Monday, October 07, 2013

"Contraception" us Murder, September 1, 11/11, 2013


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

(stop killing young  people)


September 1, 2013,  Vol. 11   No. 11

PO Box 7424, Reading, PA 19603

Phone, 484-706-4375


Circulation, 230

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, MN 56093   

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



  Dear John, If President Obama had a son, he'd look like one of the children killed by Dr. Gosnell.

                                                      Sincerely, Cal



  And the churchless shall lead them:


  A northern Arizona family that was lost at sea for weeks in an ill-fated attempt to leave the U.S. over what they consider government interference in religion will fly back home Sunday.

  Hannah Gastonguay, 26, said Saturday that she and her husband "decided to take a leap of faith and see where God led us" when they took their two small children and her father-in-law and set sail from San Diego for the tiny island nation of Kiribati in May.

  But just weeks into their journey, the Gastonguays hit a series of storms that damaged their small boat, leaving them adrift for weeks, unable to make progress. They were eventually picked up by a Venezuelan fishing vessel, transferred to a Japanese cargo ship and taken to Chile where they are resting in a hotel in the port city of San Antonio. . . . .

  Hannah Gastonguay said her family was fed up with government control in the U.S. As Christians they don't believe in "abortion, homosexuality, in the state-controlled church," she said.

  U.S. "churches aren't their own," Gastonguay said, suggesting that government regulation interfered with religious independence.

  Among other differences, she said they had a problem with being "forced to pay these taxes that pay for abortions we don't agree with."

  The Gastonguays weren't members of any church, and Hannah Gastonguay said their faith came from reading the Bible and through prayer.

  "The Bible is pretty clear," she said. . . . .

   _______________ _



    Benedict XVI’s quote here (#2) explains the  reason for #1:


  1.  Catholics have been instrumental in starting and insuring the viability of the Culture of Death.  This occurred soon after The Council of Vatican II.


  2.  The Council of the Media was accessible to everyone.  Therefore, this was the dominant one, the more effective one, and it created so many disasters, so many problems, so much suffering: seminaries closed, convents closed, banal liturgy . . . and the real Council had difficulty establishing itself and taking shape; the virtual Council was stronger than the real Council.




  Eric Rudolph’s Melvin and Maude continues from the August 2 newsletter.  I’ve now posted half:


MV:  How did Darwin change opinions bout the origins of life?


DC:  The nineteenth century witnesses another revolution in science, even more momentous than the one two centuries earlier.  First, the study of ricks revealed that the earth was much older than previously thought, many millions of years older then the biblical account of six thousand years, Second, the work of Charles Darwin showed that complex life-forms could have slowly evolved from primitive life-forms, if given enough time.

  Darwin’s theory of evolution destroyed the purposive worldviews.  Gone was the need for God, a supreme watchmaker.  The snails and snakes and birds and bees and you and me were put together by a “blind watch maker,” s aid Richard Dawkins.  The new Garden of Eden is a primordial mud puddle where the first protozoa oozed into existence.  After a billion years of natural selection, here we are, piloting spacecraft, building cities, litigating whether to allow donkeys to get married.


MV: The modern worldview must have also had a profound impact on Western philosophy, for if the scheme of the universe is without purpose and meaning, then the life of man is without purpose and meaning.


DC:  I couldn’t have said it any better.


MV:  Where does this leave the individual?  As human beings we like to think of ourselves as the center of the universe, as children of God, or at least the end product of a rational universe.


DC:  Anthropocentric fairytales.  In the scheme of things the life of one human being is no more significant than the life of one sand flea.


MV:  Sounds pretty bleak.  I may not be a professor of psychology but I do know that man needs a sense of meaning and purpose in his life.  If he cannot get it from God or nature, where does he get it?


DC:  Hi8mself.  Without a transcendent creator or metaphysical principle giving order to the universe, man is free to give life the meaning and purpose which he chooses to give it.  And his life has no other meaning and purpose.  Man becomes the “measure of all things,” as Protagoras put it.


MV:  This changed the nature of truth, didn’t it?  Formerly, truth was derived from God, or nature, or accepted authority, and it was something objective that all rational persons were obliged to acknowledge.  Modern philosophy turns this formula on its head.  The source of all truth henceforth becomes the individual’s subjective will.  We must write the table of “our own law,” said Fredric Nietzsche.


DC”  That’s correct.


MV:  What about ethics?  Central to traditional systems of ethics is the idea that nature can tell us how to live just as surely as it can tell us how apples fall from trees.  There is a natural law that allows us to tell right from wrong.  Lying and cheating are similar to violating the law of gravity.


DC:  Vestiges of the old worldview.  Early in the twentieth century G. E. Moore and the logical positivists demonstrated that moral judgments are different from factual judgments.  Factual judgments are true or false; and in the realm of fact there are rational criteria to reach agreement as to what is true or false.  “The earth orbits the sun,” for example, is a factual judgment that can be verified by astronomical observation.  Any rational person is obliged to agree with that judgment.  But moral judgments are nothing but preferences, expressions of feeling and attitude.  “This is right” means roughly the same thing as “I approve of this; so you ought to do likewise.”  Being expressions of feeling and attitude, moral judgments are neither true nor false; and agreement in moral judgments  not to be secured by any rational method, for there is none.  Particular judgments may combine moral and factual elements; for example, “Murder being destructive of human life is wrong.”  That murder is destructive of human life is a factual judgment, but that it is wrong is a moral judgment. When it comes to moral judgments there are no right actions or wrong actions, only “authentic choices” and “inauthentic choices,” said Jean-Paul Sartre.  If you feel good about what you do, then you have made an authentic choice.


MV:  In other words, whatever you feel is right is right?


DC:  Right.


MV:  If I feel good about murdering my wife in order to cash in her life insurance policy, have I made n “authentic choice”?


DC:  I don’t know.  I am not you.


MV:  Don’t the facts of human experience provide us some basis for making good moral judgments?  All rational persons agree that life is better than death, liberty is better than slavery, happiness is better than unhappiness.  These facts provide rational criteria for building an ethical system that seeks to advance these natural goods.


DC:  You’re missing the point.  Nature doesn’t whether you live or die, whether you are free or languishing in chains, whether you are happy or sad.  These are human preferences.  You can argue that living in a society which protects life, liberty, and happiness offers practical advantages to living in a society which does not, but you cannot argue that life, liberty, and happiness re intrinsic natural goods.


MV:  What about the words of our Declaration of Independence? – “we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”


DC:  Jefferson wrote lovely poetry, but let’s not confuse poetry with reality.  In reality man wasn’t created; he is the result of natural selection.  Nor was he endowed by his “Creator” with certain inalienable rights.  Rights come from the consensus that exists in a particular society at a particular time in history.  Our rights evolved from the  Constitution of 1787, the Bill of Rights, and the dozens of Supreme Court decisions that have expanded upon those beginnings.


MV:  If there are no rational criteria for securing agreement about moral judgments, how does a society avoid anarchy if everyone is free to decide for themselves what is right and wrong?


DC:  Consensus.


MV:  Murder, rape, and robbery become wrong only if the majority of people in a given society agree that they are wrong?


DC:  Correct.


MV:  But the consensus applies only to a particular society.  Another society could reach a different consensus, and there are no objective criteria to determine which consensus is the right one?


DC:  You need only look at the diversity of ethical systems throughout history to see the impossibility of determining which is the right one.  The Carthaginians and Aztecs were big fans of human sacrifice.  Who am I to say that they were wrong?  Nearly every society, including our own, has practiced some form of slavery.  In gypsy cultures it’s considered  great honor to be an accomplished thief and liar.  Different strokes for different folks.


MV:  How is moral progress possible if there are no grounds to criticize other cultures for their behavior?  How could anyone criticize Stalin for murdering millions of his own people if the majority of

Russians supported his regime?


DC:  Consensus is merely a way of facilitating cooperation within a particular society, nota method of establishing the truth of moral judgments that will apply to all people at all times.


Mr. Veracitino shook his head briefly, returned to his table to gather a new stack of books and papers.  Dr. Canard removed his glasses and carefully wiped them with a handkerchief.  Returning to the lectern, r. Veracitino resumed questioning.


MV:  Thank you Doctor for taking us on that little tour of the modern mind.  I believe it has helped lay the foundation for the case at hand, the two plaintiffs Melvin and Maude and their desire to be legally wed.  I have a few questions concerning gender identity as opposed to gender role.  I understand the two are different.  How is gender identity formed, nature or nurture, or a combination of the two?


DC:  We must turn to the pioneering work of Dr. John Money, former head of the Psychohormonal and Gender Identity Clinic at Johns Hopkins.  He oversaw the nation’s first transsexual and sex reassignment program back in the 1960’s and 1970’s.  Money is the guy who coined the terms we use today, like “gender identity” and “gender role.”  He fashioned the scientific argument later used by the LGBT movement.

  Money theorized that basic gender identity, or an individual’s sense of himself or herself as a male or female, is almost completely formed within the first three years of life.  It consists of  two arts: sex and gender.  Sex is determined by hormones, chromosomes, and genitals; gender is determined by the social roles taught to us from birth, and individual self-perception.  When sex and gender are in agreement, you have a male who is masculine, or a female who is feminine.  Gender identity is one’s personal experience of gender,  Gender role, on the other hand, comprises the stuff that an individual says and does to present himself or herself in public as a boy or girl, man or woman.  Social pressures have historically formed the significant part of gender role.  In the case of the man transsexual, se and gender are in conflict.  Although she has the anatomy of a man, she believes she is a woman, and wants to adopt the gender role of a woman presenting herself in public as a woman.  Therefore, she seeks sex reassignment surgery to bring congruity between sex and gender, becoming a complete woman.  Dr. Money concluded that the important part of gender identity isn’t anatomy; it’ perception.  Instead of compelling the male transsexual to accept masculinity in accordance with her male anatomy, Dr. Money thought the humane thing to do was to bring the transsexual’s anatomy into conformity with her perception.

  Dr. Money said the only “unalterable biological difference”  between the sexes is that “women menstruated, gestated, and lactated, while men impregnated,” but even these differences could be overcome with a little help from science.  the male transsexual is “psychosexually a female,” which is the only thing that counts. 


MV:  Am I correct in saying that Dr. Money’s sociocentric model also rewrote the textbooks to assert that interpersonal bonding, not heterosexual procreation is the primary purpose of any sex act?  Sex between transsexuals with their artificial organs is just as “natural” as sex between married heterosexual couples.


DC:  Yes.  Dr. Money came to the conclusion that a person’s gender identity is ultimately determined by the object of his or her affection, who, whether male or female, evokes erotic attraction.  For a male heterosexual, it is a female; for  female lesbian, it is another female, for a bisexual, it is both male and female.


MV:  You’re talking about sexual orientation.


DC:  Precisely.  Dr. Money is also responsible for inventing that term.


MV:  As I understand it, sexual orientation is an “enduring sexual, romantic, or intensely affectional attraction to men, to women, or to both men and women,” this definition from ne of your old mentors, Dr. Gregory Herek.  Dr. Herek testified for the plaintiffs in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the case that legalized same-sex marriage in California.


DC:  I know Dr. Herek well.  His definition, though, is somewhat dated, in that the objects of affection are limited to adult homo sapiens.


MV:  How would you define sexual orientation, Doctor?


DC:  An enduring sexual, romantic, or intensely affectional attraction to _______, fill in the blank.


MV:  Are there no limits to the object of affection?


DC:  None whatsoever.  It must be remembered that when Dr. Herek gave that limited definition fifteen years ago, same-sex marriage was legal in only a handful of liberal states.  Less than a half-century before Perry, homosexuality was a criminal offense in forty-nine states.  American jurisprudence was just emerging from the dark ages.  People back then still thought in terms of a natural basis for gender identity.  One of the more effective arguments the LGTB movement used back then was the idea that homosexuality was immutable, like left-handedness.


MV:  Something natural, in other words.


DC:  Exactly.   Despite the fact that it contradicted everything in the sex research, the “natural” argument proved highly effective in changing public opinion.  After the liberal media saturated the American people with this message, the man-pin-the-street came to believe that homosexuals were born that way, or, in common idiom, God make them that way.  And if homosexuals were born that way, they couldn’t change, and society had no business excluding them from child adoption services, military service, and marriage.


MV:  The last half hour of testimony seems top indicate that you have serious objections with the natural argument.     (tbc)




  This concludes Cathy Ramey’s essay on Jim Kopp.  It’s fifteen years old but like all great writing it’s still  powerful:


  There is a clash between one's constitutional right to speak freely and the so-called U.S. Supreme

Court mandated right to abort without being unduly challenged over the decision.
  After all, words like "baby," "murder" and "murderer," even simple factual statements like, "Abortion Kills Children" discomfit those engaged in making small sacrifices of Unborn infants.
  The more egregious the offense society is engaged in, the more outrageous or offensive the speech demanding sanity will seem to be.
Such speakers become fair prey in an evil society.
  FACE and RICCO and Bubble Zones, Lawsuits and Unlawful Arrest become the order of the day.
Headlines blare out adjectives like "militant," "extremist" and "Right Wing" (as though being left of center is most holy ground).
  Comparisons are forced.
  Those who hold the reins during this present holocaust and insist that the sacrament of abortion continue accuse anti-abortion folk of being “Nazis.” In psychotherapeutic terms they project their own evil—an evil so great that they cannot own it—onto those who confront them.
  Such tactics work. As the abortion lobby prevails, all—sadly even the Church—are muzzled into a grudging silence over the violent deaths of Unborn babies.
  Still, a few maintain a stubborn insistence that they must be represented or protected. Absent so many other ways of calling for their safekeeping, an odd man here or there determines that even bullets must be called into play to defend them.
  One wonders if the muzzling of the pro-life movement is not an act of God as intimidation and silence give way to the sort of defense (self-defense) that the born take for granted. After all, an entire class of innocent people—the Unborn—have been denied protections which are morally, if not currently legally, rightfully theirs. All the while, a movement insists upon calendar protests in response to the rampant killing—4,000 every day—taking place in the name of "choice."
  In a culture gone mad with a sort of militant-matriarchy at the helm there is the blood cry for accountability.

  James Copp (or Kopp, depending on the news article you read) represents the pound of flesh the abortion-industry wolves are hunting these days. He is a man who once owned a car reportedly seen in the Slepian neighborhood the week before the shooting. Apparently, (assuming his brother-in-law's recollection is correct) he has not had the car in some time. He sold it or gave it away and, it is conjectured, the new owner never registered.
  James Kopp is wanted "only as a material witness," perhaps one who will be coerced into identifying who he sold the car to and therefore potentially who it is that demonstrated remarkable marksmanship that Friday night.
  James Kopp remains at large; he has "gone off the grid," according to investigators. Speculation is that he is afraid for his own safety. Pro-life activists, even avowed pacifists like Kopp, have learned that their safety too is fragile, though not as uncertain as an Unborn child's.
Damned if you do turn yourself in (they may never let you go), and damned if you don't (they are likely to shoot first and ask questions later).
  Other suspects taken to task without any evidence of wrongdoing include a man with a Website.
Neal Hosley has constructed what he calls "The Nuremberg Files: Visualize Abortionists on Trial," a place in cyberspace where those like Slepian can be listed for posterity, the record being saved for a time in history when a class of people called "the Unborn" are given equal rights and protections under the law. At that time a trial would be held and Horsley's archive would be indispensable in identifying the criminal players in the abortion holocaust.
  Horsley had the audacity to put a line through Slepian's name the day after his death. (Why archive data for a future trial on a dead man?) And of course, abortion zealots made haste to claim that such an act was callous at the very least and more than likely an indication of a broad anti-abortion conspiracy to kill doctors. (Never mind that millions of Justice Department tax-dollars failed to find the one they insist must exist.)
  Brushing aside allegations meant to send him into fearful silence, Horsley dismisses the abortion-lobby claims against his Website stating, "People who unjustifiably kill people suffer consequences . . . . The lesson of Nuremberg is that no matter how high and mighty you may be at one time, you will eventually be brought before the bar of justice. Someday there will be an accounting."
  The net intended to cast guilt goes even further than former car owners or Website owners. One paper trumpeted that magazine editor Paul deParrie had been prohibited a year earlier from entering Canada to "visit his Canadian right-to-life friends."
  The implication made is that some evil was in the offing; deParrie was senseless enough to let slip an association with Canadian pro-lifers, and alert border guards rescued the moment by turning an innocent man's car back at the border.
  Marilyn Buckman, an abortion facility worker whose paycheck is swelled by the number of hideously unnatural births done in Buffalo asserts that, "those who picket the doctors and clinics" contributed to the death of Slepian.
  Slepian, speaking as though from the grave, asserts through an old newspaper clipping that "rosary-holding churchgoers and the bishop" who allows them expression of their sincere religious convictions are liable for acts of force like the one which took his life.
  Gloria Feldt, head of the world's most aggressive eugenics and abortion lobby (Planned Parenthood-PPA) glares stern-faced for the cameras and espouses the theory that Slepian's untimely demise ought to be put on the account of "people who spew hate from radio and TV shows, Websites and pulpits."
  Implied is that Rush Limbaugh and Dr. D. James Kennedy, to name only two, had better control their rhetoric and that of their radio or church congregations by choosing euphemisms approved by PPA.
  An Episcopalian minister, Reverend Paul Schenck, laid his body down in front of Slepian's car one day in 1993, impeding his progress into the abortuary. According to ABC News, it was "his determination [that] made Barnett [Slepian] a marked man."
   “The shooter is a hero. Whatever action is justified to save the life of a born baby is justified to save the life of an unborn baby,” said Don Spitz.
  Gary Bauer of the Family Research Council summarizes abortion-think best in a recent World interview, and I quote, "It finally hit me that what they were trying to do was not just say, 'You're wrong.' They were trying to say, "You are illegitimate; you cannot say what you believe about the sanctity of life and the [homosexual] agenda. To merely speak is to incite violence.'"
  In a culture that has turned justice upside down the amount of finger pointing hits the phenomenal mark. Surely there are postal workers and GMC plant managers who bear guilt as well because, as Gary Bauer will also learn one day, in the final analysis abortion promotion requires more than one's silence.
  You don't believe that? Consider the barrage of abortion promotion mandated by recent UN Women's Conferences held in Cairo, Beijing, and other countries.
  Silence on the so-called right to abortion is tantamount to vocal disapproval. In a climate where God and His law are rejected, every prop, every person, is necessary to support a wrong of that magnitude. Ultimately one's silence—just like the silence and absence of James Kopp—serves to testify to one's guilt in such a crazy world.
  Imagine a lawsuit where the abortionist-plaintiffs assert that the only settlement offer that might satisfy is for pro-life defendants to publicly condemn those rare anti-abortionists who have offered up a more forceful defense. Such a condemnation subtly but powerfully asserts that serial abortionists really are more important, more human than the Unborn they kill.
  Monsignor Robert Cunningham of the Buffalo Diocese of the Roman Catholic Church now knows that silence is not good enough. He was asked to disseminate information on the manhunt for James Kopp to all of the churches in his area. As a result, during the first week in December, 276 Catholic churches were contacted and asked to share with the FBI any information they might have on Kopp.
  Ultimately their response of help comes down to support for abortion over and above their own faith claims that abortion is murder. Cunningham himself called the alerts a "public service."
  It is not known how often he has chosen to provide so much attention to the dying Unborn.
  What is obvious (never mind that he is paraded before us as one whose spirituality led him to attend synagogue), Slepian's own moral guilt shouts through all of the elaborate speeches in an effort to be heard. Failure of the average person to see his culpability—his blood-guiltiness for his own death as well—is reminiscent of the village people who complimented the king on his fine clothing when he wore not a stitch.
  It takes rare, bold people to shout the truth in such a climate of deception. In the case of the king, it was a simple child who had the courage to address the truth. In our day such children have been silenced to death.
  It requires that other brave souls speak the truth on their behalf. And in this culture where Christian thought is increasingly gagged, it is not surprising that some conclude they must communicate through the barrel of a shotgun.
  It takes more than a few moments to determine who is innocent and who is guilty in such a crazy world.




  Angel Dillard Wins -- An abortion opponent's letter to a Wichita doctor saying someone might place an explosive under her car is constitutionally protected speech and not a "true threat" under existing law, a federal judge ruled Thursday.

  U.S. District Judge J. Thomas Marten summarily found in favor of Angel Dillard in the 2011 civil lawsuit brought by the Justice Department under a law aimed at protecting access to abortion services. The 25-page decision handed down comes after a flurry of sealed filings seeking summary judgment.

  The judge wrote that the government supplied no evidence that actual violence against Dr. Mila Means was likely or imminent.

  "It was a great victory for the First Amendment," said her attorney, Don McKinney. "Obviously, we agree with the opinion. I appreciate the court held the U.S. Department of Justice accountable to the law and the evidence."

  He portrayed his client's reaction to the ruling as "joy," noting she had been deposed for eight or nine hours by the government.

  "It was a long, difficult case," McKinney said. "The government was very energetic and all the government lawyers worked very hard."

  The Justice Department's Civil Rights Division said in an emailed statement that it is reviewing the court's order and evaluating its options.

  "The right of doctors to deliver lawful reproductive health services free from threats of violence is protected by federal law," the department said.

  The government sued Dillard under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE) after the Valley Center woman wrote Means a letter in January 2011 when Means was training to offer abortion services at her Wichita clinic. At the time, no doctor was doing abortions in Wichita in the wake of Dr. George Tiller's murder by an abortion opponent.

  Dillard wrote in her letter that thousands of people from across the nation were scrutinizing Means' background and would know "your habits and routines."

  "They know where you shop, who your friends are, what you drive, where you live," the letter said. "You will be checking under your car every day — because maybe today is the day someone places an explosive under it."

  The judge noted in his decision that Dillard sent the letter openly with her return address on it.

  Dillard had testified in her deposition that "I did what the Lord asked me to do. He impressed upon me that I needed to write the letter and I did."


  I’ll finish this most interesting and even-handed news report, by a pro-deather obviously, in the next issue.

No comments: