Abortion is Murder, 9-8, November, 2011

Formerly Stop the Killing of Young People (skyp) and soon, perhaps, Stop Killing Preemies

November, 2011 Vol. 9 No.7
PO Box 7424, Reading, PA 19603
Phone – 484-706-4375
Email – johndunk@ptd.net
Web – skyp1.blogspot.com
Circulation – 101
John Dunkle, Editor

Abortion is Murder, a weak, pathetic response to baby murder, is sent out at least once a month. If the gestapo hasn’t jailed you for defending the innocent realistically, you either have to tell me you want it or go to the website. Faxes and emails are free but snail-mail is free only for PFCs, $100 for others.
Because I believe we should examine every legitimate means, including force, in our attempt to protect those being tortured to death, I want to hear from people who’ve been forceful. I’d also like to hear from those prolifers and pro-deathers who call force violence.

Prisoners for Christ:

1. Evans, Paul Ross 83230-180, USP McCreary, P.O. Box 3000, Pine Knot, KY 42635
2. Gibbons, Linda, Vanier WDC, 655 Martin St., P.O. Box 1040, Milton, ON, Canada L9T 5E6
3. Griffin, Michael 310249, 5914 Jeff Ates Rd., Milton, FL 32583-0000
4. Jordi, Stephen 70309-004, FCI P.O. Box 33, Terre Haute IN 47802 6/30
5. Knight, Peter James, P.O. Box 376, Laverton, Victoria, Australia
6. Kopp, James 11761-055, USP Canaan, P.O. Box 300, 3057 Easton Tpk., Waymart, PA 18472
7. Little, David SJRCC, 930 Old Black River Road, Saint John, NB E2J 4T3
8. Moose, Justin 27494-057 FCI Talladega, P.O. Box 1000, Talladega, AL 35160
9. Richardson, Alonzo Lee 12898-021, FCI Pollock Federal Correctional Institution, P.O. Box 4050, Pollock, LA 71467
10. Roeder, Scott P. 65192, PO Box 2, Lansing Kansas 66043
11. Ross, Michael, Custer County Jail, 1010 Main St., Miles City, Montana 59301
12. Rudolph, Eric 18282-058 US Pen. Max, Box 8500, Florence CO 81226-8500
13. Shannon, Rachelle 59755-065, FCI Waseca, Unit A, P.O. Box 1731, Waseca, MN 56093 3/31
14. Waagner, Clayton Lee 17258-039, United States Penitentiary, P.O. Box 1000, Lewisburg PA 17837

Even though it’s a shameful sin to abandon defenseless victims to their attackers, it’s a far worse sin when you attempt to pass the blame for that sin onto God by claiming that’s what he wanted you to do. And that’s precisely what so many people have done with their rejection of God’s clear and sensible instructions to defend the defenseless, and with their pretenses and fake excuses for rejecting those instructions. Pride is a terrible thing when it leads you to deny your own sin and instead say that God sinned. Peter James Knight
------------------------------------------------------------

Don’t get angry, guys, just because I’m taking the easy “copy and paste” route again. All of these come from the abortion.ws blog run by the remarkable killers’ helper, “Pat Richards.” Peruse them along with the remarkable Cal’s story of Roe.

The bottom line is that babies shouldn’t be dying to make another’s life better. You can write page after page about how arrogant I am, how I am a liar, a fraud, stupid, ignorant, etc. Go ahead. Make your list, shout it from your rooftops, do what you can to try and shut me up. But none of this will change the fact that babies die brutally at your hands and with your support. You can make it about the woman, about pro-lifers, about Christians, about fifty year old men, about control issues, about bodily autonomy, about Republicans, anything you can think of but none of that will ever erase the fact that there are babies dying daily. You want to hide behind your euphemisms, rhetoric and propaganda but NOTHING will make those dead babies disappear. You can make it about John Dunkle or the other protesters. You can call them demented animals if you want BUT it does not take away what is happening and what happens in abortion clinics. You can call Bernard Nathenson and Abby Johnson liars and attention whores if you want but the dead babies will remain! They will still be dismembered and decapitated and placed with the common trash so that you can have things your way. You can pretend as if they aren’t human, say there are clumps of tissue or products of conception. You can say they are non-persons but saying it does not make it true. It is what it is! The scripture says in Deuteronomy “”I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live.” Deuteronomy 30:19. You can make fun of this scripture even but that does not make it untrue or make it go away.
--------------------------------------------------------------

…honestly guys, there is NO way to go into what I think here in depth, but I will say that what if, years ago, rather than coming up with ways to get pregnant, such as embryo implantation, we had focused our attention on public awareness of all the children up for adoption? I’m touching the tip of the iceberg of such a deep discussion, so there is no need to tear into me. I know I’m being VERY basic for the sake of space, but we put the cart before the horse. Before we solve one problem in society, we create another. I don’t know what I would do with all those embryos. Just because we keep digging ourselves deeper into more and more moral issues doesn’t change the fact that I believe life starts at conception, and that morally, we shouldn’t interfere with it. As far as war, I hate war and loss of life as much as the next person, but a soldier defending this country is no different than a police officer doing it. Innocent people are killed in the crossfire of police shootouts at times, do you call that murder? Should we do away with law enforcement? War is just law enforcement on a bigger scale. It sucks, for sure, but what would you have suggested we do when Pearl Harbor was attacked? I can’t answer that question either, other than we all learn to get along !00% of the time, and no one ever break the law or try to take over other countries, stop oppressing their own, and terrorists stop being terrorists. Do you have another answer, because I don’t. I’ve watched the children of several close friends march off to war, and I’ve prayed for months for their safe return, agonizing with my friends, once even rushing to one after a dream she had about her sons camp being bombed. War is hell, and I’m certainly no warmonger. But I am a realist. We can’t even get along in cyberspace on this blog because we are on opposing sides of an issue, how do you expect entire countries to lay aside their differences and get along? War is a necessary evil, and our military are not murderers.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

“women are capable and moral decision makers”…Really? Each and every one of them? There are no, not even a tiny minority, selfish, self centered women using abortion as birth control? Who are irresponsible sexually, even promiscuous? There are no innocent babies out there dying because of that, no not one? There are no young girls who are terrified, thinking their parents will kill them, and that’s why they choose the quick way out, regretting it for the rest of their lives, never having the opportunity to bear that child, look it in the eyes and be damned with what anyone else thinks, and love it all its life? There are no vindictive women out there aborting their babies because they are teaching a boyfriend or husband a lesson? Really? Not a single one? ALL women are capable and moral decision makers? Crap, if half the population is perfect, why is the world in the shape it’s in?
------------------------------------------------------------

No need to blast you about being a murderer or murderer’s assistant. You’ve done that well enough on your own and yes, the baby needs to be protected. (Also, Pat – I hope you looked at my earlier post and tried to figure out where YOU fit in on the list regarding the grisly abortion killing business and its hierarchy.) It’s a shame that although you acknowledge that the baby needs to be protected on the one hand, you aren’t willing to offer the child the protection it is entitled to as a member of the human family created in the image and likeness of God. You don’t seem like such a bad guy so it’s a shame that you don’t have eyes of faith to see the window to the womb and the precious child growing inside of its mother.
But are you really kidding me (or yourself) when you say the clinic will prescribe birth control so that women are never forced to confront the heart wrenching decision of abortion?? Are you not aware a huge majority of women going into these mills are there precisely because of failed contraception? Abby Johnson has stated that Planned Parenthood gives out low dosage birth control to young girls in the hopes that it will fail and they will return to them for their abortion. They also hope to get them to return more than once during their reproductive years. After all, if you are on birth control and find yourself unexpectedly pregnant, then just have an abortion because you didn’t want the baby in the first place. ABC easy as 1 2 3 as simple as do re mi. That’s why these mills give out birth control pills like they were jelly beans. It fits right into their ‘unholy trinity’ (again the polar opposite of our Triune God – God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.) The abortion mill’s unholy trinity is comprised of (1) contraception – the killing of babies at their VERY EARLIEST stage, (2) sex education (yeah baby – get in those schools early and get those kids working those cucumbers and condoms – indoctrinate them young, alter their families’ basic system of values into the permissiveness of if it feels good go for it culture of today’s youth thanks be to you pro-aborts. After all, you need to keep business going and if kids are stripped of their values then they’re fair game to buy into your theology) and lastly but not by any means the least, (3) the abortion itself. Voila!! Naturally you will do all of this with the perverted, twisted and deceptive logic that you in fact trying to prevent pregnancy. Pat – I have to add – you bought into it.
You are also right, Pat, – these women who abort know they will not have their baby in a few months. Likewise, the generations that should have sprung forth from that child will never be as well. Abortion has consequences that will last for eternity. Only a fool would wager their eternal salvation and support abortion. Satan’s Fool.
----------------------------------------------------------------

John – she does it very easily. You see even with all of her degrees and titles what Kate doesn’t realize is that she is also part of an organization; however, hers has a very grisly belief system. The abortion “organization” or “cult” if you will is fundamentally a business – a profit driven business I might add, based on the perverse and misguided concept that it is a “human right” for a woman to have “abortion on demand without apology. Period.” Those are Kate’s words, sick and pathetic as they may be. It is her mantra and ideologically and cleverly marketed by their church bishops (if you will) as “free choice” and garnering the “church” astronomical profits by perpetuating the killing and death of innocent babies to the tune of approx. 4,500 per day in the U.S. alone.
It goes further than just being a busine$$. Kate doesn’t even realize that she serves a god – but it is not the One True God – rather she serves the god of child murder and gleefully claps and cheers at the systematic ritual of each and every woman’s offering of her child’s blood sacrifice as she enters into the killing mill. How dreadfully perverted and sad for her. In the Old Testament this god was called Moloch. Through the years child sacrifice has always been the same – the bloodthirsty beast demanding the killing of children as a form of worship. Hence the name of Malachi on our quite ghastly photos (yes, they’re ghastly but heck that’s abortion for you.)
The work in the abortion mills today are our modern day valleys of slaughter. In their demonic RELIGION, (gee I bet you pro-aborts didn’t know you were religious!) the abortionist offers the ritual blood sacrifice to the ancient demon of child murder. As in most religions, this demonic religion also has their dogma which is the cleverly marketed word, “choice” (a euphonium used to take the sting out of what they REALLY mean – murder). Their perverse sacrament is quite simply the abortion itself. Their ruling hierarchy is all the Planned Parenthoods out there (we won’t leave out all you little mom and pop stand alone mills either) Further, they have their theologians (feminist ideologues – Kate that’d be you and your minions or ilk – Ellen, Lucy, Sharon I haven’t forgotten about you don’t worry – or whatever your word for the day is) their priests (abortionists and ghastly clergy supporters of abortion), their temples (of course all those lovely state of the art abortion mills that we read about – some more grisly than others), their altars of sacrifice (the surgical tables – minus the stretchers – we’ve heard from patients at a local mill that they are expected to walk to the recovery room), their victims (the babies and also the moms), acolytes and/or lectors (clinic workers and technicians), guardian angels (police/security, and deathscorts), congregations (leftist foundations and private supporters), and its own version of “grace” that covers everything -- albeit not always very proportionately – (money) (guess who I’m thinking about hmm? – hint she has red hair and drives a hybrid) ’nuff said – by the way – hope all you guardian angels enjoy your summer picnic and thanks so much for all your help!! LOL
Yeah – I’ll take my Jesus any day. You folks that get your undies all in a wad about being able to kill babies without “terrorists” offering a life line to women about to commit your “blood sacrifice of abortion” deserve one another.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Telling a man to be a “good daddy” or telling a woman to protect her child or telling her it’s not natural to kill her own child are acts of shaming?
Good daddies don’t allow people to kill their children and it’s not natural for a mother to kill her own child.
These statements are true. They bother the mother and the daddy and you to hear these words because there is truth to them.
It seems to me that you want to support abortion but you don’t want to admit the reality of it. You make a stand that baby Malachi is a fake but fail to note that even if that were true the other hundreds of thousands of babies who die each year in abortion are real. What do you think, that they come out perfect and whole and are laid to rest in a funeral? No they are mutilated and thrown away. You want to turn the attention to the pro-life protesters, their religion, and words, because that takes the attention away from the mutilation going on inside the clinics. For every woman that you walk into that clinic a dead baby goes out the back. You can stand out there and dance and clap and act like the circus is in town if you want but deep down, deep inside you know the truth. Suppressing the truth doesn’t make it untrue. You help kill babies Kate! Face it! Instead of celebrating when a woman refuses to talk to the sidewalk counselors you should weep bitter tears because a baby will die and the mother will know that she killed it and you will know that you helped.
It’s not natural? How would you know what is “natural” when you live in a world that is socially-constructed and you can’t see beyond it, can’t see the socio-political structures that put that world together?
As for the remainder of your “seems to me” and “these statement are true” or “you want to” I’d say, you’re entitled to your opinions. But you and your cohorts cannot deny the ugliness you perpetrate on strangers who are private patients and then do so with some sense of goodness. I know what goes on inside abortion clinics. We’ve been through this a zillion times. Embryos/fetuses/products of conception/pregnancy tissue/baby/child/unborn/young person (does that about cover it?) die. It’s a choice that good women make for good reasons. You don’t agree. Instead you and your kind choose to make women miserable, to shame them (and you do it intentionally) for decisions that are their own and then claim to be so righteous. Like I said, you have your opinions.
------------------------------------------------------------

To Kate and Chuck, I have to say this blog is the first place I have heard anyone refer to being a hero in this issue. It has never occurred to me, nor have I ever heard another pro-lifer even allude to the need to be a hero. Kate, however it is said by the pro-life individuals, in a good way or bad, (I admit there is bad) the message is the same: we believe in the sanctity of HUMAN life, in each and every stage of development. It is a human life at each and every stage of development. We believe it is wrong to end human life, whether cognitive or not. Abortion ends human life. What part of any of that is a lie? It may be handled wisely or poorly or tragically by either side, but it is still the truth, proven by science and reality. As far as anything at all about God, neither of us can prove or disprove his existence. I look at the intricacies of the world around me, such as the human eye, and I see no other choice but to believe in Him. I don’t believe because I need to believe, I believe because a lifetime of seeking answers to the universe leave me no choice but to believe. History is on my side. Most civilizations have believed in a creator or divine being. Some of the greatest minds in human history believed in Jehovah God. I am amazed that you are so certain, 100% sure, that he doesn’t exist. So I find no “lies” that you keep mentioning. Also, being new to the blog, I have researched many of the facts mentioned here that were called lies by you guys, from independent sources, since I do want truth in my life, and I have so far found nothing mentioned to be a lie, including Malachi, which you failed to disprove. All you did was quote others, as I did. I really am sorry that so many pro-lifers out there, as well as so many Christians, behave in a way that drive people away rather than draw them in. I have given you both tit for tat, because I felt you were the bullies of the playground, and now Kate, you say you have something called Bully Watch. I find it amazing that you are guilty of the exact same behavior you accuse others of. If pro-lifers and/or Christians out there are behaving badly, that’s a shame, it really is. But I believe you both know, Kate with your Bully Watch, and Chuck with your Aborticintrism, that believing in God and the sanctity of human life isn’t a cult, syndrome or psychosis. And I also believe that you both know that this whole thing is about people believing babies are being killed, not about being a hero, or refusing to adopt dozens of babies, which seems to be your only argument, and is a lame one, because the children languishing in the system aren’t there because of abortion, or due to “insisting” woman have babies, or a violation of women’s rights. They are there because ALL women can’t be trusted, (men too) and because ALL women (men too) aren’t respectable. Men and women everywhere have shirked their responsibility, their duty, their common decency toward their children, usually due to self-centeredness and irresponsibility. Your answer to that, like all liberals, and I don’t mean that as a slur, is to turn them into victims, and strip them of what little self respect they may have, giving them the easy way out, complete with excuses. What they, and all humans need, are boundaries, responsibilities, a conscious and a sense of shame when they slack off, and a sense of pride when they don’t. Society used to handle these things very well by our public approval or disapproval. That was stripped away little by little as morality declined. Now, anything goes, and it’s not your fault.
---------------------------------------------------------

“Pat” and “voice” talk about Planned Parenthood:

Pat, I know what you’re getting at when you refer to PP’s “origins” and from what I’ve heard/read, there were some sketchy things said in those days. But I cannot hold that against them now, they do more to stop abortions that any other institution in this country…

voice, Yeah, like encouraging free sex, giving out low dose birth control pills that fail as well as cheap condoms that break. Sounds like they are doing their share in the abortion war.

Pat, Okay…how does PPFA “encourage free sex”???

voice, By telling kids things like this from their teen website:
People who care about and trust each other become intimate — close. But sex is just one part of a whole relationship. It’s just one way to be intimate. How about the other aspects of your relationship?

Do you treat each other as equals?
Do you trust each other?
Are you honest with each other?
Do you respect each other’s needs and feelings?
Do you care about each other?
Do you share similar interests and values?
Do you have fun together?
Do you both accept responsibility for what you do?
Do you both want to have sex at this time?

And this one is the kicker….If these things are true about your relationship, you may be ready to have sex.

Um…NO! There is no twelve/thirteen fourteen/fifteen year old on the planet who is “ready” to have sex. Sex leads to pregnancy and grown up decisions that children are not ready to cope with. The above reasons for “being ready” to have sex are not good enough for any child. It is infuriating that they teach these things to children. Why not say something like “Sex is an adult activity that should be waited for UNTIL you are an adult in an adult relationship”? This same website claims that most teens are not having sex, so why encourage the others that they are “ready”?
This same website gives information about a girl’s first period and explains to boys all about their bodies, making it clear that they cater to younger teens and even children. Some girls start their periods as young as 8 and 9 years old. So they are basically telling children and young teens that they “may be ready for sex.”
Planned Parenthood breeds irresponsibility.
---------------------------------------------------------

Dear John, Today I would like to tell you and your Gentle Readers the story of Roe v. Wade.

Beginning around the mid-1940s, California moms dreamed of lives of pretty dresses, convenient household appliances, and what was being billed as Western living for their daughters. For example, in 1943, Sunset magazine started billing itself as "The Magazine of Western Living." The home was being filled with all sorts of whirling electrical appliances. And, textile manufactures had started producing clothing materials with bright and cheery colors. Though long since forgotten, pattern stores, where mother and daughter could pick out the latest patterns to make their own clothes, were once very popular. Those were the dreams of California moms. But by the time their daughters did grow up as young women in the 1960s, they threw it all away to wear trashy clothes and have sex before marriage with lazy long-haired boys who smoked marijuana, and occasionally even "Negroes" as they were called.
As far as conservatives were concerned, their daughters were crazy, and they needed a way out. So they promptly had their newly elected Republican governor, Ronald Reagan, legalize abortion in California in 1967. However, Reagan and his conservatives were not exactly leaving the females of California a choice. Instead, they were using the old Buck v. Bell strategy that had been so successful in cracking down on flappers in the Roaring 1920s with threats of involuntary sterilization, and now they were applying it to abortion.
The way the strategy works is simple: Either you show us how competent you are to take care of matters voluntarily, or we just might have to use the mental health exception and do things the hard way! The leverage of hanging women over a barrel like that is that most of them get the idea, which leaves only the stragglers to focus on, and those of them who still do not get the idea may also have enough other problems that few eyebrows will be raised if they are dealt with the hard way at any rate.
That was California. Next came New York. New York is a melting pot state. What melting pot had traditionally meant, up until the 1960s, was that different cultures and ethnic groups from all over the world live side-by-side in the same communities, in the separate sense. And, yes, from time to time there could be inter-marriages. But these were typically attended by a substantial social process, to give the stubborn old people from the old country a chance to get used to these new changes.
But by the late 1960s, young people were making the melting pot boil over in the unmarried bedroom without concern for pregnancy, let alone a social process of acceptance, and Jewish conservatives were especially frustrated that even their daughters were participating. So they promptly had their Republican governor, Nelson Rockefeller, legalize abortion in New York, in 1970.
That was California and New York. But Texas was the big hold out. Today California, Texas, and New York are the number one, two, and three most populous states, in that order. Back then California and New York had just swapped the number one and two positions, and Texas had rapidly risen to number four, just behind Pennsylvania.
Texans are an extremely proud people. Texans knew they would never be able to look each other in the eye, or tip their hats to one another in public, if they had to admit that in order to cover up for their backward element, they felt the need to legalize child homicide in its most clandestine form of legal abortion, just like California and New York had already done. Of course, Texas did not have California's marijuana problem, or New York's integration problem. So Texas held out.
What prompted Roe was the return of our soldiers from Vietnam. It is a problem that takes a short while to materialize: First the men start to return home, then they still expect the women to do that thing where they have sex with the returning soldiers, then the woman gets pregnant, and then the baby starts to show. That is when the leaders in Texas realized that these young men were in no condition to take care of a family. Instead, all they men wanted to do was to brood about the bizarre experience they had in Vietnam, and to keep the brooding going with the help of caffeine, nicotine, alcohol, and maybe a little marijuana. These young men were in no condition to care of themselves let alone a family. If anything, the woman was going to have to take care of the man and baby both. So that is when Texas threw in the towel.
Unbeknownst to Jane Roe's attorney, Sarah Weddington, Texas went to the U.S. Supreme Court as a "straw man" to lose Roe v. Wade on purpose. This way Texas could have the abortions that Texans were too proud to legalize on their own. A straw man is someone who pretends to be arguing the case, but limits his arguments in a way designed to fail, just like a straw man falls over on its own in the corn fields. That way, by losing the case, the Court would tie the state's hands so Texans could have abortions just like California and New York were having, but without Texas having to do the dirty work of legalizing it on its own, which would have been too hard for proud Texans to face.
Instead, all Texas would have to do is to lose Roe v. Wade at the U.S. Supreme Court so that the Court would tie the state's hands. Then Texas would be forced to allow abortions. In other words, Sarah Weddington was too unseasoned to realize that she did not need to perjure herself to win, by lying that her client was raped, instead, all she needed to do was to sit back and let Texas throw the case.
For the Court to tie the state's hands, Texas needed to lose on both of two critical points: The children's rights and the secondary issue of a state's rights. But even though the U.S. Supreme Court was aware of the intentions of Texas to lose the case, Texas was still expected to at least go through the motions and put on the appearances of vigorous argument. In other words, it does not pay to look complacent. Instead, the straw man is still expected to at least put on a good show.
It is easiest to see Texas acting as a straw man during oral reargument in Roe v. Wade, which is when attorneys on both sides get a second chance to argue their positions before the members of the U.S. Supreme Court, who ask the attorneys questions to clarify their legal positions. So, during oral reargument, Texas attorney Robert Flowers presumes to sit up high on the horse and goes through the motions on the children's rights: "Gentlemen, we feel that the concept of the fetus being within the concept of a person within the framework of the United States Constitution and the Texas Constitution is an extremely fundamental thing."
Right away, Texas is laughed down by Justice Stewart. You have to listen to the actual audio to hear the laughter in his voice. He says in effect, you don't want to sit up too high on that horse, or you just might win your case, which is what all of us here except Sarah Weddington know you don't want to do, as evidenced by the fact that "Texas abortion law presently goes too far in allowing abortion" for that, seeing how Texans are not quite ready to legitimize their own children today!
But Texas tries to play off the criticism, saying, "Yes, Sir. That's exactly right." In other words, Texas is saying that this is a weakness in our children's rights argument, and one that the Court can use to defeat the children's rights, and when you do, don't go asking any more questions, just give Sarah Weddington everything she's asked for, because "we feel this is the only question really [keyword: ONLY] that this Court has to answer."
So what just happened there? Texas just tried to dodge the state's rights question completely!(Texas dodges the state's rights issue by saying the children's rights issue is the "only" question the Court has the answer, not the secondary issue of the state's rights.) Texas would not even go through the motions on the state's rights! In other words, for fear of winning on the state's rights, Texas would not even touch that question with a ten foot pole!
Why? Because if Texas loses on the children's rights, but wins on the state's rights, it will not do Texas any good. California and New York will still be able to have their abortions, but not Texas because Texans are too proud to legalize it on their own. Instead, Texas needed to lose on both the children's rights AND a state's rights in order for the Court to be able to tie everyone's hands, so Texas can have abortions too.
So right away, Justice White, who is all about a state's rights, gets mad and interrupts. He is mad because here the straw man, Texas, is so eager to lose on the state's rights, that Texas will not even go through the motions on the issue. So Justice White scolds Texas, saying that even if you lose the children's rights, if you at least win the state's rights, Texas will still be good to go. California and New York can still have their abortions, but Texas won't have to if Texas doesn't want to, provided you win the state's rights, because a state can still assert rights over the fetus "whether the fetus is a person or not."
Later, when the decision in Roe was handed down, Justice Blackmun, who wrote the opinion for the Court, decided to leave Texas a little reminder not to ride back home too high on the horse. Texas wanted to pretend that it had done everything it could for the children, everything at all, but, shucks, now the High Court has simply tied its hands by making it allow abortions. But even when leaving Texas a little reminder, the Court still had to be discrete about the key role Texas played as a straw man in Roe v. Wade, so Justice Blackmun tucked it away in a footnote, footnote 54.
He explains that, like so many a young man who is asked by the judge, are you going to legitimize your child today, rather than giving the Court a straight yes or no answer, Texas "faces a dilemma" and instead wants us to listen to a long story. The story goes to say that if you only understood they way things are between the men and women of Texas right now, then you would appreciate why on the one hand we do not want to deny that these are our children, but why also on the other hand we should not have to take responsibility for the children in the whole and total sense of the Fourteenth Amendment either, given the underlying frivolity of the sexual encounters that led to those children in the first place, what with the sexual revolution and all.
So, in the main text, at page 162 in Roe, Justice Blackmun concludes, saying, "In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense." When speaking of children in this type of situation, "recognized in the law" is a quiet way of saying "legitimized." In other words, Texans were not quite ready to legitimize their own children that day. Instead, they threw the case and lost on purpose so the Court would tie their hands to legalize abortion in Texas.
And, that, Mr. Dunkle, is the story of Roe v. Wade. Sincerely, Cal.

Abortion is Murder, 9-7. October 2, 2011

Formerly Stop the Killing of Young People (skyp) and soon, perhaps, Stop Killing Preemies

October 2, 2011 Vol. 9 No.7
PO Box 7424, Reading, PA 19603
Phone – 484-706-4375
Email – johndunk@ptd.net
Web – skyp1.blogspot.com
Circulation – 101
John Dunkle, Editor

Abortion is Murder, a weak, pathetic response to baby murder, is sent out at least once a month. If the gestapo hasn’t jailed you for defending the innocent realistically, you either have to tell me you want it or go to the website. Faxes and emails are free but snail-mail is free only for PFCs, $100 for others.
Because I believe we should examine every legitimate means, including force, in our attempt to protect those being tortured to death, I want to hear from people who’ve been forceful. I’d also like to hear from those prolifers and pro-deathers who call force violence.

Prisoners for Christ:

1. Evans, Paul Ross 83230-180, USP McCreary, P.O. Box 3000, Pine Knot, KY 42635
2. Gibbons, Linda, Vanier WDC, 655 Martin St., P.O. Box 1040, Milton, ON, Canada L9T 5E6
3. Griffin, Michael 310249, 5914 Jeff Ates Rd., Milton, FL 32583-0000
4. Jordi, Stephen 70309-004, FCI P.O. Box 33, Terre Haute IN 47802 6/30
5. Knight, Peter James, P.O. Box 376, Laverton, Victoria, Australia
6. Kopp, James 11761-055, USP Canaan, P.O. Box 300, 3057 Easton Tpk., Waymart, PA 18472
7. Little, David SJRCC, 930 Old Black River Road, Saint John, NB E2J 4T3
8. Moose, Justin 27494-057 FCI Talladega, P.O. Box 1000, Talladega, AL 35160
9. Richardson, Alonzo Lee 12898-021, FCI Pollock Federal Correctional Institution, P.O. Box 4050, Pollock, LA 71467
10. Roeder, Scott P. 65192, PO Box 2, Lansing Kansas 66043
11. Ross, Michael, Custer County Jail, 1010 Main St., Miles City, Montana 59301
12. Rudolph, Eric 18282-058 US Pen. Max, Box 8500, Florence CO 81226-8500
13. Shannon, Rachelle 59755-065, FCI Waseca, Unit A, P.O. Box 1731, Waseca, MN 56093 3/31
14. Waagner, Clayton Lee 17258-039, United States Penitentiary, P.O. Box 1000, Lewisburg PA 17837

Even though it’s a shameful sin to abandon defenseless victims to their attackers, it’s a far worse sin when you attempt to pass the blame for that sin onto God by claiming that’s what he wanted you to do. And that’s precisely what so many people have done with their rejection of God’s clear and sensible instructions to defend the defenseless, and with their pretenses and fake excuses for rejecting those instructions. Pride is a terrible thing when it leads you to deny your own sin and instead say that God sinned. Peter James Knight


Readers, I‘m interrupting the sequence of these newsletters to bring you the following:

Dear All: In recent months I've been sending some of my screeds to my brother Tim. His name is John Timothy Hughes, but there are so many named John Hughes in our family (dating from my great grandfather who emigrated from Ireland at the height of the potato famine in 1848) we called him Tim. Since moving to Colorado, he uses John. I still call him Tim, as does my older brother Leo and people who knew Tim growing up in Fort Pierre, South Dakota.
You will find Tim's "take" on things is reasoned and based on personal experiences, even though he has little formal education. He attended the Black Hills State Teachers College for a short time, but left to get married and raise a family. He self-taught himself the profession of upholstery, in which he succeeded, but he lives on 40 acres of cactus and rattlesnakes halfway between Colorado Springs and Pueblo. His marriage broke up (so Tim shares that experience with many of you) and his wife then married an ex-army sergeant who was abusive to Tim's ex-wife only daughter, Tara, so Tim got custody of Tara. Tim has always been politically alert. From that, he has become interested in interacting with the Hispanic community in Pueblo. This consists mostly of teaching Hispanic teens (mostly girls, the boys haven't yet learned the importance of education) in how the American economy works. One of his projects is teaching them how to build and decorate bird houses, which he plans to take to realtors and other small businessmen in the area as a free "sweetener" to close business deals.
Tim believes the Federal Income Tax is unconstitutional, so for many years he refused to pay it. This led to the IRS putting a lien on any property Tim acquired, so he went through most of his life with no assets, until he negotiated an agreement with IRS. So Tim is a man of some convictions and is willing to pay the price to uphold them. I have something in common with that, with my conviction that the Roe v. Wade ruling allows the entire next generation of Americans to be wantonly murdered, and spending time in jails and prisons in six states to demonstrate my opposition.
Tim, Leo, and I were raised in the Roman Catholic faith. It "took" with all three of us, but in different ways. What saddens us all is that our children (9 in all) have wandered away from what I am convinced is by far the best and most fully documented explanation for human origins and destiny available to us. In that conviction, I've been largely self-taught. Tim and his wife sent their three children to Catholic schools, paying tuition that taxed their incomes, with no discernible benefit from it. All three of us raised our families at a time when the Catholic Church was near schism as serious as that with the Protestant Reformation. It has been spared repeating that experience due to the efforts of three remarkable Popes, Paul VI (Italian), John Paul II (Polish), and Benedict XVI (German), all three having lived through the Nazi terror and rise of Communism in these three countries so essential to the success of the Church in evangelizing Europe (reaching out to Latins, Slavs, and Germans). I could add Celts in Ireland and Britain.
Since Vatican Council II, the Church has been bedeviled (and that's the right word) with the scandals of homosexual predatory priests sodomizing altar boys and most priests giving Holy Communion to militantly pro-abortion "Catholic" politicians, all with the passive consent of their bishops. I cannot believe that these bishops can continue to believe in the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist (a doctrine taught forcefully by Jesus Christ Himself). They can for a time, I think, but not for long. It is too much of a contradiction between their duties and their behavior. Altar boys are RIGHT THERE kneeling in front of them during Mass waiting to be sodomized, and pro-abortion zealot politicians are RIGHT THERE in front of them waiting for Holy Communion. My guess is that some 70 percent of bishops no longer believe in the Real Presence (I have a short essay backing up that view if any of you want to read it). Once a Catholic no longer believes in the Real Presence, he not only stops being a Catholic, he stops being a Christian.
So these bishops stopped emphasizing the "hard" teachings of Jesus Christ in Catholic education of children in Sunday School classes and attending Catholic schools, and also when these children entered Catholic colleges and universities, and even among all Catholics who still attend the Catholic Mass. The seeds of this rebellion had to exist before Vatican II, since the leaders of the revolt were priests, bishops, and theologians before Vatican II, when the Roman Catholic Church was experiencing what seemed to be a "Golden Age" at the time (Kennedy's election as US President, etc.). They thought they could use Vatican II to take over the Church; otherwise they would have left, like Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Henry VIII, and formed their own churches. They didn't succeed because of these three remarkable Popes, but they very nearly succeeded and their dirty work has caused a widespread loss of faith among Catholics, as evidenced in the children of me and my brothers. In the meantime they continue to collect their Church salaries ("How convenient" Charles Swithinbank would say).
As an example, Bev and I both taught Sunday School at St. Mary of the Assumption Roman Catholic Church in Orono, Maine, where the University of Maine is located. I taught "conscience" to junior high school students.
The soft-cover book I was given, from the bishop's office, taught "conscience" using six stages of conscience formation according to Lawrence Kohlberg, a secularized Jewish atheist from Harvard who committed suicide. At the end, it mentioned Jesus Christ and tried to fit His teaching into Kohlberg's categories. I went through Kollberg's six stages, closed the book, opened the Bible, and said to my class, "That's all you need to know about Kohlberg's treatment of conscience (Stage 1: The carrot and stick approach in the home. Stage 2: Peer pressure in the schools. Stage 3: community standards, including Jim Crow in the South. Stage 4: Patriotism, my country right or wrong. Stage 5: A citizen of the world dedicated to "saving the planet" from human abuses. Stage 6: I alone decide what's right and wrong, just as Adolf Hitler did). For the rest of this course, we're going to examine conscience based on Moses' Ten Commandments (from Mount Sinai) in the Old Testament and Christ's Nine Beatitudes (the Sermon on the Mount) in the New Testament. That gives you all you need to know about conscience." The priest at St. Mary's sat in on some of my classes but said nothing. Then he was replaced by a new priest who cut me out of the small group of Sunday School teachers. No explanation given and none asked for by me. Since then Catholic Churches have closed all over Maine.
Comments? Terry Hughes
------------------------------------------

Terry, your analysis prompts me to go public with what I think about Catholics and Protestants.
I don't want to create a rift between me and you and the rest of my Catholic allies in this battle. But I can't help but point out what makes me as a Protestant incapable of trusting the Catholic church as an institution and other Catholics when they do make trusting a Catholic Pope the binder of their conscience.
You summarized your analysis below of recent Catholic skullduggery by saying, "They [the apostasizers] didn't succeed because of these three remarkable Popes, but they very nearly succeeded and their dirty work has caused a widespread loss of faith among Catholics, as evidenced in the children of me and my brothers."
And it is right there on the matter of the Pope's authority to bind the conscience of Catholics that has the potential not only for rift but for an unbridgeable chasm to be created between you and me. Take Pius VII for example. Whereas Pius VI was willing to fight Napoleon and his secular thinking to the death, Pius VII turned the previous Pope's faithful willingness to give his life in service to the Lord into the Concordat of 1801 because protecting the institution and property of the French and European Catholic Church was Number Seven's obvious goal.
And that happened at a critical moment in history when the world was being tempted to totally abandon any foundation for government forthrightly based on the will of the Creator as had been declared in either the Divine Right of Kings or the Declaration of Independence from America's Revolution.
In exactly the way Eugenio Pacelli, Hitler's Pope, found a way to sanction Hitler so Hitler wouldn't focus on the German Catholics as disloyal to him, Catholic Pope's have been willing to surrender the hard battle for this world's turf to the enemy, and in our generation that means millions of the most vulnerable people among us.
The dots between the French Revolution, to Napoleon, to the Russian Revolution, to Hitler are easily connected by me. And every dot is connectible in history because the Creator is not fought for in government anymore. Much, if not most, of that confusion about God's role in government can be traced to the Catholic Pope's willingness to see the perpetuation of the Catholic institution as tantamount to the perpetuation of the Body of Christ.
And it's still happening today. That's why the Catholic led pro-life movement is nothing more than a toothless old hag with empty saggy dugs incapable of protecting the least of God's children.
I don't trust the Popes and won't trust them because they carry the seed of a conscience binding lie, namely, that there is a man or a man's interpretation of reality that God gives to tell me what God says. Lord Holy Ghost using Holy Scripture to guide me was given that role on earth for me. If the Lord Jesus Christ returns and proclaims Himself a Roman Catholic Pope, I'll kiss His Ring. Or if someone other than Jesus Christ who is elected Pope happens to get filled with the Spirit and tells me what God says, I pray I'll have no problem marching with him in every way a man can march. But I'll never admit that just because he has some kind of office on earth that means I'm supposed to follow his orders when he ignores or contradicts what Lord Holy Ghost tells me to do in Holy Scripture. The Lord Jesus Christ will never do that.
Were I to think some man presently among us it to tell me what God says, I'd be like the rest of the Protestants who think because the Supreme Court says something, I've got to believe it's true, even if it's a lie.
Obviously I'm not only a Protestant but some variety of Protestant who's hard to define in even Protestant denominational enclosures.
So the point is, from my point of view our alliance in fighting for the lives of unborn babies has nothing to do with our denominational enclosures but everything to do with the fact that we walk together--in this battle at least--in the Holy Spirit of God. Brother, my heart's desire and my fervent prayer is that nothing on earth or in heaven or hell separate us from walking together because I admire more than I can find words to say the battle you have waged for the least of God's children, and because this battle is to the death and whatever other questions that could be raised between us are literally irrelevant until we see whether God wants us to survive this battle.
Make sense? Neal Horsley
----------------------------------------------

Glad this came up. The idea that the pope can "bind" us on anything but the Gospel is called Papolotry. Novus Ordo Catholics, as opposed to Traditional ones, believe that every fart and burp coming from the Pope is Dogma - as examples: the horror of interfaith prayer at Assisi (getting together with devil worshippers, Hindus, Buddhists etc.) is actually defended by these Catholics.

His allowing women to read at the altar; John Paul's "baptizing" of evolution; I can, and may later, go on and on. As a Traditional Catholic I "Resist him to the face".

He is only "infallible" when he defends the teachings of the Apostles. Otherwise, he is as infallible as I am.


I know there's much more that concerns you; I would be glad to answer your questions. Helen Westover
---------------------------------------------

Actually, Helen, there really isn't any concern I know of except the one you clarified for me. If Martin Luther's Pope had had as much Holy Ghost Power as you, we probably would all still be Catholics like Paul and Peter and the rest of the Saints were. I believe we are in Christ together and praise His Holy Name, waiting expectantly to see what He'll do to work us together for good. Neal Horsley
---------------------------------------------

I like this discussion and agree with Terry even though most of the people I respect – Rev. Don Spitz, Neal Horsley, Rev. Michael Bray, Randall Terry, Shelley Shannon, Joan Andrews, Jim Kopp, and others – are not Catholic.

I’d like to join the discussion with this message I give my children, and my grandkids when they enter high school and I take over their religious education:

History

God (Jehovah, G_d, Yahweh, The Word, Allah, the Creator, etc.) created the universe probably a long time before he created the first people, Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve lived happily with one caveat: they had to obey God. They did not, and they and we, their descendants, were plunged into this "vale of tears," with pain, death, treachery, and ignorance part of our lot.
God chose one of Adam's descendants, Abram (changed to Abraham), to begin a line of people through whom he would reveal himself again to humanity. This line is therefore known as "The Chosen People." They are also called Israelites after Abraham's grandson Jacob whose name was changed to Israel. God said that from this Chosen People he would send a savior who would return to us the power to regain what had been lost through the actions of Adam and Eve; i.e., eternal life with him in heaven. And he did send a savior, Jesus Christ, his only son. Many Israelites accepted this savior. At first they were called “The Way.” (from “the way, the truth, and the life”). Later, most Israelites accepted him and then became known as Christians, followers of Christ. Non-Israelites were invited to become Christians and many of them did too. That is why The Chosen People came to be called Christians rather than Israelites.
Christians increased in number because Christ had told them to gather in everyone. To do this, early Christians traveled all over the world and then also became known as Catholics – “catholic” means universal, or everywhere. The "Catholic/Christian/Israelite" Church is located everywhere.

Right from the beginning people believed different things about Jesus. Some said he was a phony, even a devil; others said he was a good man but not God, or that he was God but not a real man. They also believed different things about what he did. Some said he established a Church to carry on his work and chose Peter to lead it; others denied this. Some said he made his mother, Mary, a special human being; others said she was just like you and me. There were arguments over Peter's successors, Baptism, consecration, the Holy Spirit, celibacy, gender roles, One God and the Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), and on and on.
Gradually the truth was, and is, proclaimed. False beliefs are called heresies. During the first six or seven hundred years of the Church's existence, every heresy you can think of was examined and rejected. Only the truth was retained. Who rejected error and retained truth? The Holy Spirit did. When Christ established his Church, he said the Holy Spirit would protect it from error.
Although most heresies attract few people and soon die, some lead to schisms. That means they pervert large numbers of people and are still around today.
The first schism was Talmudic or Rabbinic Judaism. Some Israelites did not accept Christ. They said he was a fake. These people are called Jews and are still awaiting the messiah.
The next was started a little after 500 AD by a man from the Middle East named Muhammad. Although Muhammad did not believe Jesus was a fake, he did not believe he was God (Allah), either, but just another in the long line of prophets starting with Abraham. (Muhammad borrowed the belief that Jesus was not God from the Arians, heretics but not schismatics.) Muhammad called himself God's greatest prophet. His followers are called Muslims.
Around 1000 AD came Orthodoxy. This schism started because some Catholics rejected the successors of Peter as Christ's voice on earth. The Orthodox retain most other Church teachings.
Number four on our list is Protestantism, which Fr. Luther started about 1500 AD. The first Protestants were also Catholics who rejected Peter's successors. Over the years they have rejected many other Church teachings.
The 2000 AD schism is modernism. Some modernists reject this or that truth, or these and those, and some reject everything, even the reality of God/G_d/Yahweh. I have heard modernism called the worst schism because it’s a mix of every heresy that’s ever existed.
Notice that these schisms occur about every five hundred years. By allowing false beliefs to become entrenched God is showing us again, as he did with Adam and Eve and others before Christ, how easily we Catholics, The Chosen People, can lose sight of him. He demands recognition. When we fail to recognize him adequately, horror, including sometimes schism, follows. John Dunkle
---------------------------------------------

John, your schism analysis brings out this truth: Christ Jesus has One Body, not two, not three, not eleven gazillion. I am a member of that Body and those who fight with me to defend the lives of the least of God's children are members of that Body too, members of His Body even if they don't know they are, and especially if they know they are, because they walk in the Spirit of Christ. Either that is true, or nothing that I know, or believe, or am, is real and true, and this is all a dream. Or should I say a nightmare? Neal Horsley
---------------------------------------------

As a single mother, with a demented ex, I decided to bankrupt myself sending my kids to Catholic schools. Thinking they were learning what I learned, bible and doctrine, I once asked my son what they were learning in religion class. He replied, "Be kind, and don't litter."
They learned nothing of Our Lord (except that He was PC all the way), scripture, moral doctrine, nothing. I like to say that they got just enough to inoculate them against the Faith.
Since I became a Traditionalist (I totally reject Vatican 2 and the wreckage it wrought), I'm beginning to get their attention. One of my daughters goes to the Old Mass, and has a personal relationship with His Majesty. I'm still working on the other two. Helen Westover
---------------------------------------------

Prolifer Kortney Gordon was killed in a car accident in Georgia.

To date, little national attention has been focused on the fact that one of the most aggressive, most effective, most faithful pro-life leaders in the nation was killed this week. The short news story pictured below on the Macon Telegraph web site is all the press I've seen this story receive to date.
I realized that the story of Kortney's death was intended by God to be a signal event when I saw that the news did not report the fact that along with Kortney her baby was also killed. The news story omitted that fact because her baby could not be officially reported to be alive because her baby was still in her womb, thus it could not be reported to now be dead like her mother.
The paradox of Kortney having spent most of her life trying to fight for the lives of unborn babies, then having her own baby killed without one word being reported by the news media in this country made me focus hard on what Kortney's death in Georgia is supposed to mean to me and the rest of the people of the United States of America.
This is my response to Kortney's death. I hope you will grant Kortney the respect to either bless me or curse me for using her this way. What I saw gave me no rest until I wrote this article.
I met Kortney one time in California when Jonathan O'Toole brought me to California to meet with Kortney and the other Survivors and Kortney's boss, Jeff White, the Founder of the organization called Survivors. Kortney played an operational leadership role in guiding Survivors. Looking back on my meeting with Kortney, all I can remember about her is we went to see the Scorsese film "The Departed" together.
The fact that Kortney and I watched a movie together called "The Departed" resonates eerily in my mind now that Kortney has departed, especially when I remember the scene that is linked to my first meeting with Kortney. Kortney wasn't there but somehow her presence comes to mind when I remember Jeff White and I bellowing at the top of our lungs at each other, calling each other cowards on a Sunday afternoon in the normally quiet mountain top enclave high in the San Bernardino mountains above Los Angeles.
I had gone to get the support of the pro-life leaders in California and what I got was almost a fist fight with Jeff White and his oldest son, and near total rejection by the pro-life movement.
That rejection can explain why when Kortney came to Georgia in the years after I tried to obtain help from the pro-life leaders that she never stopped by to talk to me. Once I talked with her on the telephone when she came through Georgia and asked her to meet with me to talk about what God had called me to do running for Governor of Georgia. But Kortney never made time for me.
That's why when she was killed in Georgia this week, I didn't know she was in the State, nor did I know anything about the pro-life event she was attending in Georgia that created her fateful rendezvous with death.
The meaning of Kortney's "fateful rendezvous with death" might be one of the most important messages ever sent to the pro-life movement in America.
The first thing that struck me when I heard about Kortney's death is the irony (maybe that's not the best word, but it's what comes to mind) that Kortney was killed with her baby in her womb. In today's vocabulary Kortney was aborted and her baby was aborted. Yet Kortney had made her life focus on doing the best she knew how to do to protect the lives of the unborn babies exactly like her unborn baby who was killed with her.
And the real irony comes to the forefront when we ask the question who killed Kortney. By whom was Kortney killed?
The news story pictured above says she ran head on into another vehicle whose driver was also killed. But you and I who believe there is a God out there who knows the numbers of hairs on the heads of each person alive and who knows when even a sparrow falls out of the sky dead knows, or is supposed to believe, that God Himself made a decision to allow Kortney and her daughter to have a "fateful rendezvous, with death."
Those who believe in such a God, and who are still alive on earth, are now thrust into a place (the "fateful" part of the rendezvous) where we must decide what Kortney's death means.
My first response was to think Kortney's schedule, her itinerary in Georgia, would have been radically different if Kortney and I had been allowed by the pro-life leaders of America and Georgia to have fellowship together in the Lord. While Kortney was here, she would have touched base with me. We would have worshipped God together, we would have brainstormed what came next. Chances are, had Kortney been in fellowship with me she wouldn't have been driving down that road to her "fateful rendezvous with death."
But I have no way of knowing whether my first reaction to Kortney's death is the truth. All I know is I truly felt a huge mistake, maybe even a deadly mistake, had been made when people older than Kortney, people she looked up to as leaders in the pro-life movement, led her to shun me like she had done.
I want to blame them for her death. But I know I can't do that because the facts about what might have happened had Kortney been led to have fellowship with me in the Lord Jesus Christ will never be known. That entire train of thought is rank speculation because Kortney is dead now.
Sharon Guengerich is the one who alerted me to Kortney's death. She is one of my few friends among pro-life leaders. Sharon is a lightning rod in the pro-life movement, has been for years as she stands regularly almost alone in front of a California abortion mill showing and telling people what it means to legally butcher unborn babies. Neal Horsley
---------------------------------------------

Dear Neal: A truly tragic story. Mit Romney said recently that abortion should be left to the states. Been there, done that. It was called slavery and each state could decide if it wanted legal slavery of our fellow human beings. The result of that "solution" was The War Between The States in which over 600,000 died on both sides. And Romney wants to be president?
Will we never learn! Terry Hughes
---------------------------------------------

I was surprised to hear what Terry said. Is his attitude an indication of the attitude of even the boldest operation rescue people? Are they that far from actually understanding the strategy?
Terry, I'm surprised to hear you say that. What you don't seem to see is if a State actually forced the federal government to choose between going to war and nullifying a State law, there are three or four historical precedents in the USA showing that the federal government has always blinked in the past, one of them even involving Andy Jackson, who was probably the most dangerous man who ever occupied the White House. Those precedents prove that with a State nullification strategy that can command the numbers to control a State government a piece of ground can be carved out of the USA where abortion is outlawed if people will open their eyes and see what we can do. That is, if God's people can receive the grace to actually make the fed blink.

You sound like you've never read this article: http://www.horsleyforgovernor.com/strategy.html much less followed the train of thought defined at http://www.aogusa.org

Or are you saying that you would be willing for abortion to be legal everywhere in the USA even if it was possible to force the fed to allow a State to outlaw it? Neal Horsley
-----------------------------------------------------------

Dear Neal: Abortion is murder, a violation of the Fifth Commandment. It is always and everywhere a grave sin. Slavery isn't in the Ten Commandments, even though God freed the Jews from slavery in Egypt only a short time earlier. I'm inclined toward the view that Lincoln should have allowed the slave states to leave the Union. By 1861 slavery was an anachronism, outdated by technological innovations beginning with the cotton gin a half-century earlier. Since slavery would die a natural death as a human institution, was it worth 600,000 lives to hasten the day and to invest the Federal Government with powers never given to it in our Constitution, powers it now uses to make slaves of us all? Powers it now uses to advance its agenda of killing the next generation of Americans by abortion? Allowing ALL of that generation to be murdered? And making us pay for it with our taxes?
Murphy's Law, Terry Hughes
----------------------------------------------

All that is true, but beside the point: the point being how do we find in this generation a place in this nation where murdering the unborn people is illegal, even if the mother wants to kill them? I have been saying for decades what I said in my book Call It Revolution: we must prepare to take over a State and force the federal government to respect a State's Right to outlaw murder and sodomy...or die trying.

Trying to lead that to happen is what I have been doing for so long that it seems to me everybody should understand what I do for a living.
I have done due diligence, my homework, and prepared the position papers and the marching orders. The only thing I lack is people willing to spend their lives if that's what it will take to abolish legalized abortion in at least one State. I say that because I can't guarantee what the fed will do when push comes to shove over the matter of legalized child sacrifice. But my best guess is this nation will shrink back from the abyss rather than risk another war like the Civil War you described, and especially if the war inevitably begins with an IRA-like campaign such as you are very familiar with. But I'm in it for the duration, having reached the conclusion that we've tried every other alternative to abolish this legalized murder and the strategy I advocate is what comes next.
Either that, or we admit we surrender this world to the devil. My Lord doesn't give me that option. Neal Horsley
---------------------------------------------

Neal’s argument that Roe can be overturned if we focus on making Georgia prolife makes sense if you remember how Roe became law. First, illegal baby killers usually got away with it. Then New York made it legal and got away with that. Maybe one state at a time is the way.
I don’t think so, though. I think Roe will go only when the fourteen people listed at the start of this newsletter become fifty.