ability to succeed on other issues." (Footnote 1)
Presumably, this is why Mr. Ashcroft failed to get a coroner's statement in what later became known as Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (2007). Instead, being mindful of his currency with the Court, he pursued other latitudes.
It should not be surprising that masking for problems goes on elsewhere as well. For example, a report by Government researchers published in the journal Pediatrics reveals that gynecologists are as yet unable to examine a woman's vagina with basic medical competence. See Wang et al., "Emergency department visits for medical device-associated adverse events among children," Pediatrics, Vol. 126, No. 2, Aug. 2010, pp. 247-59.
Although the report shuffles the figures in a way that masks attention for the problem, the truth be told: The #1 reason in the United States why females ages 16-21 have to go to the hospital emergency room for an injury caused by a physician's use of a medical device is when the gynecologist examines the patient's vagina with a vaginal speculum. See Wang et al., ibid., Table 1, pp. 250-251.
If even ordinary gynecologists are fraught with such incompetence, one can only imagine what it is like for a young woman at the hands of a general practitioner performing abortions under the safe haven for washed out physicians that was created by the Court in Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973). (Note: This is Roe v. Wade's companion case.)
As Justice Douglas concurs with the policy candidly, "In short, I agree with the Court that endangering the life of the woman or seriously and permanently injuring her health are standards too narrow for the right of privacy that is at stake." Doe, supra, at 220-221. By this sort of 'privacy' is meant not a woman's individual privacy per se, but rather the Nation's ability to mask for sexual problems.
Again rather candidly, Justice Marshall, in San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 100-101 (1973), reflects two months after Roe on the extremes the Court is willing to accept in the effort to control reproduction:
"Recently, in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 152-154 (1973), the importance of procreation has, indeed, been explained on the basis of its intimate relationship with the constitutional right of privacy which we have recognized. Yet the limited stature thereby accorded any "right" to procreate is evident from the fact that at the same time the Court reaffirmed its initial decision in Buck v. Bell. See Roe v. Wade, supra, at 154."
By right to procreate he means the right to carry the pregnancy to term, and by initial decision in Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927), he means that the Court in Roe abandoned the protections of Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942), so women can be forced to abort even on the basis of poverty and crime. See Roe, supra, at 159, abandoning Skinner, having ultimately founded abortion (at 153-154) not on a woman's sole determination, but rather instead on the abatement authority of Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), to control pregnancy epidemics, and Buck v. Bell, to prevent the Nation from being swamped with female sexual incompetence. (Footnote 2)
In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 857 (1992), the Court preserved the role of Jacobson in abortion policy. See also Casey, supra, at 915-916.
From this it is evident that the Court has never literally upheld having an abortion as a woman's constitutional right per se under any reasonable interpretation. Instead, the Court legalized voluntary abortion only as a path of least resistance for women to take in lieu of involuntary procedures to control reproduction. (Footnote 3)
Having considered the Court's take on women's rights, attention is now turned to children's rights.
In Roe, supra, at 162, the Court concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment does not apply to the unborn because, "In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense." It is interesting to note that if Roe had been written as little as a decade earlier, the Court could have just as easily concluded that, in short, the unwhite have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense either. The fundamental proposition of the Fourteenth Amendment, of course, derives from the Dred Scott decision, namely, whether the beings in question are "so far inferior" that they have no rights we are literally "bound" to respect or not. Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393, 407 (1857). (Note: Dred Scott was a Slavery era decision of the U.S. Supreme Court upholding Slavery before the U.S. Civil War; the Thirteenth Amendment abolished Slavery and the Fourteenth Amendment came after it in an effort to protect rights.)
Hence, the fundamental proposition of the Fourteenth Amendment is not whether they have been recognized, but rather that they shall be recognized as persons in the whole sense. The fact that they may have been denied such recognition in the past is wholly irrelevant. It is also worth noting that the Amendment does not contain references to the unwhite any more than it does to the unborn.
Finally, it appears the Court was not being completely honest when it states in Roe, supra, at 158:
"Indeed, our decision in United States v. Vuitch, 402 U.S. 62 (1971), inferentially is to the same effect, for we there would not have indulged in statutory interpretation favorable to abortion in specified circumstances if the necessary consequence was the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection."
Instead, it appears the Court in Vuitch was testing whether the Government would invoke the Fourteenth Amendment on the children's behalf, before entertaining full-blown legal protection for child homicide. As Justice Ginsburg may recall, the Nixon Administration was inducing women in the Service to abort, making such a prospect highly unlikely. (Footnote 4) But it appears the Court wanted to make completely sure anyway. As Justice Blackmun reflects over 20 years later, the Government still had as yet to even question the abandonment of the Fourteenth Amendment. See Casey, supra, at 932; see also Justice Stevens, at 913.
Once the Court has made the decision to mask for a problem, a petitioner's ability to address the problem is limited. As former U.S. attorney general John Ashcroft explains the predicament, attorneys who want to be successful have learned not to devalue their "currency" with the Court in view of what the Court "has signaled very clearly it doesn't want to deal with" or is "unwilling to deal with"; to do otherwise, he explains, is a "losing proposition" and interferes with "the ability to succeed on other issues." (Footnote 1)
Presumably, this is why Mr. Ashcroft failed to get a coroner's statement in what later became known as Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (2007). Instead, being mindful of his currency with the Court, he pursued other latitudes.
It should not be surprising that masking for problems goes on elsewhere as well. For example, a report by Government researchers published in the journal Pediatrics reveals that gynecologists are as yet unable to examine a woman's vagina with basic medical competence. See Wang et al., "Emergency department visits for medical device-associated adverse events among children," Pediatrics, Vol. 126, No. 2, Aug. 2010, pp. 247-59.
Although the report shuffles the figures in a way that masks attention for the problem, the truth be told: The #1 reason in the United States why females ages 16-21 have to go to the hospital emergency room for an injury caused by a physician's use of a medical device is when the gynecologist examines the patient's vagina with a vaginal speculum. See Wang et al., ibid., Table 1, pp. 250-251.
If even ordinary gynecologists are fraught with such incompetence, one can only imagine what it is like for a young woman at the hands of a general practitioner performing abortions under the safe haven for washed out physicians that was created by the Court in Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973). (Note: This is Roe v. Wade's companion case.)
As Justice Douglas concurs with the policy candidly, "In short, I agree with the Court that endangering the life of the woman or seriously and permanently injuring her health are standards too narrow for the right of privacy that is at stake." Doe, supra, at 220-221. By this sort of 'privacy' is meant not a woman's individual privacy per se, but rather the Nation's ability to mask for sexual problems.
Again rather candidly, Justice Marshall, in San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 100-101 (1973), reflects two months after Roe on the extremes the Court is willing to accept in the effort to control reproduction:
"Recently, in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 152-154 (1973), the importance of procreation has, indeed, been explained on the basis of its intimate relationship with the constitutional right of privacy which we have recognized. Yet the limited stature thereby accorded any "right" to procreate is evident from the fact that at the same time the Court reaffirmed its initial decision in Buck v. Bell. See Roe v. Wade, supra, at 154."
By right to procreate he means the right to carry the pregnancy to term, and by initial decision in Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927), he means that the Court in Roe abandoned the protections of Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942), so women can be forced to abort even on the basis of poverty and crime. See Roe, supra, at 159, abandoning Skinner, having ultimately founded abortion (at 153-154) not on a woman's sole determination, but rather instead on the abatement authority of Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), to control pregnancy epidemics, and Buck v. Bell, to prevent the Nation from being swamped with female sexual incompetence. (Footnote 2)
In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 857 (1992), the Court preserved the role of Jacobson in abortion policy. See also Casey, supra, at 915-916.
From this it is evident that the Court has never literally upheld having an abortion as a woman's constitutional right per se under any reasonable interpretation. Instead, the Court legalized voluntary abortion only as a path of least resistance for women to take in lieu of involuntary procedures to control reproduction. (Footnote 3)
Having considered the Court's take on women's rights, attention is now turned to children's rights.
In Roe, supra, at 162, the Court concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment does not apply to the unborn because, "In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense." It is interesting to note that if Roe had been written as little as a decade earlier, the Court could have just as easily concluded that, in short, the unwhite have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense either. The fundamental proposition of the Fourteenth Amendment, of course, derives from the Dred Scott decision, namely, whether the beings in question are "so far inferior" that they have no rights we are literally "bound" to respect or not. Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393, 407 (1857). (Note: Dred Scott was a Slavery era decision of the U.S. Supreme Court upholding Slavery before the U.S. Civil War; the Thirteenth Amendment abolished Slavery and the Fourteenth Amendment came after it in an effort to protect rights.)
Hence, the fundamental proposition of the Fourteenth Amendment is not whether they have been recognized, but rather that they shall be recognized as persons in the whole sense. The fact that they may have been denied such recognition in the past is wholly irrelevant. It is also worth noting that the Amendment does not contain references to the unwhite any more than it does to the unborn.
Finally, it appears the Court was not being completely honest when it states in Roe, supra, at 158:
"Indeed, our decision in United States v. Vuitch, 402 U.S. 62 (1971), inferentially is to the same effect, for we there would not have indulged in statutory interpretation favorable to abortion in specified circumstances if the necessary consequence was the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection."
Instead, it appears the Court in Vuitch was testing whether the Government would invoke the Fourteenth Amendment on the children's behalf, before entertaining full-blown legal protection for child homicide. As Justice Ginsburg may recall, the Nixon Administration was inducing women in the Service to abort, making such a prospect highly unlikely. (Footnote 4) But it appears the Court wanted to make completely sure anyway. As Justice Blackmun reflects over 20 years later, the Government still had as yet to even question the abandonment of the Fourteenth Amendment. See Casey, supra, at 932; see also Justice Stevens, at 913.
Footnote 1: Excerpted from the transcript of
day two of John Ashcroft's Senate confirmation hearing for attorney general (Wednesday, January 17, 2001), http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/elections/
ashcroft_hearingtext011701.htm (accessed 11/8/2012). The exchange was between Mr. Ashcroft and Sen. Diane Feinstein.
Footnote 2: Justice Marshall was joined notably by Skinner's author Justice Douglas, which was once a unanimous decision for the Court. The subtlety removed, the two Justices are saying that if poor Hispanic women are induced to abort, then the remaining children can attend better schools in Texas.
Footnote 3: It is worth noting that 18 U.S.C. 1841(c)(1), which is part of the exceptions clause for Laci and Conner's Law, preserves exemptions for conduct relating to an involuntary abortion performed on a woman "on her behalf" or alternatively as "implied by law." See also Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978).
Footnote 4: See Bazelon, "The Place of Women on the Court," The New York Times, 7 Jul. 2009.
To be continued... Sincerely, Cal.
ashcroft_hearingtext011701.htm (accessed 11/8/2012). The exchange was between Mr. Ashcroft and Sen. Diane Feinstein.
Footnote 2: Justice Marshall was joined notably by Skinner's author Justice Douglas, which was once a unanimous decision for the Court. The subtlety removed, the two Justices are saying that if poor Hispanic women are induced to abort, then the remaining children can attend better schools in Texas.
Footnote 3: It is worth noting that 18 U.S.C. 1841(c)(1), which is part of the exceptions clause for Laci and Conner's Law, preserves exemptions for conduct relating to an involuntary abortion performed on a woman "on her behalf" or alternatively as "implied by law." See also Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978).
Footnote 4: See Bazelon, "The Place of Women on the Court," The New York Times, 7 Jul. 2009.
To be continued... Sincerely, Cal.
______________________________________
--------------------------------------------------------------
Care and Feeding of FBI Agents
By Jimbo
(. . . Come
On! Where's the love? God loves 'em! Right?)
In their never-ending quest to stamp out fed.
crime wherever they may find it--a pretty big “wherever” these days, n'est
pas?--the guards here are always after me to “Clean up your cell godammit!”1The Superfund grant that might result is just a perk, to them, you see. The Main Chance is a little tick in the box under “kicked inmate's ass again.”
Coming soon, this attitude, to a theatre near you. See: infowars.com.
Where was I? (*pop*)
Oh, yeah. Sorry.
So, I'm goin' through this old stuff, right? and what to my wondering eyes did appear, but the enclosed fragment of an FBI “302” (field report) from the happy days (for me) when I was kicking my heels up in clover, but sad days (for my friends) who got their asses kicked in loco iago (i.e. in place of me).
Do you worry? Fellow inmate of the prison planet? Do you wonder how you'd do when the feds knock knock knock on your door?
As they will -- (you're violating 77 federal laws by breathing, 527 if you have a garden or chickens, and 1,527 with Obamacare tossed in).
All I can say is: I bow before greatness.
Please read the attached carefully. It starts with a preteen slamming the door in
the face of two FBI agents. Not just any
agents. These were Special Agents. Remember that, and show respect, Comrade
Citizen!
Here’s “the attached”:
. . . he was on his own and that he would talk no
further. He stated that he would let his
mother (redacted) know that the Agents were there and then closed the door to
the residence.
On November 9, 1998,
at approximately 11:45 a.m., Special Agent Mary Kain Evelsizer and your affiant
again proceeded to the residence known as (redacted) Avenue, (redacted). These Agents knocked on the door of the
residence and this time a white male identified as the husband of (redacted)
answered. The Agents stated that they
had come to this residence in order to discuss the above mentioned article
appearing in the (redacted). The Agents
asked this person if he knew James Kopp.
He replied affirmatively. He was
asked if Kopp had been there in the last month.
He replied: "Not to my knowledge." The person was asked when
was the last time he had seen Kopp. The
person replied that it had been a while.
He was asked if he had seen Kopp within the last six months. He replied: "I really couldn't
say." He added: "I can't even remember what I did yesterday."
The interview concluded when the telephone in the residence rang, and the
person was summoned by another male in the residence (believed to be the son).
On November 9, 1998, I spoke with FBI Special
Agent Larry Likar. This Agent has years
of experience working fugitive matters and heads the Greater (redacted)
Fugitive Task Force. He stated that in
his experience, persons who flee to avoid arrest have constrained resources,
and often seek contact
Note to BSA:
Good work kicking the chomoes out!
Delegation from NCCB arriving soon.
Don't let 'em give you any crap about “forgiveness.” Huh?
Oh, and, a new merit badge: Slammin' the Door on the Fed. BSA's all about true patriotism, right?
Oops!
Off the track again. . .Now. After the sterling example set by his son, Dad does even better.
He rolls with it.
Comrades. Mere amateurs get kerfuffled and try to end the pain and fear, say. by saying “talk to my lawyer” (a good response).
But a Great Master, a quattrocento wonder of beauty, does 302 (par. 14).
He appears to give answers. He's a concerned citizen, blah, blah.
Only when the Special, so so special Agents are back in their taxpayer-funded car, buckling the seat belts, does it dawn on them: This man answered every question we asked, but he didn't give us a thing.
Greatness.
Inscribe these answers on your hearts. Meditate upon them when you rise and retire.
You'll need 'em. Soon!
By the way, “Constrained resources” means you don't have million dollar blowouts in Hawaii like the GSA thing with fortune tellers, or the Secret Service with hookers in Columbia, or the FBI soirees (. . . they hide them better. Don't forget, every feeb is either an accountant or a lawyer. Fourteen thousand unemployed lawyers . . . with guns! can't be wrong.)
Study. Practice. Prepare
"I will study, I will prepare so that one day I will triumph." --Abraham Lincoln.
___________________________________
-----------------------------------------------------
I
don’t understand half this stuff; nevertheless, I find clever people
entertaining:
1. Hopefully,
with a state atty. General’s prior OK, sue him in a “mandamus” action to order
all abortions to cease, until abortionists can prove such is not “murder,”
punishable as such. This switches the
burden of proof.
2. You
might at least get a temporary court order of mandamus.3. It could build up around the whole country – duh? Yah, abortion is murder of the unborn, a self-evident assertion.
4. If it ever comes to a trial, you have the pictures which seal a victory!
IMHO, this a much
more simple than getting a legislative body to negative abortion, what with all
the liberals around, who league with each other in back-scratching, especially
feminists, lesbos, and other immoral ilk.
Elsman of the law
And there you hit the nail on the head
Elsman when you said, “Hopefully with the State Attorney General’s prior
approval.” The fact is with a majority in a state willing to elect a governor
who will ramrod each and every alternative possibility for nullifying the
murderous laws propounded by the federal government, there is a whole list of
things that can be done at the state level, each of which would bring us one
step closer to the fateful day when this nation outlaws legalized abortion or
enters into civil war. But that requires a state with a majority of men willing
to die to establish God’s Law if necessary. A state with something approaching
an army real enough to unleash war in this nation rather than spend one more
day collaborating with legalized murder and abomination under God’s Law. I’m
running for governor of such a state.
Neal, the Real Deal
Elsman,
you may have redeemed yourself in my esteem. What a great
idea! I may file that action, myself. Why didn't I think of it? I am the
greatest jailhouse lawyer that ever lived, after all.
If I told you the
whole story and cited cases, you, being the great lawyer you are (which I am
now compelled to acknowledge before the world) would have to admit that my
estimation of myself is not overblown. But never mind that. I have to tell you that you may have come up
with the answer I've sought since I painted Deformed Fetus beginning on the
same day Roe v. Wade was published, and added the last brush stroke the next
year in mid-1974. Yep, I painted a picture of Holocaust II, beginning its underlying pencil sketch on the same day Roe was published, but did not have the brains to come up with what you just did. I have got to think it over carefully. I think I will file that action and see it to the end. I just don't know whether I should compose it all myself, for myself, or do it by representing somebody else.
However, surely I should not have to do all the work. As sound as the idea is, anybody should be able to do it, or perhaps thousands should agglomerate into one entity and file on behalf of the thousands in the person of a single group-entity. There's a lot to think over here. If you have any further ideas on it, how about hitting your reply button (instead of reply all) and discuss it with me personally. I could give this idea wings and make it fly. Shouldn't I?
Your most recent reformed admirer,
Bob Lokey
PS. This means that you and I should bury any hatchets we
have constructed 'twixt us.
Dear Mr. Lokey: As the Elsman Law
office administrator, I must say I hope there has been no misunderstanding.
You see Mr. Lokey there are no free lunches
here in the Great State of Michigan.Mr. Elsman fee's per hour are $500.
For counsel as you have received on a one time bases $1,500 per hourly charges follow.
A victory in the law suite will be 47% of the gross.
At this time your outstanding balance is $1,500.
Prompt payment would be appreciated. A.J. Cutthroat
Dr.
Webbie, the flake pretender, who never worked hard
enough to make Harvard & Michigan Law:
Don’t ever
interfere with my professional practice, plus there are penal ties in the
criminal code for pretending to be what you are not, even though you have been
doing that all your life, according to Bob& Ruben.
Further, that pic
looks like I have been in to Ford’s booze, and you well know that I keep mine
own stash at the ranch and the office, much to the shock of James Gilles, the
dumpster-jumper. Elsmanstein, J.D., the
lawyer
PS. Suffice it to
say to low-key that I do not take retainers from “high maintenance” clientele
(read: “goofball” or “no pay”). However,
if he is an enemy of Jester Smock, the entertainer, I like that. The governor
is only on the cusp, not a goof. I
rather like the way Neal puts his ass out.
PPS. Take note
that Michigan has just today approved much tougher standards for getting an
abortion. “RTL” is rejoicing, even
though Neal, the Real Deal, thinks they are ass-less wimps – Catholics who want
to flood the world with Catholics more than Muslims want to do the same with
camel jockeys.
Okay,
I'll be happy to pay. I'm glad there are no free lunches in the
Great State of Michigan. However, there are no free lunches in the Great State
of Alabama since I moved here a while back, either, although there were plenty
of free lunches previously. Not being a jailhouse lawyer any longer, though, my
own consultation fee, in tendering high level responses to legal queries, is
higher now than normal. Still, it's but a measly $10,000 per hour, which I
figure any great lawyer like Elsman can afford.
It took 1/2 hour
to consider and compose my email in response to yours, as I was busy thinking
some pretty lofty thoughts right then that slowed me down. The fee comes to
only $5,000. A quick calculation (your fee subtracted from mine) shows that I
am owed only $3500. You may enjoy knowing that every penny of it will go toward
researching the mandamus idea you presented to me in order to ascertain its
absolute validity. Please send cash, check or money order.
Bob, no longer "The Greatest Jailhouse Lawyer in the
Whole World," Lokey, reporting as required.
Sadly,
you guys are about as relevant as the Westboro Baptist Church
freaks, emailing and responding within the pitiful group named above, like a
bunch of inbreeds, gleefully congratulating the head inbreed Horsley for some
profound, reused statement. I've said it before and I'll say it again: you all
want to kill some abortionist so grow some and take action. Horsley and Lokey
talk tough, but neither them, nor any of the rest of you, will ever take any
action because you're afraid, trembling little cowards who entertain yourselves
quoting the scripture and patting each other on the back. At least the guys you
quote in the Bible were willing to be jailed and even die for what they
believed. They're relevant and always will be, while the cowards you are will
turn to dust and blow away having accomplished nothing. What a waste of time.
This
is nothing short of incitement, but I rather like it – this is Eph.
6 warfare! However, all you turds must
understand it is not against flesh & blood. Elsmanstein of the Law Party, JD
Yes,
Stan is clearly inciting someone to kill an abortionist. But
consider this: Perhaps Stan is cunning and wants abortionists killed, but does
not want to pay the penalty himself, so he incites us to do his wet work for
him. Does that make Stan an ally in the battle, or an enemy? Such convoluted
questions show why Psy Ops are extremely difficult to parse. Neal
Neal
the whole (sic: “hole”) deal: Just don’t go offing someone like
Stan-Da-Man, so to prove anything.
Elsmanstein the Lawyer, worth every cent of advice you’re paying for,
and then some.
Yes, once
again you earn every penny of your retainer, counselor. Neal
Neal
the Wheel, I know I seemed
flip. Sorry.
It is my job
Christmas time to follow the Lukan scriptures, not just re the birth of out
Lord and Savior, but also to the very last paragraph, where the saints were
joyful – and in the temple day and night, praising God with all their
right. Imagine that being done today!Nothing has changed. He is still our Savior and Lord. I want joy to show forth out of you very serious people.
Abortion is murder but we can only ministrate and demon strate to such that partake, and pray for a conversion; i.e., a change of mind with deep repentance.
The Christians must count it all joy the whole time, that we might serve such a mighty Savior, who made not only children but the whole universe to please his Father of that mysterious Trinity.
So, many of us will gather just before New Year’s Eve in Vegas to preach against abortion and all evil – preach on the very “strip” in front of the Bellagio and other ca-sin-os, praising God in a sanctuary, until we go out at night to the streets. Many ladies will be there who have aborted their fetuses, and you are welcome to attend and give heed and preach, perhaps getting your soul saved for the first time, in the process, as all anti-aborts are not saved on this list – that I know.
Old Elsmanstein, the lawyer, leaning upon his staff and blessing you all with the mercies of Jesus this merry Christmas.
Thank you for your offer, Elsman. I
will come if the Lord leads, although the last time I was in Vegas a witch
disguised as a fetching young whore touched my gonads while I was passing by
her. By God’s grace I kept on walking. But still...
In
the meantime there is much more than “only ministrate and demon-strate to such
that partake” that can be done.” Like Oliver Cromwell said to King Charles I, people
in authority need to understand they too might lose their heads if they don’t
establish and enforce God’s Laws.Since this is a nation of and by the people, all people are in authority; and those people need to realize their heads are at risk when God’s law is not only ignored but usurped and replaced with its opposite.
Neal from the campaign trail
What?
I have been to
Vegas countless times preaching and not one time has this ever happened!A) Were you at a whore house?
B) Were you in a dark alley?
C) Were you gambling in a casino?
D) “Young whore”! Was he hanging around children? And for what?
E) Was he there to run for office in the State of Nevada?
And Elsman, we do not want Neal in our
convention, as what will he speak on?
1)
How to have sex
with a farm animal?2) How to bomb an abortion clinic?
3) How to shoot an abortion doctor?
4) How to run for office and only get three votes?
5) How I can justify never killing for Jesus yet ask others to do that?
6) Why the FBI is always watching me?
Neal, you are not welcomed anywhere near
Vegas or I will do a bobby Bible on you and drag you down a hill personally.
We do not endorse your gospel, and maybe
there is a reason God does not allow you to have money and travel.You are unworthy to stand with us.
Ruben Israel, who still believes Paul Hill is
burning in hellfire for murder and supported the Florida government to execute
him.
Ruby, I’m sad to have given
you the opportunity to remind people who you are. As for attacking me
physically, I’ll have to see it to believe it. It has been my experience that
loud mouth blowhards like you rarely have the courage required to attempt to
arrest another man, even an old one like me.
And
if I come to Vegas, what would I preach? This: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1t-slq96O14
Lots of disguised emotion above, and
something sounds familiar. As I knelt in
a field after they’d made Paul Hill a martyr, a man near-by kept shouting,
“Paul Hill is burning in hellfire.”
______________________________________
---------------------------------------------------------------
To send money to the federal Prisoners, those with eight digits after their
names, make out a postal money order to the Prisoner’s name and number. Then send it to Federal Bureau of Prisons, PO
Box 474701, Des Moines, Iowa 50947-0001.
You can send a check directly to the others.______________________________________
----------------------------------------------------------------
Receipt
of this excellent missive notwithstanding, if you wish to be excluded from
such blessings in the future, simply advise me.
No comments:
Post a Comment