Wednesday, January 08, 2014

"Contraception" is Murder, December, 11-17, 2013


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

(stop killing young  people)


December, 2013,  Vol. 11   No. 17

PO Box 7424, Reading, PA 19603

Phone, 484-706-4375


Circulation, 199

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




  Dear John, In South Africa, Nelson Mandela put an end to apartheid, and gave a start to abortheid. Evolutionary fetuses got an upgrade, and gestational fetuses got a downgrade. He spent 27 years in prison, but he still did not learn what he should have learned from spending nine months in the womb: we are all created equal. Sincerely, Cal

  This concludes the talk between Rev. Michael Bray and Sher Zieve that started last issue:
Michael: Well, it is quite a curious matter to contemplate. They made no grand effort to sell that which they despise. I found the proceeding to be a bit bizarre as well as entertaining. Writings which they say are all about threatening abortionists they were forced to advertise and sell. It was as if they were having their noses rubbed in their own dirty diapers. They sold them for $5,000 and surely spent many times that in briefings and court proceedings since they raided my home in 2007. On that day in October we were invaded by surprise and told we had to evacuate the house in thirty days. I was confined on a couch for a few hours as PP attorneys, and federal marshals searched the house and gathered up all my books and all computers in the house. One marshal specifically asked me whether I had copies of A Time to Kill in the house. (I did not.) At a hearing soon after, a federal judge noted that according to Ohio law, executions on property to fulfill a debt must first exhaust personal property before real estate. Therefore, we could remain in the house until PP sold my personal property. Exemptions in the law allow for professional books to be returned, so all the books came back eventually. The computers have not been returned.
  The intention of the raid apart from harassment and seizing of property was two-fold: to get my computer and discover any mischievous activity and gather names and correspondences of mine which might have provided for further information for investigation or prosecution of their enemies; and to seize copies of A Time to Kill.
  The book had been used regularly by two universities in political science courses: the University of Southern California and the University of South Florida. As soon as this fact was discovered by deposition with PP attorneys in 2001 the orders for those books ceased. It was evident that PP contacted those institutions and made threats regarding liability issues. I can only imagine: "Do you know what would happen to your school if a student from one of your classes which used that book went out and blew up a reproductive health clinic?"
  "The author is a criminal, an ex-convict, who has been successfully sued for making threats against providers."
  It is clear to me from all I have observed that PP is zealous to suppress circulation of A Time to Kill.

Sher: Any interview of you would not be complete without asking you about the current situation in both the USA and the world. You believed that the Clinton Administration was a totalitarian one. What in the world do you think of the current Obama regime and where do you see the USA ending up under Dictator-in-Chief Obama?

Michael: Our recent presidents have been the appropriate leaders for a people who tolerate child murder. It is sad to see a people depart from God, from justice. And yet, I remain hopeful that a repentant people will assemble themselves at the local level of towns and counties and assert the risen Christ as the King and His Laws as true laws for the land. The simplest message a local church can do is to hoist the Christian flag (representing the True God) above the U.S. flag. It goes on from there to more serious steps which may involve surrendering 501.c.3 (tax exempt, government – approved) status. But that is another story.

Sher: Michael, thank you so much for your input and for providing my readers with your insight. Some years ago, your book "A Time to Kill" was published. Is it still available and, if so, where can people obtain a copy?

Michael: At this is the point, the remaining few copies are available through Rev. Don Spitz at Send him $40 at: Pro-Life Virginia, P. O. Box 16611, Chesapeake VA 23328

  Someday I’m going to get in trouble for posting Tobra’s stuff, but I can’t help it:


Buttercup: for those of you fond of the weather channel, we feel the need for you to read  about a new fag on staff.


Dandy: my lovely bride has the truth on her side. sam fag champion is coming to weather channel town.


Frank: is he a champion on the butt or the suck?


Howard: from the looks of his pudgy ass. i asess him as a butfuckee.


Dandy: i agree sir learned one. hey do yall know the knewest fag do it song?


Your one inch jelled hair is beyond compare.

sir do you dare

do it on a ethan allan colonial chair?

  Dear John, The decision in Roe v. Wade is often misunderstood to have upheld a woman's right to choose. That is not literally what the decision reads. Instead, the Court literally structured the decision in Roe in parallel to military service.

  The Court ruled that females of all ages can be drafted into the war against scandalous pregnancies using forced abortion. This is why Roe is ultimately founded on the abatement authority of Jacobson v. Massachusetts (forced vaccination) and Buck v. Bell (forced sterilization); the Court even went as far as to abandon Skinner v. Oklahoma, so females can be forced to abort in arbitrary connection with crime and poverty. See Roe at pp. 153-154, 159.

  Justice Marshall explains the ruling two months later, joined notably by Skinner author Justice Douglas. Normally, procreation means fertilization, but in this case he means the right of the pregnant female to carry her pregnancy to term. He says the Court has never recognized such a "right" to procreate, as evidenced by the fact that in Roe v. Wade "the Court reaffirmed its initial decision in Buck v. Bell." See San Antonio Ind. Sch. Dist. v. Rodriguez, pp. 100-101. By "initial" decision is meant the Court in Roe abandoned Skinner v. Oklahoma, which had once before protected women from forced procedures to control reproduction in arbitrary connection with crime and poverty.

  The reason why Roe abandoned Skinner was that the Court was concerned about females running off to gatherings like Woodstock and taking drugs without concern for pregnancy. The Court feared they might be too spaced out to get themselves to an abortion clinic on their own without pressures from the state. So, with the blessing of Justice Douglas, the Court quietly abandoned Skinner at p. 159 of Roe, saying, "The situation therefore is inherently different from ... Skinner."

  Two months later, what Justice Marshall is getting at in the San Antonio case is that abandoning Skinner would also allow states like Texas to pressure poor Hispanic women to abort, to weed down the poor population, so states can afford to send their children to the same schools as rich people's. Justices Marshall and Douglas felt this alternative was better than endorsing schools of separate quality for rich versus poor children.

  Roe also upheld that females can be drafted into the war on pregnancies on their behalf, meaning, by labeling them incompetent.

  So that is the foundation of Roe: simply put, females can be drafted into the Court's war on pregnancies, whether on their behalf or as implied by law. See also the exceptions clause of Laci and Conner's Law, which preserves Roe's exceptions for forced abortions being performed "on her behalf" or as "implied by law."

  On top of this foundation, the Court in Roe also ruled that females of all ages have the right to volunteer for the war on pregnancies.

  That is the part about "choice" you have heard.

  But as with military service, just because you can volunteer does not mean you cannot be drafted. And just because you choose to volunteer does not mean you automatically have to be accepted either. (Read that again.)

  Justice Douglas explains the situation of Roe in his concurring opinion published under Doe v. Bolton, which is the companion case to Roe v. Wade. According to Roe, only the "basic" decision belongs to the woman; meaning, she can merely choose whether to volunteer or not. She cannot control whether she is drafted or not, or whether her choice to volunteer will even be accepted. As he puts it, letting women volunteer is "only the beginning of the problem" because the state might also need to draft women, and it might also need to reject volunteers. Citing the abatement authority of Jacobson and Buck, he explains the state can draft women, for example, when they run around like flappers or flower children as if they were "imbeciles afflicted with hereditary forms of insanity or imbecility" who will otherwise swamp us with "epidemics" of their scandalous pregnancies. He also explains that the state can reject volunteers, citing, for example, "[t]he woman's health" and "the life of the fetus after quickening." See Doe, pp. 214-215.

  So to sum up, Roe is legally founded as a form of military service for females in the nation's war on pregnancies. The pregnancies are distinguished simply for being "unwanted" by those members of the community who consider themselves entitled to better standards.

  The foundation of Roe is that ultimately females of all ages can be drafted into the war on pregnancies if need be. In addition, as the path of least resistance, Roe conceded that females also have the right to volunteer. But the state does not have to accept volunteers in every case, and by no means does the right to volunteer rule out the possibility of being drafted.

   You need to think about it until you get it framed correctly in your mind: Roe is founded on military service, not on choices.

  Now, it is often said "war is hell." This is where Doe v. Bolton comes in. Or, put another way, this is where Dr. Gosnell comes in.

  As you can imagine, once women are conscripted into the war on awkward pregnancy scandals, someone has to do the grisly, murderous, bloody dirty work of turning their innocent children into cannon fodder.

  The Court knew few skilled physicians would abandon careers in medicine to kill children full-time for a living as needed to satisfy the Court's abatement objectives. Instead, for full-time service the Court realized it would have to create a safe haven so washed out physicians could stay in practice in return for performing abortions. It was for this reason that the Court did away with all medical regulations in the first trimester.

  The Court did so in the companion case to Roe known as Doe v. Bolton. That is why Roe has a companion case. The Court needed to suspend medical regulations so it could muster a brigade of washed out physicians to perform abortions in the war on pregnancies.

  The only reason why the Court allowed for increasing regulations in the second and third trimesters had nothing to do with any real concern about "viability" or the life of the child. Instead, it was the Court's way of forewarning these incompetent physicians that if they failed to get the job done during the first trimester, when the difficulty of the procedures is on par with their limited level of skill, then they can expect increasing levels of scrutiny should they attempt the more challenging second and third trimester procedures. 

  As Justice Douglas explains the Court's position on letting washed out physicians stay in practice under a safe have to perform abortions, he says, "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. Read that again. Notice how specific he is: "endangering the life of the woman or seriously and permanently injuring her health."

  You may have heard a spiel about abortions being safer for women and how this was the Court's big concern. Nonsense! The truth be told, the Court ruled that to win the war on scandalous pregnancies we simply have to accept some sickening risks to get the job done, as with any war.

  You see, when doctors get washed out they can be so incompetent that they do not even bother to wash their hands or mop up blood any more. It is a downward spiral for their careers. Under standard medical regulations, the doctors would be weeded out and lose their licenses. But the Court decided to put them to use as abortion doctors instead. The Court created a safe haven for their incompetence by suspending all medical regulations in return for performing abortions. But a consequence is that this puts women's lives at great risk. But the Court felt such concerns were "too narrow" in view of the "privacy" right that is at stake.

  In other words, by codeword "privacy" what the Court means ultimately is not an individual female's personal right to privacy on her own. The Court never ruled in favor of such a right to privacy. Instead, what the Court ultimately means by a right to privacy that its abatement program is necessary to rid the nation of scandalous pregnancies, so that no one need be the wiser about the sexual "imbecility" of our females. See Buck, syllabus part 1; Doe, p. 215. This way the nation can treat the problem as a "private" matter, in secret to ourselves, so no one need be the wiser about the epidemic of scandalous pregnancies as long as the evidence is diligently aborted, whether voluntarily or forced. Sincerely, Cal.

  Bray comments on yesterday’s news that more than four out of five babies tortured to death in the killing mills of New York City are African-American: 

  Let’s see here.  I am called an anti-woman, bigoted, right-wing fanatic because I am anti-abortion and support the right to defend children in the womb. 
  But the guy who supports abortion rights in NYC -where 82 percent of the abortions are committed against black womb children -  is just a regular nice, reasonable, freedom-loving, liberal American.

  Why aren’t abortion rights supporters called racists?

  Jimbo comments on the New York Times “New Abortion Providers” article about a pro-contraception/ abortion priest:


  This article provides much subtle between-the-lines info  about the real effect of 40 years of good MD’s benignly scorning their colleagues . . . and a little Thomistic force.

  The whole article is disingenuous sensu.  It’s obsolete with Obamacare moving abortion into huge government hospitals, and creating federal med. schools and shoving those grads into abortion with all sorts of spend-and-tax Nanny State tricks and carrots plus the other evils of Obamacare I’ve already listed here, such as high school coed menses status checks by public school RNs,  jailing of RC MD, RN and other Obamacare refuseniks, etc., etc.

  Note to Godfrey: you may be a girl, and you may be stubborn, by your own admission, but you can’t be RC and pull arms & legs off kids.

  Saying you are RC don’t make it so.  Jesus says out of His mouth (“many call me . . .”)  Mafia hit men call themselves Catholics.  Are you like them?  Come to think of it, maybe there’s some kind of harmonic convergence going on there – you, mobsters . . . Obama . . . Bilderbergs . . . Hmmm . . .

  No doubt you’ll say I’m judging you.  Wow what a stroke of eloquence!  I’m warning you to protect your soul.  When it comes time for us to be judged by the only judge, you will find, sans repentance, that all the “help” you thought you were giving women  was  no help at all, not for you or your own soul.

  Just in case some really nice “Fr. Bob” somewhere is feeding you bullcrap in the box, remember Dante – “the floor of Hell is paved with the skulls of priests.”

  This is known. The only instant variable is, will yours or mine be next to them?

  Hebrews 13:13 (. . . plus Rev. 5:6)  (plus) You are not your own.  You are bought with a price.


P.S.  about Syllabus . . . My dear evangelical brothers and sisters -- when this Syllabus slams Protestants it’s not slamming you.  If you read skyp, you hate divorce and abortion as much as Catholics, or you wouldn’t be reading skyp.  So, please, remember, divorce and abortion came from somewhere.  We know they did not come from Scripture or the RCs.

  Where did they come from?  The Syllabus helps all Christians of good faith to go back in history for the roots of Modernism.   Until you find these, you’re wasting your time in most pro-life work.  God bless.  Don’t get sore.  Open your mind to reality.  Your bro,  JK

   Desert Island Tagging Wisdom

           sent by JK (that’s Jim Kopp, folks)


  . . . these Fathers distilled for themselves a very practical and unassuming wisdom that is at once primitive and timeless, and which enables us to reopen the sources that have been polluted or blocked up altogether by the accumulated mental and spiritual refuse of our technological barbarism.  Out time is in desperate need of this time of simplicity.  It needs to recapture something of the experience reflected in these lines.  The word to emphasize is experience.  The few short phrases collected in this volume have little or no value merely as information.  It would be futile to skip through these pages and lightly take note of the fact that the Fathers said this and this.  What good will it do us to know merely that such things were once said?  The important thing is that they were once lived.  That they flowed from an experience of the deeper levels of life.  That they represent a discovery of man [can’t read the word] of an inner and spiritual journey that is far more crucial and infinitely more important than any journey to the moon.

  What can we gain by sailing to the moon if we are not able to cross the abyss that separates us from ourselves?


    -- from the Introduction to The Wisdom of the Desert, Some Sayings of the Desert Fathers     (tbc)

  The Child Killers -- The Belgians are set to allow doctors to persuade children they should die for their own good.

     Jutte van den Werff Ten Bosch has already had the talk with her 10-year-old son. Several times, in fact. No, not the sex talk. The euthanasia talk.
  "Even if he said, 'I want to die', I'd support him," she explained. "I didn't put my children in the world for me. It's their life and their death. The best parents are the ones who let their children go."
  Professor van den Werff Ten Bosch's dinner-table conversations with her son and her three other children are far from hypothetical: They live in Belgium, where a law allowing child euthanasia is on track to be passed early next year.
  The law, which follows a 2002 law making euthanasia legal for consenting adults, will allow terminally ill children of any age to request that their lives be terminated.
  "Children are not tiny humans that we can boss around," said van den Werff Ten Bosch, a pediatric oncologist who works at Brussels University Hospital and has spoken out in favor of the proposed law.
  "Children with terminal diseases like cancer mature much faster than other children. They think a lot about their life and death and how they'd like their death to be. And sometimes they're more courageous than their parents," she said.
  The child euthanasia bill, which has just passed the committee stage in the legislature's upper house, the Senate, and is expected to be adopted by the full Senate later this month followed by the lower house, the Chamber of Representatives, in January or February, stipulates that doctors can suggest to terminally ill minors that they should be euthanized.
  After the child decides in favor of death, the parents have to consent, though the law makes no provision for what will happen if the parents disagree. Euthanasia is usually performed by a doctor, who gives the patient an overdose of muscle relaxants or sedatives. This causes a coma followed by death.
  Since Belgium passed its adult euthanasia law, the number of patients who have asked to be killed has grown to over 1,400 per year. It conjures up a Soylent Green world where a neatly ordered state routinely euthanizes its older population to maintain the right population balance.
  One Belgian who took advantage of the euthanasia law was Nathan Verhelst, a woman-turned-man whose body rejected his new penis.

  In a newspaper interview, Verhelst explained he didn't want to become a monster, and this year his doctor gave him a lethal injection. Today, Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands are the only countries in the world permitting euthanasia administered by a second person.
But the laws have raised a number of ethical, moral, and legal dilemmas. Such as, is it right for a parent to propose the legal killing of their child in any circumstances? And, as children don't have the same reasoning skills as adults, are they equipped to make a terminal decision about their lives that will also deeply affect the lives of others?
  Like most animals, humans have an innate instinct to protect their young. As the 20th century German theologian Dietrich Bonheoffer wrote: "The test of the morality of a society is what it does for its children."
  Have the Belgians gone completely mad in allowing doctors to help children die? Or are they, by contrast, on track to become Earth's most compassionate society because they'll end children's suffering?
  "Of course, I had a long debate with myself before deciding to support this law. Every senator did," said Philippe Mahoux, Senate group leader for Prime Minister Elio Di Rupo's Socialist Party, who introduced the bill. "But it isn't always possible to alleviate these children's pain. That's the main point."
  The issue has divided Belgians in a radically new way: not along political lines but according to personal morality. "I don't know what to think," said Sébastien Petit, 34, a movie industry worker in Liège. "On the one hand, I think it's wrong to kill children. But on the other, I realize these children are suffering."
  His wife, Marie, 28, an occupational therapist, said she thinks the adult euthanasia law works well, so she sees no problem in extending it to children. According to a poll by La Libre newspaper, 74 percent of Belgians are in favor the law.
  Yet faith groups from the Roman Catholic Church to Muslims and Jews remain firmly opposed, as do many doctors and nurses. "It's always possible to control pain and terminal anxiety with medication," said Dr. Benoit Beuselinck, a medical oncologist at the University of Leuven Hospitals.
  "If that's not enough, a palliative sedation can induce the child into a deep sleep, and it won't suffer any more. The patient will then usually die within several days and during this period the family can stay with the child and start the mourning," he said. "The process of dying is a natural process, and we have to respect this natural process as much as possible."
  Proponents of the law, however, consider such arguments outdated. Peter Deconinck, emeritus professor of pediatric surgery at the Free University of Brussels, said it's high time to break the taboo surrounding child euthanasia.
  "It's our duty. Children today are not like they were 50 years ago. They have mature minds," he said. "It's not like terminally ill children go to the doctor and say, 'I'd like to die.' But terminally ill children spend a lot of time on oncology wards. It's a doctor's duty to speak to such a child in a plain manner, perhaps not saying everything the first time, but little by little."
  Besides, say supporters of the bill, child euthanasia is already happening in Belgium. "In reality, pediatricians are compelled by compassion to end the lives of quite a few children with the agreement of their parents," said Jan Bernheim, professor of medicine at the Free University of Brussels and a pioneer in palliative care.  "They've had to do it clandestinely, with the risk of being charged by prosecutors," he said. "Now they'll be able to do it the legal way."
  Before they give the full weight of the law to child euthanasia, Belgian politicians will have to address other implications: for example, how to handle the likely rise of euthanasia tourism.
  Of course, death won't just be a matter of the child uttering his fiat mortem. The law requires statements by psychologists and doctors confirming the child's ability to make the decision. The child's doctors must also inform him about medical options that may ease his suffering and maintain a dialogue about his preferences.
  Even so, the fact that the word euthanasia can now be uttered to gravely ill children may put pressure on them to end their lives.
  "I don't think we should be proud of killing our children when we have good palliative care," said Carine Brochier of the European Institute of Bioethics in Brussels. "We're becoming the world's euthanasia laboratory. Euthanasia is becoming a Belgian trademark, just like waffles."
  She warned that the child euthanasia law would open an ethically dangerous door. "What's next? Euthanasia for people with dementia? Then for handicapped people?" she said.  "Becoming fully human is a gradual process that's completed when the fetus becomes viable and has finished acquiring all the potentials to become a person," said Bernheim. "Similarly, the end of life with dementia is a gradual process of involution in which most attributes of personhood end up being lost.
"Already now, almost everywhere, such patients are not resuscitated or given antibiotics, treatments that are considered futile when they only prolong suffering. Their blighted life is not considered deserving of the degree of protection that is given to other human life."
  According to this school, euthanasia for the demented would be better than simply waiting for a lethal bout of pneumonia. But where to draw the line? "Recently an elderly couple was euthanized, just because they were 'tired of living,' " said Beuselinck.
  Indeed, deciding who qualifies for life comes close to playing God, and that power has been taken to extremes before. In the Third Reich, German doctors killed more than 10,000 handicapped or incurably ill children. Unlike Belgium's children, the German children were never asked whether they wanted to die. But if the law were to pass in Belgium, doctors would be allowed to suggest to children that they agree to be killed.
  "Of course, it's a difficult conversation," said van den Werff Ten Bosch. "Usually the parents ask, 'What can we do now?' Now we'll be able to give them not just the various medical options, but also say, 'There's the option of choosing to die.' "
  Passing the new law permitting children to agree to the end of their life will reflect on Belgian society, its morals and duties. "What does child euthanasia mean for our life together in Belgium?" asked Brochier. "The answer to terminally ill children's suffering is more solidarity, and that includes more financial support for palliative care."
  The third part of this new death trinity, complementing the doctors and the child, are the parents. According to van der Werff Ten Bosch, most parents don't want their child to suffer, and "if the child says, 'I really want to die,' 90 percent of parents will let him."
  Still, the choice between consenting to one's child's death wish and prolonging his painful life presents parents with an agonizing spectrum of emotions. Some doctors argue that it places parents in such an excruciating position that it would be more compassionate to leave them out of the decision altogether.
  Sébastien and Marie Petit try to visualize what it would be like if they had a terminally ill child who said he wanted to die. "I'd listen to as many opinions as possible," said Sébastien. "I'm not a medical professional, so I'd go with what the majority told me."
  A majority vote on a child's life or death? Belgium is indeed entering a chilling new world. 


Cathy Ramey comments:   God takes His stand in His own congregation; He judges in the midst of the rulers.

  How long will you judge unjustly And show partiality to the wicked? Selah.

  Vindicate the weak and fatherless; Do justice to the afflicted and destitute.

  Rescue the weak and needy; Deliver them out of the hand of the wicked.  (Psa 82:1-4)

  Maybe you need the tune to really appreciate the haunting words of a song from the '80s;  "It won't stop with the Unborn; It won't stop with the children..."  
  Here we have an updated article on Belgium's push for allowing children to "choose" euthanasia.
The article writer suggests this is a chilling idea, but consider that only a generation ago most Americans were "chilled" by stories of China's "one child" policy and Stephen Mosher's expose on those babes cast into the waters, like Moses, but without the benefit of a basket.
  Tiny, bloated, floating bodies of, largely, infant girls because sons are preferable in Chinese culture.
Yes, we were "chilled," indeed.
Now we eat with the Chinese, buy their cheap products and sophisticated electronics.
  Now we are "friends," of a sort.
  Now the average American furrows their brow when confronted with China's barbarity.
  "But isn't that their 'choice'?"  (tbc)



  back issues --  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.

No comments: