Thursday, December 26, 2013

"Contraception" is Murder, November, 11-16, 2013


formerly, Abortion is Murder, and, before that, skyp

(stop killing young  people)


November, 2013,  Vol. 11   No. 16

PO Box 7424, Reading, PA 19603

Phone, 484-706-4375


Circulation, 210

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 yet 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, two grand for others.


  I think we can all agree there is nothing peaceful, nonviolent, or prolife about letting innocent children be killed. So I believe we should examine every legitimate means, including force, in our attempt to protect children from 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.         Evans, Paul Ross 83230-180,  FCI, PO Box 1500, El Reno, OK 73036

2.         Griffin, Michael 310249, BRCF, 5914 Jeff Atles Rd., Milton, FL 32583-00000

3.         Grady, Francis 11656-089, USP Allenwood, P.O. Box 3000, White Deer, PA  17887

4.         Holt, Gregory 129616   Varner Supermax, PO Box 600, Grady, AR 71644-0600    

5.         Kopp, James 11761-055,  USP Canaan, P.O. Box 300, Waymart, PA 18472 

6.         Roeder, Scott 65192  PO Box 2, Lansing, Kansas 66043

7.         Rogers, Bobby Joe 21292-017, USP Beaumont,  PO Box 26030, Beaumont, TX 77720

8.         Rudolph, Eric 18282-058  US Pen. Max,  Box 8500, Florence  CO 81226-8500

9.         Shannon, Rachelle 59755-065, FCI Waseca, Unit A,  P.O. Box 1731, Waseca, MN 56093   

10.       Waagner, Clayton Lee 17258-039, USP, P.O. Box 1000, Lewisburg  PA 17837




  Francis Grady sent me about eight letters recently.  I’ll post a few here, a few there:


  Mr. John Dunkle,  God blerss “all” his children.

  John nice volume bout paul hill, now he,  paul, is a real trooper.  From God’s angels rose up w/power -2- stop a Government killer amen

  -2- paul, may he rest in pece.

  Now we must build a bridge across this band of killers.  We need new abortion signs, ones that have little children for the mother -2- see what they are robbing there self from.  A child of Lord Jesus.  If we show things of love they might do good.  Amen

  So Now w/stand -2- complete 4- everstanding life in heaven.  I have a pass of life until every lasting life By the Book of Good their in revuation chapter -22-

but however my appeal brief is in Sir John I am getting -2- be bless w/new trial in Green Bay Wisconsin.

  the Docket Brief is in Praise Thee Lord..  John Dunkle for -4- all his children.  My Drive is -2- free all them souls that are  trap in the abortion center in the USA. -2- free them -2- the stars of heaven and pray -2- rejoice there souls w/ Now!! my Roomate, soulmate Robin hood,,, I, dont get any letter i worry in pray -4- her return.  Thanks -4- all the Prays for healing and love of Pray is a gift of  Love from God.




Dear John, Does pregnancy begin at fertilization or implantation? Let's take a deeper look into this question.

  In an ectopic pregnancy, the baby implants in the wrong place, outside the normal region of the uterine cavity. The fallopian tube is the most common place of ectopic pregnancy. But the baby can also implant in the abdominal cavity, outside the uterus, and in some cases the baby will be born healthy from a full term abdominal pregnancy by caesarean section.

  The most common occurrence of an abdominal pregnancy is known as a secondary abdominal pregnancy. What "secondary" means is that first the baby implants in the fallopian tube, then the baby reimplants in the abdominal cavity after the fallopian tube bursts from the baby's growth. So there are actually two implantations in this case: First the baby implants in the fallopian tube and, after the tube bursts, the baby comes out of it and implants for a second time in the abdominal cavity.

  So if the start of pregnancy is defined as implantation, not only would this mean two separate pregnancies for the same baby without any intervening deliveries or transfers, but it would also mean pregnancy begins at an indefinite time depending on when the implantation occurs. For example, in the case of a secondary abdominal pregnancy, the second implantation begins two months or more after fertilization, after the fallopian tube bursts.

  Thus it is evident that implantation does not properly regard  the onset of pregnancy overall. Rather, implantation merely regards the commencement of a site-specific maintenance of pregnancy, depending on where and when the baby establishes an attachment to the mother. Normally this occurs in the uterine cavity, but in an ectopic pregnancy even a series of implantations is possible. In contrast, fertilization regards the commencement of pregnancy in the overall sense and is independent of a maintenance site or specific actions such as implantation.

  Although abortion is the term commonly used to describe the termination of pregnancy, to avoid ambiguity it is better to use the term concepticide (conceptus + -cide) as the taking of the life of a conceptus. This makes it clear that drugs and devices to terminate pregnancy are concepticidal, whether acting before or after implantation. It also makes it clear that practices such as discarding human embryos are concepticidal.

  This is why I suggested in the past that you change the name of your newsletter to "Concepticide is Murder." Of course, "Contraception is Murder" is valid too if you are trying to emphasize that many forms of contraception are in fact concepticidal. Sincerely, Cal




  NARAL’s Ilyse Hogue sends me her newsletter and I find in it things like this:


  When 16-year-old Emily* asked Judge Peter Batallion permission to get an abortion, he told her she would be “killing the child inside of her.”


  Ilyse then tries to get a hundred thousand killers’ helpers to sign her petition to reprimand the judge (and send her cash).

  I signed and sent nothing, but I did email her:  “That judge is outrageous!  Why can’t he say ‘killing the kangaroo or the mole or the goldfish inside of her’ like we do?”

  Well, actually, I emailed nothing either ’cause I want to keep receiving that valuable missive.  I just save my comments for here.


  And here’s why I want to stay on NARAL’s mailing list:


  Friend, I want to make sure you saw Ilyse’s email from Friday. Ken Cuccinelli--once again--had the nerve to compare abortion to slavery. And this time, he took it a step further suggesting abortion could be grounds for a Civil War…just like slavery. A governor like Ken Cuccinelli would be a devastating blow for the women of Virginia and for women across America. This is only the latest in his continued attacks against women and their right to choose. I urge you to join the fight today.

  This race is close. We need every dollar we can raise. And we need it now. Stand with us against Ken Cuccinelli with a donation today and help support all the important work we do.

  We're in this together.  Melissa Schwartz Development Director


  It’s not the first time NARAL’s gone after Cuccinelli.  He’s #1 on their hit list so he should be #1 on our help list.

  The American Way of Life and Death


  Sarah Elizabeth Brown was 36 weeks-old when her mother decided not to keep her – nearly full term. Dr. George Tiller, a late-term abortionist who lived in Kansas, attempted to kill Sarah with a shot of potassium chloride, but she didn’t take to the poison injection the way she should have. Instead of the needle piercing Sarah’s heart, it punctured her brain.

  Sarah was born not long after and was adopted.

  She was blind, had a stroke at about six months, and finally passed away from kidney failure at age five.  

  The killer himself was terminated a few years later.




  The American Way of Doing Business


 The personal writings and archives of Rev. Michael Bray, a central figure to the extremist wing of the anti-abortion movement  who is best known for his role in the bombing of clinics providing abortion services, will be auctioned on Oct. 13, 2013 through Oct. 23, 2013.  Bray is a self-ordained minister who was convicted  of participating in the bombing of a number of clinics that provided abortion services in the Washington, D.C. area.  Bray served time in prison from 1985 until 1989 for his role and has continued to serve as a leader in the militant Christian anti-abortion movement, advocating for direct (including violent) action against those who perform abortions.”


  Bray responds, ”Cassel  and Associates sells Brays confiscated writings for PP!  The same writings deemed a threat by PP!

  “Are the ‘borts the courts or both schizophrenic?” 



  During the four years he spent in lock-up, Robert Weiler contributed frequently to this newsletter.  Check out his October 2010 essay, one of the most interesting I’ve ever posted.  Since prison he’s gotten married and started his own business. 

  Two days ago Robert finally escaped restriction as well and he began carrying out his plan to visit those who kept him going during the long four years: me, Don Spitz, Mike Bray, and Dan Holman.

  Robert just left Reading where we spent two valuable hours together.  Now I hope Don, Mike, and Dan will also get to spend time with this remarkable young man.

  Robert says he is not a good sidewalk counselor but find out how he goes about fighting the war anyway these days and you’ll see why I say he’s the only one I know who is just as valuable fighting for life outside prison as inside.


  Here’s a list of aphorisms Robert gathered recently, some new, some old:


1.  I would not shoot an abortionist but who am I to impose my morality on someone else?
2. The prosecution and execution of Paul Hill violates his privacy rights.

3. Paul Hill changed the heart of John Britton; he changed his baby-killing breathing heart to the still heart of a dead man.

4. We cannot be sure it’s wrong to kill an abortionist because we don’t know when life begins!

5. Killing an abortionist should only be done if the baby’s life is in danger.

6. We can stop the shooting of abortionists by legalizing their executions.

7. Paul Hill had more love and courage in his little finger than the entire Body of Professing Believers in America.

8. We are not advocating violence; we advocate stopping the violence. It’s open season on babies seven days a week. Why don’t we have one day, call it Wacky Wednesday, when we kill four thousand abortionists. Baby murder would grind to a halt. Experts agree, “Dead Doctors Don’t Kill Children.”

9. I’m pro-choice on killing abortionists. Is this not a personal decision? Furthermore, I think killing abortionists should be safe, legal and rare.

Rev. Spitz comments: “One that Robert left out:  Don't believe in shooting babykilling abortionists?  Then don't shoot one.”



  My favorite is #4.




  messages from two great people:


BOBBY JOE ROGERS asks me to ask Christians to write him.  He is a very nice man, i enjoy his letters.

Also please remember those that are incarcerated this thanksgiving and Christmas.

thanks ya'll        Tobra  ____________________________



  another from Francis


  MR, John D --  Hi the BOP destroy your pamphelt  I only receive page 5-6 all rip up.

  I am real mad at the BOP.  you Poor tax payers foot the Bill thay feed and don’t work us.  I ask the  warden to put me on the “Rock pile” or chain gang  not even this place is weak no slave labor I like to work.  Johk,, I am the saime feed me don’t work us or me.   Waste good food all we do eat shit sleep.  What do we do John Dunken?  Maybe can you print this words of thi Prisoner of Christ.  Amen

   -4- score a 10000- years ago Jesus die on the cross

-4- our sin he the Lord gave his own life.  Why the gov. could sleep at night for the tax papers could sleep at night.  Well John sleeping at night don’t save little troopers lives.

  Fight -4- the rights of the unborn we all must reach down in our souls John, Don, Father Pear, TOBRA, Cathy, Melvin, Maude, Mr. Broke of CA, the little troopers are paying the price there Blood is spill on the U.S. land in Murdering Mills By Butchers and eye -4- an eye Blood -4- Blood  must i spell it out.

  The army don’t care the law 1973 kill over 65 Million Tax payers what is wong Men & Ladys 65 million little troops are going -2- fly down from heaven with our Lord and sit and wate -4- the butchers of Kill mills & there unwanted murdering Moms and Watch there Lord cast them -2- Hell burning hell but -4- now Melvin, Maude, Tobra, Cathy Father pear, John don Rev Don, it D.C. and all prisoners of Christ we must stand an fight -4- our true little troopers that die w/o last rights or grave, or first breath of air, or paying taxes.

  amen to our little troopers – fineally I have the video of me driving in the Plant Parenthood april 1 2012 a live video me smashing window Pouring the 5 elements in too the window then the lord yes the Lord lit up the kill mill yes if i send that Video -2- yous can put on the internet a live fire of Kill Room can yous sell it on e-bait or better yet put on a site and $495.00 a Video yes 50% goes to PRO-LIFE 50% goes -4- new lawyer plust in the Video my whole right hand is on fire, on Video Plant Parant Hood on fire My right hand on fire plust my Video of testomonay w/FBI and grandchute P.D. yes live Video yes live to sell to the eyes of e-bait, plust Video of exame Room of Killing Butchering Room yes the Lord put my feet -2- the killin Room Window -2- releast the sould of little troopers

  Who want -2- handle the task of the Videos  lets put some money love in Pro-Life & my lawyers even pay for the new flash letters of contreptions is Murder some money -4- ink stamps yes can any one handle this so reply w/letter sir John Dunkers.

  Can we get the trust fund for the little troopers

  We can call it the llast Right for Video of Plantit Parant Hoods Video

  any one game -2- show the world live Video of the rights of little troopers


  Francis has a great idea here, I think.  I’m writing to him for details.




  Neal Horsley circulates one of his pointed videos, this one comparing most of us to those who ignored the dying man in “The Good Samaritan” story.  Neal asks why, and Terry answers:


Dear Neal:  Why won't [we] help? Because [we] put the babies in the ditch [ourselves]. The babies weren't dragged out like Jews in The Third Reich by goose-stepping goons with guns in the dead of night and herded into cattle cars to extermination camps in Poland. No. They were hauled out by their parents in broad daylight to America's Abortion Auschwitzes on Main Street USA with the full cooperation of the local police and politicians they elected to public office, and who pay the killers with public money.

  That’s why.              




  Sher Ziev interviews Rev. Michael Bray


  Recently, I read that Planned Parenthood was attempting to collect on a legal judgment against Michael Bray. I wanted to learn more about it and contacted him. Michael is arguably one of the most controversial figures in the anti-abortion movement. Some love him and some hate him. He was convicted of conspiracy in the planned bombing of an abortion clinic and spent time in prison. Today, he continues to maintain his innocence in the matter. The reason(s) for his position are included in the below interview. I disagree with Michael on a number of things. However, I also find him and his story most interesting – if not compelling. I hope that you will too.

Sher: Michael, thanks so much for joining me, today. You are likely one of – if not the – most controversial anti-abortion activists today. First and foremost, you have been one of the most controversial figures in the pro-life movement. You have been called "violent" by the abortion crowd and to be fair, after a series of bombings of Planned Parenthood abortion clinics, in 1985 you were arrested, charged, convicted of conspiracy and spent 1985-1989 in prison. Would you tell us what led you to your actions and what Scripture(s) you followed to support your decision.

Michael: Thank you for the opportunity to share some facts on the subject as well as my thoughts. The record shows that I was convicted in federal court on the testimony of Thomas Spinks, a co-defendant, on various conspiracy charges in connection with the destruction of several abortuaries – $1 million in damages (in 1984 dollars) – by means of explosives and/or fire in D.C., Maryland, Virginia, and Delaware. Mr. Spinks had denied any involvement on my part until, while sitting in jail for months without bail, his resolve weakened. The joy of having blessed the nation with deliverance from several baby-butchering contemporary Auschwitzes began to wear thin as he sat in a noisy jail without any lawyers coming to his aid, threatened severely with many years in prison. He was offered an attractive plea bargain in exchange for testifying that I collaborated with him; he would be given a 15-year sentence rather than sixty-some years. Another co-defendant and associate of Mr. Spinks was Kenneth Shields who was sentenced by plea agreement to two years.
  The record also shows that upon appeal my conviction was reversed in the summer of 1985, after 18 months of jail time. Returning to trial and facing additional charges amounting to an aggregate forty-some years, creatively assembled by U.S. district attorneys, I opted to enter an "Alford Plea" rather than a plea of "innocent." This eponymous term derives from a 1963 North Carolina case where Mr. Henry Alford could in good conscience admit no guilt in a murder charge. However, in the face of evidence likely enough to bring a conviction and the option of pleading guilty to reduce the severity of the punishment, he opted to enter a guilty plea without admission of guilt. Under this "Alford Doctrine," I entered a guilty plea and admitted no guilt. The plea bargaining between my lawyers and the federal prosecutors – with the judge's compliance – was that a straight "guilty" plea would result in a five-year sentence. My preferred Alford Plea could be had for an extra year. Additionally, while waiting in a noisy county jail in Maryland for a few weeks through these negotiations, having been uprooted from my new home in Ray Brook F.C.I, near Lake Placid, New York, it was communicated to me by my attorney from "the court" that a benefit of entering a straight guilty plea would redound to my being let out on bond for a few weeks to join my family over Christmas. Sentencing would occur after the holidays and I could return to my new "home" in New York for another 18 months to complete the three real time years on a five-year sentence.
  I opted for the Alford Plea. Six years. And no release on bond to be home for a few weeks before returning to New York. It was an hour's drive for my wife and the Harford County Jail, in Bel Air, Maryland was noisy. I would remain there until sentencing in several weeks before I was returned to Ray Brook. That was the "deal." I had support, however. My wife as well as my co-pastor visited on separate occasions. He brought the Sacrament to me and prayed for endurance and faithfulness.
  Confinement to a miserable jail serves certain unspoken purposes of prosecutors. A disagreeable environment induces compliant pleas from the one imprisoned. He is inclined by such coercion to do what is necessary to find relief from discomfiting conditions. Time and misery take a toll, but the intentions in such events are not human ones alone.
  It was in such a place and under the strain of decision and pressure to controvert conscience that a divine purpose came to be recognized in due time. It did not become clear and appreciated until many years later. In the short run, the decision to endure a raucous environment satisfied my conscience. There was no guilt to be confessed. And no deed to be denied or renounced: The deeds I was charged with were not misdeeds and needed no renunciation or repentance therefrom. There was no guilt to be confessed or admitted.
  Only recently have my thoughts been focused upon a particular divine purpose for the weeks spent in the [omission] Harford County Jail. There was a man named Michael Murphy there with me. He contacted us twenty years later here in Ohio where we have lived since moving from Maryland in 2003. He and his wife live in Chicago. After calling us a few years ago, the couple made a six hour drive to visit us. He had phoned out of the blue, having tracked down contact information. We had spoken once previously on the phone after parole limitations on contact with felons and ex-felons had expired. Our visit was quite an enjoyable and satisfying one.
  He reminded me of his situation there at that time. A narcotics cop, he had gotten into trouble with personal addiction as well as theft of property recovered by law enforcement personnel. He had fallen from law enforcer to law breaker and, by his own assessment, he was far from God. Michael said that in a state of mental and spiritual desperation among an assembly of miscreants and malefactors, he felt drawn to me. It was a surreal several days.
  I had unabashedly made a stand among fellow inmates, insisting, for instance, that I get my food last and that if I didn't get all that was intended, I would "call the cops" – the prison guards who delivered everyone's food. Our meals were delivered through a small opening in the door which gave access to a larger common area with two steel picnic tables surrounded by a dozen cells each with a set of bunk beds and a toilet. But as the food was passed around from inmate to inmate as it was quickly received and forwarded from one to another, there were always some who ended up with more than others. The disparity was clear to all, understood by some, and opposed by none.
  When I publicly objected asking why some had extras and others had none, the answer given by one or two, with some nodding approval and others just turning away, was that this and that inmate owed food items to this one or that one for various reasons (bets, trades, etc.). When I objected that the accounting was not quite right and that a few of us were shorted our meal, I was met with intransigence from certain ostensible enforcers among the inmates. The short of the story was that I prevailed and Michael Murphy made me his mentor.
  Michael had observed me sitting in the early morning quiet taking advantage of some light coming from a window on the floor where I sat reading the Scriptures. He was full of questions and made many inquiries into matters of justice, spirit, Jesus, sin, and guilt. As was made clear years later, it was a divine appointment.

  All this to say that I was immured for 46 months and 10 days rather than the three years – all over a matter of conscience. The extra ten months figured, it seems, by frail human assessment, to have served at least one purpose – the

evangelization of Michael Murphy. I might surmise and ponder many other divine purposes, but onward to your inquiry. Your actions – whatever they were, and such as they are asserted to be – were, indeed, anti-abortion and I can ably defend those deeds as they have been alleged by the government. The principle is simple: children in the womb are no less human beings than those outside the womb and may not be harmed or killed by anyone – parents, relatives, government, or enemies. Due process must be afforded them as it must those outside the womb before their lives may be lawfully taken. Of course it is silly to assert such process when these little ones are without the capacity to commit crimes. Therefore they must all the more be afforded the protection of the law and when the law fails to protect them, they may be protected by any citizen who chooses to so do whether acting out of duty or sheer merciful sympathy. Whatever methods of protection may be adduced for the protection of those outside the womb may be employed for those inside the womb. This principle is supported not only in the Law of God, but in the our own western case law as well as our statutes – protection for the unborn was present in the laws of all the States of the Union until 1973.
  The moral and legal insanity of the Roe opinion is carried along by the modernist liberation movements grounded in Lawlessness. I affirm, to the contrary, the historic Christian and western view of man which acknowledges that he is "endowed by the Creator with certain inalienable rights" which include the right to life. When we deny the Creator and the dignity of human beings grounded in the "image of God" in which they are created, we permit not just race-based slavery, but the destruction of out-of-favor humanity.
  The same Holy Scriptures to which Lincoln appealed provide the case for protecting innocent human beings. If a man is breaking into my house at night with the intent to steal, says Moses, and I discover him, I man kill him without incurring bloodguilt. That is, I will not be charged with murder (Ex. 22:2). The assumption is that I did not know that the man was just a thief and not a murderer. I may not kill a thief unless he may be legitimately regarded as a threat to my family. The principle here is lethal defensive action. Human beings may be protected from aggressors with lethal force as necessary. This is the doctrine of Defensive Action. The command to love includes the principle of defense and protection. The command to love my neighbor includes taking action which preserves his life and protects him from an aggressor. We are authorized by God and the civil laws (which are not always, as in the present case, consistent with themselves) to defend the innocent.

  The inclusion of the child in the womb is exemplified in the Mosaic case law where two men are fighting and by accident they strike a pregnant woman and she delivers a child prematurely. The responsible offender must pay for any injuries – life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot" (Ex. 21:22, 23). That is, the lex talionis applies for the child in the womb as it does for those outside the womb. The Scriptures do not blur the value of the child across artificial developmental lines drawn by modern neonatologists. There is a singular word for the newborn and the one in the womb. John the Baptist is a "brephos" jumping in his mother's womb. The same term is used to indicate an ex-utero infants in the rest of the New Testament.
  It is the biblical doctrine of the image of God in man, the imago Dei, which has informed the laws of western civilization for almost two millennia. That doctrine has given us the principle of "the dignity of man" which holds humanity above the rest of creation and indicates basic protections which our Constitution and legislation have upheld.

  I see I have gotten a windy on this question. I will attempt to be a bit more succinct.

Sher: In our recent conversation, you referred to yourself as a Christian Reconstructionist (aka Theonomy). In multiple articles from the traditional media, the movement is referred to as "radical" and "frightening." Yet, it seems to be a belief that promotes the worldview of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob...a viewpoint held by Hebrews and Christians for millennia. Would you tell us your belief and practice of and in this belief system?

Michael: That term, in contemporary parlance, best describes my view of the proper foundation for civil law. I believe that God's Law – given by Moses and the Prophets and reformulated by Christ – provides us the standard for all civil governments of the world. As the Gospel message goes forth and prepares the hearts of the people to "walk in the law" (Romans 8), the Law serves as a foundation for the civil laws of the nations. By what other standard would we Christians recommend that the nations govern?

Sher: Planned Parenthood v ACLA (American Coalition of Life Activists) was a case against you and the ACLA for distributing "Wanted" flyers that gave some personal information about abortionist doctors. The jury found the flyers to be "true 
threats. "Planned Parenthood won the case and received a judgment against you and 10 others; to you personally it was a $1Million judgment. However, it was not quite specific in how it was to be administered. Recently, Planned Parenthood began the sale of your unpublished works including your personal letters via auction. Will you give us your perspective on these recent developments?


  I’ll finish this next issue.



  For back issues of this newsletter go to


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, IA 50947-0001.


  Ask the non-feds how they may receive money – check, money order, etc. It varies by state.


  Receipt of this excellent missive notwithstanding, if you wish to be excluded from such blessings in the future, simply advise me.

Monday, November 11, 2013

"Contraception" is Murder, October 2, 11-15, 2013


formerly, Abortion is Murder, and, before that, skyp

(stop killing young  people)


October 2, 2013,  Vol. 11   No. 15

PO Box 7424, Reading, PA 19603

Phone, 484-706-4375


Circulation, 203

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 yet 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, two grand for others.


  I think we can all agree there is nothing peaceful, nonviolent, or prolife about letting innocent children be killed. So I believe we should examine every legitimate means, including force, in our attempt to protect children from 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.         Evans, Paul Ross 83230-180,  FCI, PO Box 1500, El Reno, OK 73036

2.         Griffin, Michael 310249, BRCF, 5914 Jeff Atles Rd., Milton, FL 32583-00000

3.         Grady, Francis 11656-089, USP Terre Haute, PO Box 33, Terre Haute, IN 47808

4.         Holt, Gregory 129616   Varner Supermax, PO Box 600, Grady, AR 71644-0600    

5.         Kopp, James 11761-055,  USP Canaan, P.O. Box 300, Waymart, PA 18472 

6.         Roeder, Scott 65192  PO Box 2, Lansing, Kansas 66043

7.         Rogers, Bobby Joe 21292-017, USP Beaumont,  PO Box 26030, Beaumont, TX 77720

8.         Rudolph, Eric 18282-058  US Pen. Max,  Box 8500, Florence  CO 81226-8500

9.         Shannon, Rachelle 59755-065, FCI Waseca, Unit A,  P.O. Box 1731, Waseca, MN 56093   

10.       Waagner, Clayton Lee 17258-039, USP, P.O. Box 1000, Lewisburg  PA 17837




  Here’s the eighth post, and the conclusion, of Eric Rudolph’s Melvin and Maude.  If you want to read the whole novella, start with the July 2 issue of this newsletter.  Then continue in the subsequent issues except for August 3 and September 3.  Again, MV is Mr. Veracitino and DC is Doctor Canard.


 MV:  Excuse me Doctor, but isn’t marriage about procreation?  While there may be other goods associated with marriage – love, care-giving – it’s about making and raising babies, isn’t it?  The fact is sex between men and women regularly produces children.  As children cannot care for themselves, the best place for them is with their biological parents.  Society therefore, has an interest in maintaining strong marriage laws to ensure that parents stick around to raise their own offspring.  Absent a strong marriage culture, the state itself would be forced to care for a lot more unwanted and abandoned children, with worse outcomes all around.

  The institution of marriage has always been about regulating sex and child care, not love or pair-bonding, which tend to wax and wane during any long-term relationship.  It’s mating which gives marriage its orientation towards children.  An infertile heterosexual couple can mate even if it cannot conceive.  But a same-sex couple literally cannot mate.  A man and a woman who mate biologically may or may not conceive, depending on factors beyond their control.  But a same-sex couple cannot unite biologically, cannot for a marital union.  “Gay marriage” is therefore an oxymoron.

  Comparing infertile heterosexual couples to same-sex couples was a case of apples and oranges.  Imagine the problem of using fertility as a criterion for obtaining a marriage license.  The government would have an impossible task devising tests designed to week out those applicants who were certain not to be able to have children.  Some couples who think themselves to be infertile later end u having a houseful of kids.  Other couples who resolve never to have children later change their minds.  Nobody believes that a couple should have to convince the government that they will always love and care for one another before receiving a marriage license.  That doesn’t mean that marriage has nothing to do with love and care-givi8ng.  Marriage most certainly advances the goods of love and care-giving; but if sex didn’t make babies there would be no reason for the institution of marriage.  If love and care-giving were the primary purpose of marriage, then the state would have no reason to exclude any type of consensual relationship from marriage.


DC:  My point exactly!  Once society let same-sex couples marry, it has no grounds to exclude any consensual relationship from marriage.


MV:  Such as Melvin the man-donkey and his lover Maude?


DC: Precisely.  The biological argument against same-sex marriage, which you so eloquently reiterated, was really a last-ditch effort in a lost cause.  Marriage was never just about biology, Mr. Veracitino; it was about morality.  For a thousand years marriage was the model lifestyle that people were expected to follow.  Except for a minority of religious celibates, every man and woman was expected to find a mate and marry.  In keeping with natural law, marriage was heterosexual, monogamous, and indissoluble.  It was a socially approved relationship, part of God’s plan for man and woman, and children were its crowning glory.  “Therefore  man leaves his father and mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh” says the Book of Genesis.  Other lifestyles were “inferior.”  Other forms of sexuality – fornication, adultery, prostitution, homosexuality, bestiality – were “immoral,” “sinful,” and “illegal.”  From this perspective, the very idea of allowing homosexuals to marry was subversive of the entire moral order.  Homosexuals were excluded  from marriage not because they couldn’t procreate but because homosexual acts were considered to be “intrinsically disordered.”

  It took a century of struggle to finally topple this moral pyramid.  Slowly but surely the sexual revolution eroded the moral foundations  of patriarchal marriage.  In the 1940s and 1950s no-fault divorce and the elimination of coverture reduced marriage to a personal relationship between autonomous individuals.  Divorce and single-parent families became common and acceptable.   The widespread availability of legal contraception and abortion in the 1960s and 1970s freed women to have sex whenever and with whomever they wanted without fear of pregnancy.  Cohabitation became the norm among young couples.  Adultery, fornication and homosexuality were decriminalized, and then normalized.  Hollywood played the key role in this revolution.  Its films liberalized attitudes about sex. By the late 1980s people began to think  in terms of “alternative lifestyles,” with homosexuality, wife-swapping, and sadomasachism treated as legitimate alternatives to marriage.  When heterosexual monogamous marriage became just another lifestyle choice, the advocates of traditional marriage had no moral ground to stand on.

  Progressives still faced an uphill battle to enact same-sex marriage laws, though.  In 1996 only twenty-0seven percent of Americans supported same-sex marriage.  Hollywood began serving the American people  a steady diet of gay-friendly movies and programs, resulting in one of the most dramatic shifts of public opinion in history.  By 2012 over fifty percent of the population favored allowing homosexuals to marry.

  Unfortunately only a handful of states legalized same-sex marriage.  The forces of hate fought back with unexpected zeal:  passing laws,. enacting amendments, holding referendums – the most famous being California’s Proposition 8, which wrote into the state constitution that “marriage was between a man and a woman.”

  Several gay couples challenged Proposition 8, claiming that it violated their due process and equal protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.  The case was argued before Judge Vaughn Walker in 2010, Perry v. Schwarzenegger.

  Defending Proposition 8, California’s attorney general gave what is perhaps the most pathetic performances  in the annals of jurisprudence.  The poor man basically conceded the plaintiff’s cause.  He stipulated that “homosexuality” is a normal expression of sexuality and that it is not in any way a form of pathology.  He accepted without question Judge Walker’s “finding of fact,” which was based on a statement put out by the American Psychological Association in 2005: “Children raised by gay and lesbian parents are as likely as children raised by heterosexual parents to be healthy, successful and well-adjusted.  The APA statement had been based on over fifty-nine studies.  The state’s attorney general challenged none of them.

  With the moral foundations of traditional marriage in ruins, all he had left was crude biology.   His only expert, a Mr. Blakenthorn, argues that marriage is inherently  about procreation, therefore, it should be preserved to heterosexual couples.  Homosexuals, although perfectly normal and equal to heterosexuals in every other respect, cannot procreate so they shouldn’t be allowed to marry.


MV:  I’ve read the Parry case, and it seems pretty obvious to me  that the state’s attorney general made no effort to defend Proposition 8  because he personally sympathized  with those who opposed it.  He basically sabotaged his own case.   Is that your opinion as well?


DC:  The case was decided on its merits.


MV:  By “merits” you can’t possibly mean the due process and equal protection claims.  The idea that the Framers of the “Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments had in mind same-sex marriage when they wrote those amendments is absurd.


DC:  You and I both know that the Constitution means whatever the latest federal judge says it means.


MV:  By “merits” do you mean plaintiff’s lineup of experts and Jude Walker subsequent “finding of fact,” specifically those APA studies?


DC:  Yes.


MV:  A couple of years after the trial an academic journal called Social Science Research published two papers which cast serious doubt on the APA’s assertion that children raised by homosexual couples do just as well as children raised by heterosexual couples.  Are you familiar with those two papers?


DC:  Vaguely.


MV:  I’ll refresh your memory.  Loren Marks of Louisiana State University examined those fifty-nine studies cited by the APA and found that three-fourths of them were “based on small, non-representative, convenience samples of fewer than a hundred participants.”  Marks concluded that the fifty-nine studies lacked scientific methodology.”  Not one of the fifty-nine studies referred to . . . compares a large, random, representative sample of lesbian or gay parents and their children with a large, random, representative sample of married parents and their children.”

  Another sociologist, Mark Regnerus  of the University of Texas set out to find what the APA’s fifty-nine studies failed to find.  Using children of intact traditional heterosexual families as a control group, he examined a large sample of young adults, looking at outcomes like rates of criminality, suicide, drug use, sexual molestation and so forth.  W
hat he discovered directly contradicted the APA’s 2005 statement.  Children of lesbian mothers were four times more likely to end up  on welfare than those raised by traditional families.  They were also the group with the lowest level of education and the most likely to be unemployed.  Children raised my lesbian mothers were eleven times more likely to report being sexually molested than children raised by biological parents.  This rate was four times higher than the next most vulnerable group: children raised in stepfamilies.  Children with fathers involved in same-sex relationships were the most likely to be involved in crime.  ; children of lesbian mothers were second most likely.  Children of gay and lesbian parents grew up to have the highest rates of depression and the highest rates of STDs.  And on and on, very depressing statistics, for the advocates of alternative lifestyles.  What do you think, Doctor?


  While Mr. Veracitino was rattling off statistics, Professor Canard was becoming visibly irritated.  He squirmed in his seat, barely able to contain himself. Finally he burst.


DC:  Fascist lies!


MV:  I see you disagree with Mark’s and Regnerus’s findings.


DC:  Hate speech!


MV: Both studies were peer reviewed and found to have been conducted using the best methods available. They hardly qualify as “hate speech.”  Can you point to any factual problems with the two studies, any biases?


Mr. Sheister:  Objection your Honor.  The state’s attorney is badgering the witness.


Judge Stamp:  Sustained, Mr. Veracitino, you are warned not to badger the witness.


MV:  But your honor . . .


Judge Stamp:  And let the record reflect that Perry v. Schwarzenegger is good law and was decided on sound scientific evidence.  Also, this court recognizes that the plaintiff, Melvin Allen White, is in face a donkey.  Mr. Veracitino, in referring to the plaintiff you will no longer use the term “man-donkey.”


MV:  How about “jackass”?

Judge Stamp:  You’ve been warned.


MV:  All right Doctor, you were saying that traditional marriage was never about procreation; it was the “model lifestyle” and stood as the cornerstone of society’s moral pyramid.  Sex outside of marriage was immoral; other lifestyles were inferior.  What did the efforts to legalize same-sex marriage have to do with all this?


DC:  The advocates of same-sex marriage were not looking for membership in the baby-making club.  Nor did the case for gay marriage hinge upon whether homosexual couples could care for children as well as biological parents.  It was about moral equality; it has always been about moral equality.  Judge Walker put it succinctly in his historic ruling:  “Proposition 8 [traditional marriage] was premised on the belief that same-sex couples simply are not as good as opposite-sex couples.  Whether this belief is based on moral disapproval of homosexuality, animus towards gays and lesbians, or simply a belief that a  relationship between a man and a woman is inherently better  that a relationship between two men or two women, this belief is not a proper basis on which to legislate . . .

Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license.  Indeed the evidence shows that Proposition  8 does not hinge more than enshrine in the California constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples.


MV:  So Perry demolished  the moral claims of marriage that some sex acts are good and other sex acts are bad, some lifestyles are superior and other lifestyles inferior?


DC:  Yes.  Judge Walker ruled that all sex is created equal, one variety no better than another; all lifestyles are created equal, one variety no better than another.  After Perry society came to accept same-sex marriage,  and when it did it had no grounds to exclude any kind of relationship from marriage.  The edifice of patriarchal marriage lay in ruins.


MV:  Am I right in saying that in your perfect world there would be no marriage or family?


DC:  Most experts agree that the world would be a better place without those patriarchal institutions.


MV:  Experts like B. F. Skinner, who wanted to replace “the family, not only as an economic unit . . . but as a social and psychological unit as well”?


DC:  Yes.


MV:  B. F. Skinner wasn’t some hair-brained radical, was  he, Doctor?


DC:  Certainly not.  He was one of the founders of behaviorism, which is the principal school of psychology today.


MV:  Prominent feminist Kate Millet was another one who thought “the care of children, even from the period when their cognitive powers first emerge, is infinitely better left to the  best trained practioners of both sexes who care for children as a vocation . . . The family, as that term is precisely understood, must go.  In view of the institution’s history, this is a kind fate.”


DC :  Marriage and family must eventually give way to progress.


MV:  Doctor, I’m sure you are familiar with the horrific history of state-run orphanages and foster care, the negative impact of children raised in these institutions is well documented.  Why would anyone want to get rid of the two-parent family?


DC:  The negative outcomes associated with state-run orphanages and foster care are largely  the legacy of living in a capitalistic society.  In a truly just society child care will be far superior to the traditional family.


MV:  By “just society” do you mean a socialist society?


DC:  I mean a society where resources are shared equally.


MV:  Therefore, the ultimate goal of the LGBTT movement is the abolition of marriage, as it has been traditionally defined?


DC:  We want marriage to evolve.


MV:  “Evolve,” “abolish,” isn’t that a matter of semantics?


DC:  No.


MV:  When something was      formerly defined as having one set of characteristics and now it has a    completely different set of characteristics – hasn’t the definition changed?


DC:  Definitions are relative; they have whatever meaning we want them to have. I believe we already covered this in our little discussion of the modern condition and the meaningless of life.


MV:  You mean like two plus two equals five, war is peace?


Judge Stamp:  Don’t harass the witness.


MV:  Let me rephrase the question:  Once upon a time, marriage was defined as heterosexual, monogamous, procreative, and indissoluble; today marriage is defined as a consensual relationship between whatever:  men with men, women with women, brothers with sisters, and if the plaintiffs are successful, men with donkeys – excuse me your Honor, donkeys with donkeys.  But don’t you see the difference?


DC:  No, I don’t.  Marriage has merely evolved to become more inclusive.


MV:  If the term “marriage” can mean anything, it means nothing.


DC:  I disagree.  In the past “marriage” meant exclusivity and oppression; today it means equality and freedom.


MV:  Allow me to go back to something you said earlier.  You claimed that the LGBTT movement is an outgrowth of the sexual revolution, which in turn is part of the larger socialist-anarchist movement.  Is that correct?


DC:  Yes.


MV:  Fourier, Proudhon, Marx, and Engels – all the founding fathers of the socialist-anarchist movement believed that monogamous marriage was the model for the entire class system. All of them preached free love and declared that the ultimate goal of the revolution was to abolish traditional marriage and family.  They felt competent of accomplishing this goal soon after overthrowing the bourgeois governments of

Europe.  Thus eliminating the seed kernel of the class system, mankind would no longer be divided  into separate families, classes, nations, and religions.  The collective would become the new family, and humanity would get back to that lovely socialist Garden of Eden that Engels wrote about in his book Origins.  Am I right so far?


DC:  Essentially.


MV:  Most people mistakenly believe  that the hippies of the 1960s were the first to experiment  with free love and communes, but they were actually late comers to these ideas, weren’t they?  Early in the twentieth century Vladimir Lenin tried to actualize the dream of free love and the collective family soon after his Bolsheviks overthrew the Czar.  The Soviet experiment was the first to be attempted on such a large scale.  First, Lenin issued decrees that annulled traditional marriages.  The old Czarist statutes that h ad criminalized homosexuality, adultery, and incest were discarded.  Open marriage – free love – was recognized in 1927.  In 1921 the Soviet Union became the first nation to legalize abortion.  State-run birth control clinics and collective nurseries were established.  Progressive teachers like Vera Schmidt set up schools and designed curriculum to educate the next generation without “sexual guile” and inhibitions, preparing them for the free love lifestyle of the future.  But their experiment failed.

  As it turned out, only a few libertines and intellectuals practiced free love.  Most people, even Party members, preferred monogamy and traditional marriage, despite the ban on such unions.  Mothers decided to stay home with their kids rather than deposit them in a collective nursery.  Consequently the nurseries closed down.  Vera Schmidt’s progressive school was also forced to shutter its doors after Stalin came to power.  Never one to let Marxist theory get in the way of practical policy, Stalin put an end to Lenin’s little free love experiment.


  DC:  The Soviets failed because they went too far too fast.  The family has been around for thousands of years; getting rid of it in one decade simply wasn’t possible. Leon Trotsky admitted as much when he sais, “You cannot abolish the family, you must replace it.”


MV:  Explain this if you will.


DC:  The Soviets attempted to impose socialism from the top down.  But as Greg Lucas later postulated in his book History and Class Consciousness (1923),  the superstructure of capitalistic society rests upon an accepted cultural-moral-religious worldview that has taken centuries to evolve. It cannot be dismantled overnight. 


MV:  In other words, the Soviet goal of abolishing marriage and family wasn’t the problem, the problem was the way they went about it?


DC:  Heterosexist patriarchal polities can’t be eliminated without significant bourgeois reaction.


MV:  I’ll taker that as a “yes.”  Isn’t it true, Doctor, that after those early failures in the Soviet Union the tactics of socialism changed?


DC:  Dialectical materialism is the story of change.


MV:  I’ll take that as a “yes” as well.  Socialism in fact split into two basic groups: revolutionary socialists and democratic socialists.  Outside the West revolutionary socialists such as Stalin and Mao Tse-Tung  would keep the militant tradition and found regimes  where party elites imposed socialism from the top down through terror, secrecy, and propaganda.  Meanwhile in

Western Europe and America , democratic socialists would work from within bourgeois society and impose socialism at the point of a gun, as the Soviets were attempting with disastrous results, the neo-Marxist  set out to infiltrate the institutions of Western society – especially those responsible for shaping popular opinion – and gradually erode its ideological foundations.  The radical feminists, the leaders of the New Left, and the LGBTT ideologues adopted the categories developed by Neo-Marxist intellectuals like William Reich and the Frankfort School.  Is this correct?


DC:  So what’s your point, that the Sexual revolution in America has its origins in the socialist movement?  McCarthyism went out of style years ago.


MV:  My point is that even though the tactics of socialism have changed, the goals remain the same.  So why won’t you just admit that you and the LGBTT movement want to abolish marriage.


DC:  Because “evolve” sounds much nicer.


MV:  You’re right, shooting people and tossing them into the Gulag was never very “nice,” was it.  Infiltrating bourgeois society’s universities, news rooms, and film studios, and gradually dismantling its moral worldview has proven more effective and “nicer” too.  Rather than trying to abolish the family outright, you have to set about to gradually replace it  


DC:  Your questions are cute, Mr. Veracitino, but a title old fashioned.  Whatever the court decides here today is merely a formality because our resolution has already succeeded.  Take a look around you: free love has overthrown the moral claims of heterosexual monogamy.  Today, no sexual group can claim the moral high ground.  Heterosexuals and homosexuals,  transsexuals and transvestites, tops and bottoms, sadomasochists and drag queens enjoy equal respect and freedom.  The modern family has become little more than a subsidiary of the state.  From pre-school to college, every child growing up today  is educated in a government school by government teachers.  With home schooling and parochial schooling outlawed by the Child Protection Act of 2022, the child receives only a government approved progressive education.  Who are the child’s role models?  Hollywood actors and pop singers, all of whom expose approved progressive opinions, have replaced parents as role models.  Where are the individual’s true loyalties?  Certainly not with his biological family.  From cradle to grave the individual’s most vital relationship  is now with the collective.  Unemployment insurance supports her when she is out of work, food stamps heed him when he is  hungry, Obamacare nurses her when she is sick , and  social security takes hi of him in old age.  For all intents and purposes, traditional marriage and family have been consigned to the history books [-- and good riddance.


MV:  I do look around me, Doctor, and I see a wasteland:  declining birth rates, skyrocketing rates of crime and delinquency, a generation of progressives on Prozac, a welfare state that no longer has the tax base to support its entitlements.  Once a colossus that bestrode the world, America today is a morally and financially bankrupt banana republic..  That what I see..  The reason we got here is because of men and women like you, Doctor.  You got a ton of academic degrees but not one ounce of common sense.  Peel back the layers of your “modern,” “progressive” ideology and it’s easy to see what it really is: insanity.  But you are right though, your revolution has succeeded.   And so much the worse for the future.  No doubt you have a different version of the future, probably still dreaming of that “radiant tomorrow” that Marx and Engels described so many years ago.


DC:  I do have a different vision of the future.  To paraphrase another great American, I have a dream that someday this nation   will stand up and live out the new meaning of its creed – “all carbon-p0based life forms are evolved equals.”  I have a dream that someday the sons of homo sapiens and the foals of donkeys will lie down together in the green pastures of specieshood.  I have a dream that my in vitro surrogated children will one day live  in a nation where they will not be judged by their anatomy  but by the content of their psychosexual perception.  When we let freedom ring, when we let freedom ring from every village and every hamlet, from every borrow and every barnyard, we will be able to speed up that day when all carbon-based organisms, men and women, donkeys and dalmatians, crustaceans and cuticle fungus, will be able to join paws, claws, and tentacles in the words of the unspecies spiritual “Free love at last, free love at last, thank God almighty we have free love at last.”


  With the trial concluded and the courtroom cleared, Judge Ruben Stamp retired to his chambers and locked the door behind him.  He was deeply troubled, not about the trial for he already knew how he would rule.   He had to come down on the right side of history and rule in favor of Melvin and Maude’s right to marry.   No, it was something else that troubled Judge Stamp.

  For years Ruben Stamp had been hiding a secret.  When he was alone on his ranch with his donkeys, he could be himself.  But in public he wore a mask.  He was sick of hiding.  Watching Melvin and Maude, the courageous young lovers, wakened the urge to open up the barn door and come out.  You see, like Melvin White, Judge Stamp was a jackass trapped inside the body of a man.  Hee-Haw.


  All quotes and many other statements in  Melvin and Maude are documented.  End notes are available upon request.

  I loved it, with one quibble -- I wish Eric had used different names for his characters to make me figure out right from wrong by myself.

  In the November 1 issue of this newsletter, I will post comments I’ve received so far.  If you have any, get ‘em in quick.




  For back issues of this newsletter go to



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, IA 50947-0001.


  Ask the non-feds how they may receive money – check, money order, etc. It varies by state.



  Receipt of this excellent missive notwithstanding, if you wish to be excluded from such blessings in the future, simply advise me.