Friday, November 08, 2013

"Contraception" is Murder, October 1, 11-14, 2013


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

(stop killing young  people)


October 1, 2013,  Vol. 11   No. 14

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.         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 26030, 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



  Frank Grady sent me this, in his inimitable style, on the back of a copy of his “MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME/TO FILE DEFENDANT-APPELANT’S BRIEF:


God Bless -U- John, Dunkle.


  Real Men are hard too find in this time; and there ant many Real men. I am happy that you printed my words from my heart, soul, spirit.  Thank -u- sir John.  Well print this if -u- can.

  “Marther luethen King” Was a Real Black (Irish Man) he dint Just fight for Black mans Rights he fault -4- all Human Kind even little chlldren – only oBooba could Believe in Marther luethen King Drive -I- save all Human kind, IF the surperm court past a law -4- wemen -2- kill, what happen -2- the seriending Flag Rights -4- Them little children what are the laws For the White serrunding Flag in battels troops can serunderinbg.  Waveing a White Flag Att where the white Flag -4- celebrities children; and laws that go with that Flag the grandmas, grandpa, Father should wave that flag -4- there Blood line. amen.  Can someone googel the laws on the seriending White Flag. Because all them children Battlingh -4- there lives God Bless the children peace on earth or in heaven  Francis Grady




  And Tobra writes one of her inimitable comments on Gary North’s anti-prolife use of force essay in the September 3 issue:


Buttercup Asks Gary North


Dandy:  mr. north, you said & I quote you here son," i took a public stand for five years."

             how many babies were killed in tyler, texas while you took your

             self proclaimed "public stand"?


Frank: shit son, i took a public stand myself, the next thing i know, i am arrested for urinating in public.


Howard: son, son, son!! you best live really really close to them magistrates you want to protect you.


Buttercup: on account if a bad guy with a gun comes to your house & commences disabling you & tying your sorry ass up, then raping & murdering your wife & kids.




  Cathy Ramey attacks something Senator Paul wrote:


  Dear Senator Paul,  I have no interest at putting to a vote something that is inherently Truthful; wicked men and women will likely still vote against God's view and many people will be deceived into thinking that settles the matter.  It is just more gaming, whether to raise political funds, lure in a larger constituency, or pander to "Prolife" groups that have become entrenched in making money off dead children, something that is no different than making money by killing them.
  Justice cannot be altered by a vote... not the Justice that matters for eternity. The responsible thing to do is to ask yourself, "What would I want somebody to do if a contract-killer (that's what an abortionist is) was about to take my life?"  Then "Love your neighbor" in the same way.

  If I stumbled upon you as a person intentionally acted to kill you in some hideous fashion (no matter how 'sterile' they suggest your death will be), attacking you as you were engaged with your life at your age and stage of development,

1.  Would you like me to stand by and then write a letter to the local paper or my congressman after the assailant was finished murdering you?

2.  Would you think it appropriate to "lobby" Congress to consider reversing the law that said it was all right to murder you because you have brown hair (or some other ludicrous claim attempting to suggest you are less than human, or less than innocent)?

3.  Would you want me to shout out to you that "I'll pray for you!" and keep on going my way?

4.  Do I call out the police and ask them to save you, after having bought them off with bribes of "job security" if they will ignore your plight when I call?

  There are simply some realities that men do not rightly "vote" on. These are the realities that are immutable, established out of God's nature and will. Human life begins at conception because God has determined to give both life and length of days, not because evil men and women decide they are entitled to vote a different "reality" into existence (thinking themselves to be gods). God's reality will not be changed by that action.
  Repent! Start talking about extending full justice to the Unborn so that they are as protected in the womb as much as you want to be sitting in your Senate seat. If we cannot do that, at the very, very least, then we do not deserve any protection from God that might serve to protect us from the same evil we have thought fit for the Unborn. To say "Speak out" about their right to be defended is no lame response; God's word is sharper than a two-edged sword.
  Consider too how baby-killing cowards might have reacted on March, 10 of 1993 if Christians everywhere proclaimed that God has a consistent standard of justice for all; the Unborn deserve the same rights and protections we demand for ourselves, including the "right of self-defense" or "defense of another." 




Greetings John,  I was sitting around reading one of your newsletters and thinking to myself that I should write you and say a few statements and facts that I see going on.  A lot of people who call themselves pro-life and pro-life supporters they seldom speak a nice story until it comes down to reality and doing something about it.  I don’t mean to harp about small things, but being that I gave up EVERYTHING in society to come to prison – losing my child and family to save the unborn – I do not regret one moment of that cause I’ve done what God sent me to do.

  It’s kind of sad, though, that a 60 year old man named Rev. Donald Spitz has to not answer his phone due to threats from pro-choicers, because he fundamentally and morally supports people such as myself  It’s sad also that two other people (Vicki Davis and Father Pierce – retired) are the only ones who write and support me, and Father Pierce is 80 something years old!  Unless it’s because you have my address wrong in your newsletter, then that would be understandable.  Otherwise, that’s pitiful.  (Correct address is P.O. Box 26030.)

  If you could let it be known to pro-choicers in a manner that they can understand, I will not stand by long at all and listen and watch pro-choicers threaten elderly people who try to save the unborn.

  And as for myself, the federal government has red-flagged me as a soldier in the Army of God.  And are they wrong?  No, they’re not.

  When the judge sentenced me for this case they called a crime, she (the judge) stated I was a threat to innocent civilians; and I guess she was right if they’re baby killers and abortionists.  If they are people who are true Christians, then they don’t have to worry about such as that.

  I guess I could give you a little background about myself.  At the age of 16 I shot and killed my drunken and violent abusive father.

  I was raised by my grandparents on my father’s side who were very devoted Christians – Southern Baptists.  They’ve both gone on home to lie with the good Lord many years ago now.  For two-and-a-half years before I firebombed the abortion clinic, I was sober.  But still today I struggle with thoughts of accepting my past and going on with my future.

  It’s late, I’m tired, I’ll end this letter by saying I hope to hear from you soon.

  I’ll always speak the truth as I see it.

  Your Brother In Christ,  Bobby Jo    [Rogers]


  (P.S. by all means, you can edit and rewrite this letter as you see fit.)


  I changed nothing




  Eric Rudolph’s Melvin & Maude continues from the September 2 issue:


MV:  Why would Dr. Money seemingly abandon his sociocentric model after laboring for years to establish it in the first place?


DC:  Because he wanted to find a way to separate homosexuality from other, less popular forms of sexuality, like pedophilia and shoe fetish.  At the time he wrote Lovemaps, Dr. Money was in the process of designing therapies to treat pedophiles, who were still listed in the American Psychiatric Association’s diagnostic manual.   Pedophiles were also being persecuted as criminals by the state.  Dr. Money felt that treatment was more humane than long prison sentences.

  Remember, only six years before Dr. Money published Lovemaps, homosexuality had been listed in the same manual, right alongside pedophilia.  (20)


MV:  Are you suggesting that there a re no differences between homosexuality and pedophilia? 


DC:  If you accept the sociocentric model, all forms of sexuality are the same.  Transsexualism serves no biological purpose.  The idea that the transsexual was “born that way” is absurd.  With transsexualism it is the case of the individual’s perception trumping biology.  The same applies to homosexuality, pedophilia, or shoe fetish.  Two men or two women cannot complete the biological act of procreation.  What is the basis of the homosexual relationship then?  It’s love and affection,, and, ultimately, the decision of two men or two women to be together.  Isn’t it equally possible for a forty-year-old man to love an eight-year-old boy?


MV:  The common objection is that the minor child lacks the necessary maturity to consent to a sexual relationship with an adult.


DC:  Well, isn’t “maturity” a culturally constructed concept, like gender role?  Let’s examine the two, shall we?  With gender role society decrees that your biological sex places limits on your ability to perform certain tasks.  We right label those assumptions sexist.  With maturity society decrees that your biological age paces limits on your ability to perform certain tasks.  Shouldn’t we label these attitudes ageist?  Alongside sexism, ageism is just another “cage”  that society puts us in, said Kate Millet.  No biological basis exists for this kind of paternalism.  I can point to certain eight-year-olds who are more mature than some fifty-year-olds.  And what about the so-called age of consent?  It changes with time and culture.   In the nineteenth century the age of consent in Delaware was eleven; today it is eighteen.  Some tribes in Afghanistan betroth their daughters at the age of eight.  It’s all relative.  If society has no right to impose its definition of gender on the individual, it has no right to impose its definition of maturity.


MV:  What about the argument that homosexuals were “born that way,” unlike pedophiles who were made that way by abusive adults?  Most homosexuals claim to have had same-sex attraction since they were adolescents. 


DC:  Pedophiles and shoe sniffers say the same thing.  Dr. Money’s early research proved that gender identity is shaped primarily by post-natal sociological-cultural influences.  Well, during the same period of life that homosexuals are developing same-sex attractions , pedophiles are developing attractions to children, shoe sniffers are developing attractions to pumps and high heels.  What’s the difference?  Once formed, these attractions usually last a lifetime, and are difficult to change.  The various programs designed to “treat” so-called paraphiliacs have produced dismal results.  Despite years of treatment, very few pedophiles and shoe fetishists change their original  orientation.  Psychotherapists recorded similarly non-transformative results years earlier when they tried to “treat” homosexuals and lesbians.


MV:  You’re saying pedophilia is a sexual orientation like heterosexuality and homosexuality?

DC:  Yes.


MV:  What about all the horrors associated with child sex abuse and incest?


DC:  Right-wing propaganda.  During the latter half of the twentieth century the Religious Right created a big stink about incest and child sex abuse, but it was mostly smoke and mirrors.  Dr. Alfred C. Kinsey, the nations greatest sex researcher, said that child-adult sex was really no big deal: “Children should not be upset by these experiences.  If they were, this was not the fault of the aggressor, but of prudish parents and teachers who caused the child to become hysterical.”  Kinsey’s successor Wardell Pomeroy thought that incest could turn out to be a positive experience:  “The best sort of incest was between a son and a mother who educated him sexually, then encouraged him to go sow his own oats.”


MV:  For the record tell us who Dr. Kinsey was.


DC:  In 1942 Kinsey founded the Institute of Sex, Research and published two famous studies: Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948) and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (1953).  His work liberalized attitudes about sex and contributed greatly to the sexual revolution of the 1960s and 1970s.


MV:  To Kinsey, pedophilia was just another form of sexuality, no less legitimate than any other.


DC:  That's right. Among the many fo0rms of sexuality he studied, Dr. Kinsey documented the sexual behavior of children.  His institute collected a vast archive of sex films, many showing children engaged in sex.

  You see, Mr. Veracitino, once we abandoned the biological model of sexuality, we no longer have criteria  to differentiate normal sex from abnormal sex, healthy lovemaps f rom vandalized lovemaps.  Such judgments are mere preferences, expressions of feeling and attitude.  The new sociocentric implies that sex is morally neutral and all varieties of consensual sex are legitimate.


MV:  Where are we heading with this kind of sexual liberation?


DC:  Toward a single standard of sexual freedom.  To quote the preeminent lesbian feminist, Kate Millet, “The sexual revolution would require . . . an end to traditional sexual inhibitions and taboos, particularly those that most threaten patriarchal monogamous marriage: homosexuality, ‘illegitimacy,’ adolescent pre-marital sexuality . . . . The goal of revolution would be  a permissive single standard of sexual freedom.


MV:  Are there any limits to sexual freedom?


DC:  The only limitation is consent.


MV:  Can you give us an example of this “permissive single standard”?


DC:  DC: Marco Vassi is probably the best example of sexual freedom I can think of.  Suring the sixties and seventies of the last century a generation of sexual pilgrims began to shed their inhibitions and experiment with free love.  One of the more colorful characters of that era was Marco Vassi.  His amazing story is chronicles in John Heidenry’s What Wild Ecstasy, the definitive account of the sexual revolution.

  Although Marco had been born a Catholic, in the early sixties he converted to the religion of sex .  He called himself “The apostle of free love,” the “immaculate bisexual,” the “erotic Christ,” suffering for the pleasure of others, surrendering to the needs of homy gay man.  Marco estimated that he had had sex with over five hundred women and twice that many men – in bathhouses, whorehouses, and behind trucks parked along the Hudson River in Greenwich Village.  His mission in life was “to explore the depths of degradation,” trying to locate the outer boundaries of true freedom.

  One night at the bathhouse, Marco was having sex with several men when one of them asked Marco to defecate into his mouth.  The thought of it reviled Marco, sop he declined the request.

  As enlightened as he considered himself to be, Marco discovered that he was still harboring unconscious inhibitions.   Later he realized that coprophiliacs – persons who use feces for sexual excitement – were probably the only people to have overcome the oldest inhibition: the fear of defecating in the presence of another.  Marco had the profound insight that what society calls “perversion” is actually the best “map for understanding  the true nature of fascism, and the most powerful key to unlocking its hold on people.”

  Armed with this new understanding, Marco returned to the bathhouse and when the same request was put to him , his bowels willing obliged.  It was  moment of personal triumph for Marco.  He had finally achieved freedom.


MV:  This lovely little anecdote is your definition of freedom?


DC:  There are few moments of true greatness in a nation’s history:  Thomas Jefferson penning the Declaration of Independence, Abe Lincoln delivering the Gettysburg Address, and Marco Vassi defecating into another  man’s mouth.


MV:  What exactly did Marco Vassi mean when he said that what society calls “perversion” is actually the best “map for understanding the true nature of freedom, and the most powerful key to unlocking its hold on people”?


DC:  Like many sexual revolutionaries Marco Vassi was a student of Wilhelm Reich, author of such works as The Sexual Revolution (1945).  Reich theorized that the real roots of fascism and Nazism were found in repressed sexuality.  And unless we rid ourselves – collectively and individually – of sexual inhibitions, we will never be free.


MV:  In other words sexual prohibitions like “Thou shalt not commit adultery,” Thou shalt not commit sodomy,” Thou shalt not eat feces,” – ultimately lead to the concentration camp?


DC:  Yes.


MV:  By defecating into another man’s mouth Marco Vassi was doing his part to liberate us from Auschwitz, figuratively speaking?


DC:  Yes, that’s one way of putting it.


MV:  What ever became of Marco Vassi, the “sexual pioneer”?


DC:  Oh, he died of AIDS.


MV:  Doctor, you said a while ago that anatomy has little or no influence on gender identity.  If that’s the case, what are the complete criteria of determining one’s gender identity?


DC:  Good question.  With the overthrow of the traditional gender model, which had been based on human sexual anatomy, a “new sociocentric model arose, built on three basic parameters: perception, social role, and presentation.”


MV:  These are not just your parameters?


DC:  These are the parameters accepted by academia and the LGBT movement.


MV:  Let me see if I understand the formula correctly.  If you perceive yourself to be a woman, and present yourself to the world as a woman – then you are a woman.

DC:  You got it.


MV:  Even though you may have been born with male anatomy?


DC:  Correct.


MV:  That’s a pretty radical definition of identity: “You are what you perceive yourself to be.”


DC:  That formula is the foundation  of the Lesbian Gay Bisexual
Transgender movement.  Regardless whether it was nature or nurture that shaped your gender identity, ultimately you must decide for yourself how to express it.


MV:  Why stop at gender?  If anatomy is irrelevant  in defining one’s gender identity, it’s equally irrelevant in defining  one’s species identity.  When we use the word “anatomy,” we must include genes, DNA, chromosomes.  After all, one’s sexual anatomy is derived from one’s chromosomes, right?


DC:  This was the argument I put forward in my book Barnyard Fever: The Transspecies Phenomenon.  And I’m happy to report that transspecieism has recently been accepted into the Queer community: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Transspecies.


MV:  So, like Melvin White here, if you perceive yourself to be a donkey, and adopt the social role of a donkey, and present yourself to the world as a donkey . . .


DC:  Then you are a donkey.



  The courtroom erupted in spontaneous demonstration.  One fellow jumped up on his chair, lifted his hands to the heavens and brayed Hee-Haw-Hee-Haw.  A stickler for decorum, Judge Stamp slammed his gavel down repeatedly.

  After several moments of pandemonium, the bailiffs succeeded in restoring order.  The more unruly spectators were escorted outside where protesters continued to chant, “We’re here . . . We love steers . . . Get used to it.”

  Judge Reuben Stamp then took a few moments to admonish those who remained: “Were you people born in a barn?”  Maude emitted a low Hee-Haw.



Judge Stamp:  Sorry Maude, I didn’t mean to insult you.  As for the rest of you people, one more outburst like that  and I’ll clear the entire courtroom and hold the remainder of the proceedings behind closed doors.


MV:  Doctor Canard, before we were so rudely interrupted, you were saying that the new sociocentric model of identity is based on three parameters: perception, social role, and presentation.  Based on those parameters, what is Melvin White?  A man?  A donkey?  A man-donkey?


DC:  I have examined Melvin’s case thoroughly; he’s a classic transspecies.  Despite being born with human anatomy, Melvin is psychosexually a donkey.  Her perceives himself to be a donkey, he has adopted the social role of a donkey, and he has undergone species reassignment in order to present himself to the world as a donkey.  Conclusion: Melvin White is a complete jackass.


MV:  Should the state of Mississippi issue Melvin and Maude marriage license?


DCV:  Of course.  Transspecies marriage is the civil issue of the 2020’s; it’s the logical next step.


MV:  The “next step” in what?


DC:  In the evolution of marriage.  As I mentioned earlier, patriarchal marriage was originally created to enslave women and children.  The entire class system grew out of marriage and family. 
Because it is the source of inequality and injustice in the world, marriage must evolve or become extinct.


MV:  What does “evolved marriage” look like?


DC:  The first step in the evolution of marriage came when Western governments eliminated coverture and enacted no-fault divorce laws.  Formerly a contract between society and the wedded couple, marriage henceforth became a personal agreement between an man and a woman to be dissolved at either party’s discretion.  To obtain a divorce, neither party had to prove fault in open court.  The elimination of coverture – the marital bargain compelling the wife to obey and the husband to provide --,resulted in a new bargain, heavily favoring females.  the wife no longer had to obey but the husband still had to provide, even after divorce when the ex-wife customarily received  fifty percent of his property plus alimony and child support.  The ex-husband got to visit the kids every now and then.  Patriarchal marriage was turned in to matriarchal marriage.  Since the mid-1970’s half of all marriages now end in divorce.  Marriage is no longer a good bargain for most men.

  The courts then delivered the death blow to patriarchal marriage when they started to uphold same-sex marriage in cases like Perry v. Schwarzenegger.


MV:  How did the normalization of same-sex marriage irretrievably change the institution?


DC:  By equating homosexual relationships to heterosexual relationships, the courts removed the last link between marriage and natural law, that ancient edifice that underpinned Western ethics for a thousand years.   


DC:  By equating homosexual relationships to heterosexual relationships, the courts removed the last link between marriage and natural law, that ancient edifice that underpinned Western ethics for a thousand years.

  The story of same-sex marriage is one of the most dramatic chapters in the history of the sexual revolution.  The LGBT activists of that era employed yet another highly effective strategy.  The reactionaries argued that marriage was unlike other relationships because it was oriented toward procreation.  Because they cannot procreate, homosexual couples should be excluded from marriage.  The LGBT activists countered that marriage had nothing to do  with procreation because the law and society already let infertile heterosexual couples marry. Why not treat homosexual couples the same way?  If marriage is a personal relationship between two people in love, why exclude loving same-sex couples?               [tbc]




  Dear John, Whether a woman kills her baby or a police officer kills a criminal, every homicide is a public fact. Even if an act of homicide is found to be legal or justified by the government, it cannot be private because every homicide is a public fact. Thus there is no right to privacy associated with seeking or performing an abortion. Abortion is not about when life begins. As with any other homicide, abortion is about how life ended. As far as the coroner is concerned, having ruled out natural, accidental, and self-inflicted causes of death, homicide is the only possible legal determination. Sincerely, Cal




  Linda Gibbons is back in the pokey, where’s she‘s spent most of her adult life, because she continues to break laws that try to prevent her from talking older people out of carrying young people to their executions.

Rev. Mike Bray nails it, as usual:


  A good Canuck.  She has been returning to her preferred method of rescue over and over.  Can’t say a word against her.   She is adored by non-forceful abortuary blockaders and “clinic bomber” alike.

  Rev. might add many of the  “anti-law breaking-peaceful-and-prayerful-only-folks” too.


  And this just arrived from Sweat:


  In addition to suffering the injustice of being sentenced, only a mere week ago, by a modern day Nazi judge to a maximum 6 month sentence for the 'crime' of attempting to save unborn children from the horrors of abortion, the undisputed Queen of the Pro-Life Movement - Linda Gibbons - received additional sorrowful news 4 days later that her daughter had passed away at the relatively young age of 45!!! The question now is whether the unjust judge will at least have the decency to let the Queen attend her daughter's funeral services. Please keep this situation in your prayers. Read the story here >>>




  To send money to the federal Prisoners, those with eight digits after their names, make out a postal money order to the Prisoner’s name and number.  Then send it to Federal Bureau of Prisons, PO Box 474701, Des Moines, Iowa 50947-0001.

  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: