Monday, July 29, 2013

"Contraceptionb" is Murder, August 1, 11-8, 2013


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

(stop killing young people)


August, 2013,  Vol. 11   No. 8

PO Box 7424, Reading, PA 19603

Phone, 484-706-4375


Circulation, 244

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.         Curell, Benjamin D., (out on bail)
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 11656-089, USP Terre Haute, PO Box 33, Terre Haute, IN 47808
5.         Holt, Gregory 129616   Varner Supermax, PO Box 600, Grady, AR 71644-0600   
6.         Kopp, James 11761-055,  USP Canaan, P.O. Box 300, Waymart, PA 18472 
7.         Roeder, Scott 65192  PO Box 2, Lansing, Kansas 66043
8.         Rogers, Bobby Joe 21292-017, USP Beaumont,  PO Box 26050, Beaumont, TX 77720
9.         Rudolph, Eric 18282-058  US Pen. Max,  Box 8500, Florence  CO 81226-8500
10.       Shannon, Rachelle 59755-065, FCI Waseca, Unit A,  P.O. Box 1731, Waseca,  

  Here’s a slightly different version of Jimbo’s reaction to his latest persecution: 

  "It is a privilege to share in a tiny, limited way, the suffering of children.

  Of course life in prison is nowhere near as painful as having my arms and legs torn off.  Still, I can't help but wonder if it isn't a similar species of suffering since natural life is just a slow death penalty.

  When I realize I have now been sentenced by the same court which originally decided to tear the arms and legs off children, it is for me an honor on top of an honor, even if it is useless to the children and their bullied mothers.

  Even child molesters, God help us, do not tear the arms and legs off children.  We know the molesters are going to hell if they do not repent before they die, but let's be perfectly clear about the obvious: each and every member of the US Supreme Court, and all federal judges and politicians and Barack Obama who support them, are worse than child molesters, who at least leave a child alive after they have satisfied their perverted sick selfishness.  The Supreme Court Justices can't even say that  [but see, Rehnquist Minority Opinion, in

  To the members of the Supreme Court, and all you who roll with them:  J'accuse!:  you are perverted, sick, selfish child molesters and worse.
  You have no heart, no soul, and you are headed to Hell faster than a Dreamliner, no matter how many times you think you are going to Communion.  Don't take my word for it.  Ask Pope Francis. Yeah, I said it.  So sue me.
  And while we're at it, on the subject of your eternal destiny, you can ask some others.  How about any Metropolitan in the entire world?   Any holy monk or nun, wherever you can find them.  Dr. Germaine Grisez in Emmitsville. Dr. Raphael Waters in Niagara Falls.  How about Frs. Thomas Carleton and Robert Pearson,  Pastors Matt Trewhella, Michael Bray, Daniel Holman?  How about any righteous bishop?  There are still a few.  In addition to the Pope, try Signatura Judge H.E. Raymond Burke in Rome.  How about H.E. Joseph Martino or Chaput?  Ask them.  You live in a dream world where real people like this are carefully excluded and you are surrounded by fake Roman Catholics such as Pelosi and Biden but in the end reality will be brought to you.
  I do not fear your power on earth.  But if I do not warn you, you will die in sin, and the Lord will ask me to account for your life.  Repent.  Today.  Tomorrow is too late.
  This most recent ruling is yet one more missed opportunity for the court to have redeemed itself upon reflection, a quotidian task for jurists, to be sure.
 I hope and pray, sinner that I am, that I am not standing nearby when the Supreme Court of the United States is judged in the final court of Jesus, the only one that matters.  Mayhaps I could be accepted as a witness.  But I would need to be subpoenaed." 

Dear John, The world's greatest conspiracy is bad journalism. Other conspiracies might be dirtier, but it is bad journalism that keeps them a secret.
  The reason why people do not know the true story of child homicide in America is that bad journalism keeps it a secret.
  In my last two contributions, I exposed the truth about Roe v. Wade and its companion case Doe v. Bolton. Here I am going to briefly review what I covered so far.
  The child homicide policy handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1973 is set forth in Roe and Doe. There are three parts to the policy: I. a main plan, II. a backup plan, and III. an implementation scheme. The main plan and its backup plan are set forth in Roe. The implementation scheme is set forth in Doe.
  The policy as a whole has to do with one thing only: pregnancy abatement. In view of their sexual exploits at the time, Justice Douglas characterized American women as "imbeciles afflicted with hereditary forms of insanity or imbecility." See Doe, p. 215. By 'hereditary' is meant that the Court feared younger females would follow the example of their older counterparts in a generation afflicted with forms of 'insanity' like the hippie craze and the sexual 'imbecility' that went along with it.
  So the Court handed down an abatement program to nip these carefree pregnancies in the bud to maintain public appearances.
  The main plan was to let the woman control the "basic" decision. See Doe, p. 214, "[A] woman is free to make the basic decision whether to bear an unwanted child." Giving them the basic decision was the path of least resistance to pregnancy abatement: Show women the big white sign that says "Choice" and see if they can be trusted to abate their pregnancies on their own voluntarily.
  This is why the child homicide industry uses the motto "Trust Women." It means even though women cannot be trusted to keep from getting pregnant in the first place, nonetheless each time they show up at a clinic to get rid of the evidence it is like saying, "See how trustworthy they are? So 'trust' women."
  But as Justice Douglas explains, "Such reasoning is, however, only the beginning of the problem." See Doe, p. 215. In other words, the main plan of Roe has a glitch, in that the Court feared women could not really be trusted with that either. So this is why Roe has a backup plan.
  The backup plan has two parts (A & B) because the woman's decision encompasses two alternatives: A. to keep the baby and B. to end the pregnancy. The Court's main concern was that if women went overboard in choosing to keep their babies, then the abatement program would fail. The lesser concern was that if women went overboard in choosing to end their pregnancies, it might lead to unhealthy population declines.
  So to create a backup plan the Court recognized that "[t]he State has important interests to protect." See Doe, p. 215. The "A" part of the backup is forced abortion. The "B" part is to prohibit abortion. The backup keeps the main plan working and in check: if women go overboard keeping their babies, they will be forced to abort, and if they go overboard choosing abortions, some restrictions will apply.
   According to the very foundation of Roe: "the abortion decision" (whether to keep the baby or abort) cannot be left to "the woman's sole determination" in view of "important state interests," citing the abatement programs of "Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) (vaccination)" and "Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927) (sterilization)" to emphasize government authority to override her decision to keep the baby (forced abortion). See Roe, pp. 153-154.
  As Justice Marshall explains two months later: the Court has never recognized any "right" to procreate, by which in this context he means the right of the woman to carry her pregnancy to term, as evidenced by the fact that in Roe "the Court reaffirmed its initial decision in Buck v. Bell."  See San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, pp. 100-101. Buck was the original Roe, in which the Court in 1927 extended the abatement authority of Jacobson to control the form of 'insanity' known as the flapper craze using forced sterilization.
  A main worry of the Court in Roe was that women in the hippie craze might be too spaced out to get to an abortion clinic on their own without the government pressuring them based on criminal drug use. But Skinner had been handed down in 1942 to limit Buck (sterilization) from being applied on the basis of crime and poverty. So the Court in Roe quietly went back to "its initial decision in Buck v. Bell" by abandoning Skinner, saying, "The situation therefore is inherently different from … Skinner." See Roe, p. 159. Notably, Skinner's author Justice Douglas joined with the Court in Roe in abandoning Skinner for abortion; he also joined with Justice Marshall in the San Antonio case.
  The reason why Roe has a companion case is that Roe is only a plan, and plans do not implement themselves. The Court knew skilled physicians would seldom abandon careers in legitimate medical practice in order to kill babies full time. So in Doe the Court created a safe haven for washed out physicians, by eliminating medical regulations in the first trimester. That way physicians who would normally be weeded out could stay in practice as abortion doctors to implement the abatement program.
  As Justice Douglas explains this third part of the policy: "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." See Doe, pp. 220-221. This is why washed out physicians like Dr. Gosnell are allowed to stay in practice. The Court accepts "endangering the life of the woman or seriously and permanently injuring her health" if that is what it takes to implement the abatement program.
  By this sort of "privacy" is meant not a woman's own privacy in the literal sense per se. Instead, by codeword "privacy" the Court literally means the privacy of our Nation, collectively as a whole, so as to keep the matter of what the Court calls the sexual "imbecility" of our females as a matter in private to ourselves, so that no one need be the wiser once scandalous pregnancies are aborted.
  So to wrap up with the review, there are three parts to the Court's child homicide policy encompassing Roe and Doe, and part two has two sub-parts:  

  Roe, Part I: Main plan = "Choice"

  Roe, Part II: Backup Plan = Override "Choice"
                        IIA = Forced Abortion
                        IIB = Abortion Restrictions  

  Doe, Part III: Implementation Scheme = Hire Gosnell Types

  The Press mainly covers I, gives a little coverage to IIB, gives almost no coverage to III (which is why the Gosnell trial could not be covered), and, even though it forms the legal foundation of Roe, the Press cannot give any coverage at all to IIA.
  It is bad journalism such as this that keeps the world's dirtiest conspiracy a secret in our midst. But now your readers know the true story. Sincerely, Cal 

  Like ….. No! Worse than-a Chicago mobster of the 1930'sand 40's, Bart Slepian oversaw the killing of innocent Unborn people every day of his adult professional life. Then he drove away to his comfortable home in the suburbs and told himself that what he did for a living was noble and necessary for his family.
If one has seen the fruit of just a single day of Bart Slepian's "work," one has a sudden visceral confusion to contend with. After all, "all in a day's work" means that the work product stacks up to two-ten-maybe a dozen bloody, dead, dismembered babies each shift. Some of them are dead by having their small, soft bodies literally wrenched apart and pulled through suction tubing; others are neatly cut here and there by a knife-like instrument; an arm brought out first or maybe a leg with other appendages and organs to follow.
  In each case Bart Slepian slowly, carefully carved away bone and flesh until all of the child was extracted from the womb.
  Among the pieces is a heart that was warm and beating only moments before. Tiny fingers and a thumb that once sought the comfort of this baby's mouth lay gently curled and discarded next to what remains of a liver and a foot.

  The face of this Unborn infant has been nearly shorn from the rest of his head, the eyes open and dark with sudden terror. The safety the Unborn child was feeling has been shattered; his view of a loving protected existence—no matter how simply developed—proven to be utterly false.
  The dissonance or emotional confusion can be overwhelming, so overwhelming that most men and women simply do not want to see what Barnett Slepian and hundreds of other such practitioners do for a living. It is easier to focus on the outrage one feels at seeing the man on the floor without muddying the waters with images associated with his occupation.
  But in reality, forming an opinion as to the guilt of Bart Slepian's killer has suddenly become something far more complex than seeing the dead as victim and the fleeing as murderer. As with every homicide, one needs to know what motivated such an aggressive act on the part of one who has killed. Here it seems that motive may not be so easily settled as mere "corruption," "evil," "political ideology," or reduced down to simple hatred of the man.
  Almost immediately in the case in point it was assumed that moral concerns—a decision to protect other Unborn babies from Bart Slepian and his occupation—might have played a part in the shooting. [tbc]

  This is the first part of a prescient piece Cathy Ramey wrote in 1997, soon after Slepian was stopped cold.

  Eric’s Melvin and Maud continues: 

Mr. Veracitino:  Dr. Canard, this case involves the plaintiffs’ desire to be married.  Just so we’re on the same page, can you please give us a definition of marriage? 

Dr. Canard:  As currently defined, marriage is a civil right; it’s a “personal relationship usually arising out of an emotional state of being in love.” 

MV:  I noticed that you used the words “current definition.”  Obviously there used to be a different definition of marriage.  Can you take us back in time and describe marriage as it was traditionally defined in our culture? 

DC:  I’d be glad to.  Before the sexual revolution, marriage was an institution of oppression designed to hold women and children in subjection to men; it was the cornerstone of a class system called patriarchy. 

MV: “Patriarchy” is a male-dominated culture, right? 

DC:  Basically, with the necessary emphasis on the unjust treatment of women and children.  First and foremost, marriage was a commitment between a man and a woman to form a household for the primary purpose of raising children.  Sex resulted in children, and children, it was thought, did best when raised by their biologically parents.  Boys were expected to model themselves after their fathers, girls after their mothers.  Once grown, they were expected to find mates of their own and marry – the class system perpetuating itself.

  The family’s  basic division of labor assigned the husband the duties of provider and the wife the duties of child care.  He was the “head” of the household; she was his “helpmate.”  Under the marital bargain called “coverture,” the wife “agreed” to merge her legal and economic identity with that of her husband, in effect selling herself into slavery.    She “consented” to obey him on all important matters affecting the family, and in exchange he was obliged to support her and the children, providing them with the basic material goods of life.  With protection goes obedience was the old saying.  A truly barbaric formula.

  Marriage wasn’t just a personal relationship between husband and wife; it was also a commitment made to God and country.  The union couldn’t be dissolved unless one of the spouses proved in open court that the other  had somehow broken the vow, by, for example, committing adultery or failing to provide basic material support.  For centuries the criminal statutes of Western governments punished such familial offenses.  This public aspect of marriage formed the core of the institution for a thousand years.  Marriage was, in effect, a socially approved sexual relationship, the only socially approved sexual relationship.  Non-conformists were ostracized or persecuted.  Sexual relationships outside of monogamous heterosexual marriage – fornication, adultery, and homosexuality – were “sinful” and “criminal.” 

MV:  What about love?  In today’s world love forms the entire criterion of marriage.

DC:  Like the definition of marriage itself, the pre-enlightenment era had a very different notion of love.  Love, they believed, is to will the good of another, to place another’s interest before one’s own especially when it’s not in one’s interest to do so.  People thought that true love grew out of marriage rather than preceded it.  Romance and passion were different from love.  Although passion might bring two lovers together, the thing that will keep them together is love, and love takes time to form.  There was an element of compulsion involved in their idea of love, as, for example, when a mother is compelled to care for her helpless child.  They felt that unless society compelled spouses to fulfill their marriage vows, most unions would quickly fall apart.  Today, we rightly consider this kind of co-dependency to be toxic.  

MV:  Yes, we do have a much more  evolved definition of love, don’t we?  Love is the emotion we feel when something pleases our senses.  We “fall in love” with a boy or a girl or a donkey or vanilla ice cream.  We may choose to express our love by marrying the object of our affection, but when this emotion wears off, we “fall out of love,” and it's time to move on to find a new object of affection.  On the case of marriage we get a divorce; in the case of ice cream we switch to chocolate.  Is that about right? 

DC:  Yah, that’s it.

MV:  Doctor, you mentioned the so-called division of labor.  Can you tell us a little about its origins? 

DC:  Back in the old days, folks believed that nature had created a division of labor between the4 sexes.  Nature, they thought, had designed females to care for children and graces them with a “feminine” temperament.  A woman was supposed to be passive, gentle, nurturing, and natural subordinate.  Conversely they believed that nature had designed males to be breadwinners and fitted them with a “masculine” temperament.  The ideal man was aggressive, strong, a natural leader.  Today we call these assumptions sexism.
  We now realize that sex and gender are two different things.  Sex is objective and de rived from nature, gender is subjective and derived from culture.

MV:  In other words there are no differences between the sexes other than anatomical?  I, for example, was born with male sexual anatomy, but post-natal cultural influences fitted me out with a “masculine” temperament and assigned me a masculine gender role? 

DC:  Correct.

MV:  I could just as well have grown up in a culture that assigns its males the role of child care and its females the role of breadwinner, where the gender roles re essentially reversed? 

DC:  That’s right. 

MV:  What about the influence of behavior of the sex hormones testosterone and estrogen? 

DC:  Negligible. 

MV:  But Doctor, levels of testosterone in males increase dramatically at puberty and reach a peak in their early twenties.  Under the influence of testosterone boys become physically stronger than girls, naturally equipping them for heavy labor and fighting.  the history of warfare is almost exclusively a male phenomenon.  The female body, on the other hand,  is almost devoted to reproduction.  This suggests to me that nature has equipped men and women differently and cultures have merely divided up  the labor assignments accordingly: women for mostly child care and men for mostly fighting and heavy labor.  The physical and emotional investment it takes for human females to bear and raise children requires that they have extra protection and support.  In every culture  I’[m aware of that sup0port has traditionally been provided by ales.  Isn’t it possible that “gender roles,” as you call them, have their origins in natural differences? 

DC:  No. 

MV:  Does the sex hormone testosterone make males naturally stronger? 

DC:  The influence of sex hormones is negligible. 

MV:  So the reason there are no female linebackers in the NFL is solely because of sex discrimination? 

DC:  Yes, the gender roles traditionally associated with being a “man” or a “woman” have no biological basis whatsoever.  They are entirely derived from culture. 

MV:  If you’ll indulge me for a minute, I’d like to read a quote from anthropologist Margaret Mead, who was certainly no right-winger: We know of no culture that has said, articulately, that there is no difference between men and women except in the way that they contribute to the next generation; that otherwise in all respects they are simply human beings with varying gifts, no one of which can be exclusively assigned to either sex.”  In other words gender roles appear to be derived from nature. 

DC:  I disagree with Ms. Mead.  Gender roles originated in class oppression, not biology.  In his landmark book,
The Origins of Family, Private Property, and the State,
Frederick Engels assures us that the earliest societies were actually matriarchal, “that woman as mother, being the only well known parent of younger generations, received a high tribute of respect and deference, amounting to a complete woman’s rule.”  Women were “physically strong and adept at self-defense,” while men performed mostly domestic tasks or were “excluded from those societies.”  The principle of fertility was considered sacred; therefore, female deities were worshiped. 

MV:  That’s fascinating. I thought all societies were essentially patriarchal.  Can you give us an example of a matriarchal culture?

DC:  Well . . . no . . . As Engels readily admitted, matriarchal societies “belong entirely to prehistoric times.”  So I really can’t give you a specific example. 

MV:  Didn‘t Engels base his assertions on ancient myths and the American Indian kinship system, which he interpreted as “proof” of a primeval matriarchate?

DC:  Frederick Engels was an honest scholar. 

MV:  This is the same Frederick Engels who was the friend and comrade of Karl Marx, the father of communism? 

DC: Yes, it is. 

MV:  If I’m not mistaken, Engels and Marx are the intellectual founding fathers of the sexual revolution, and the radical feminist movement, and the Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender movement.  Origins was the key influence on the work of such prominent lesbian feminists as Kate Millet, Shulamith Firestone, and Andrea Dworkin. The founder of the gay rights movement, Harry Hay, was himself a loyal member of the Communist Party and a great fan of Origins. 

DC:  Congratulations Mr. Veracitino, I see you’ve done your homework. 

MV:  I’ve read all your books, Dr. Canard, and it’s obvious to me that you’re a great fan of the sexual revolution.  Would you say that the sexual revolution is really just one front in the larger socialist revolution? 

DC:  I would. 

MV:  Do you also support the goals of the large socialist revolution? 

DC:  Any supporter of the sexual revolution is a supporter of the socialist revolution because the two are coterminous.

MV:  What about the Gulags and mass murders in the Soviet Union, China, Cambodia and a dozen other communist countries? 

DC:  Engels and Marx can’t be held responsible for the actions a few misguided followers.  Both men were dedicated scholars who pointed the way to a “radiant tomorrow.”  As Martin Luther King,  Jr. said, “Karl Marx had a great passion for social justice.”  We must separate socialist theory from what happened in a few socialist countries. 

MV:  Sort of  like separating Nazi theory from what happened to Nazi Germany? 

DC:  I won’t even dignify that question with a response. 

MV:  Okay back to our discussion of “socialist theory,” specifically, gender roles.  given the fact that every known culture in recorded history is patriarchal, how did we lose our matriarchal “origins”? 

DC:  A vast right-wing conspiracy that stretches all the way back to the very dawn of history.  the first societies were socialists collectives, as well as being matriarchal.  There was no private property; everything was held in common, including sex partners, there being no exclusive relationships.  “Not only brothers and sisters were originally man and wife, but also the sexual intercourse between parents and children was permitted,” said Engels.  Children were raised by the collective.  Having no private property, there was no cause for conflict, no crime or war.
  The reason early societies were matriarchal was because women were thought to generate life spontaneously.  People had yet to make the connection between sex and procreation.  As the sole life-givers, women were revered, and even worshipped.

  The snake that entered this socialist paradise was paternity.  When man discovered that his seed was necessary to generate life, he decided to overthrow the benevolent matriarchate  First, he enslaved his biological children.  Second, he turned their mother into a personal slave. Third, he invented monogamous marriage, which gave him sole title over his “wife” and children – property. 

To symbolize the triumph of patriarchy,

warlike male deities with large aggressive phalli replaced the gentle mother goddesses.  Thus was born marriage.  Engels said, “Monogamy was the first form of the family not founded on natural but economic conditions, vis the victory of private property over primitive and natural collectivism.  It has been all downhill ever since.” [tbc] 

  The remaining two thirds of Melvin and Maud continues this interchange between Mr. Veracitino and Dr. Canard, with just a brief interruption by Judge Stamp and one by Heiman Sheister.

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 PO Box 474701,  Des Moines, Iowa 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.  








No comments: