formerly, Abortion is Murder, and, before that, skyp
(stop killing young
people)
March, 2014, Vol. 11
No. 21
PO Box 7424, Reading, PA 19603
Phone, 484-706-4375
Web, skyp1.blogspot.com
Circulation, 207
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.
Because 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
This song is dedicated to those incarcerated for doing Right.
I looked over the prison walls and what did I see
Beautiful long haired ladies and young strong men coming after me
I looked out the prison bars and what did I see
An army coming after me
I looked at the prison guards and what did I see
Something undescribable coming after yee
Someone please explain this to me.
I love tobra’s stuff even though sometimes I don’t understand it.
___________________________
----------------------------------------
Bob Lokey Saw It Coming:
I told it coming in on this whole baby
butchery mess way back when Roe vs. Wade was made law (and painted a life-like,
realistic picture of it because words were not large enough), that it would
only be a matter of time until Roe vs. Wade began snatching everybody of
every age into its maw and murdering them, too, as the ruling was
a euthanasia/depopulation measure that would one day stop discriminating
by age and circumstance. When I told it, every hearer responded,
"Impossible. Never. There are laws protecting adults."
But was I correct, or what? And the
whole thing is only just now beginning to get wound up even though
billions worldwide have been slaughtered already. Thus, it doesn't matter
whether anybody fights baby butchery or supports it, everybody's time is
here. (Wherefore, lament not just for the babies, o' humankind, but
for thy self as well.)
When I see the "woman" walking up
to the baby-butcher shop, all rigid and deathly cold about her murder plot, I
know that she is committing suicide, which is the right of every human being of
legal age. Unfortunately, she is also taking her child and the
remainder of humankind with her.
____________________
---------------------------------
I just
read Otis Pike’s obit in the N Y Times
(1/23/14). No mention of how important he was to making and keeping
baby-killing legal.
Pike was a
popular congressman on Long Island
before and well after Roe v Wade. He lived on the east end, the most beautiful
place on earth, and felt attacked by the growing numbers attracted there by its
beauty. So he became obsessed with getting
rid of other people; i.e., obsessed with the contraception/abortion issue.
In 1969 those
who agreed with Otis narrowly defeated those who disagreed with him, and New
York State became leader in the push towards Roe.
_______________________
--------------------------------------
Robert Weiler was supposed to visit Reading
again on January 21. I emailed him:
me, Missed you today. When I saw the snow coming
down I was happy you weren’t there. I meant to call you yesterday but
forgot. Hope to see you soon.
Robert, Unfortunately, I was attacked and robbed
while doing a demonstration last week, and could not afford to come up. I meant
to call you and I apologize for not doing so. I will try for another Tuesday
off very soon.
me, How’d it happen? What did they get?
Robert, I was demonstrating on US Rt.1 in College
Park, MD, near a bar called the Cornerstone Grill & Loft. I was approached
by two staff members of the bar who began following me around, trying to force
me to leave, physically. I began
recording on my cellphone camera. A
brawl ensued when one of them tried to rip to phone out of my hands. In the brawl, the cell phone and my
prescription eyeglasses were lost. I had to buy a new cellphone and glasses.
Police arrested the two men but did not recover these items.
Then I
emailed the Cornerstone Grill and Loft:
Hello CGL, I send out a newsletter to a
relatively large group. I just got a report that two of your employees had a
confrontation recently with someone who was demonstrating out front.
I plan to post the information I've received so far but realize I know only one side of the story. Please email me your side. Thanks, John Dunkle
I plan to post the information I've received so far but realize I know only one side of the story. Please email me your side. Thanks, John Dunkle
Nothing.
Almost impossible to get killers and their helpers to talk.
So I’ll go to step 2: Please send the
following message to any you know in the College Park, MD, area – Two thugs
employed by the Cornerstone Grill & Loft attacked a prolifer demonstrating
near the bar. They destroyed his phone and glasses. The least you can do to
oppose those thugs and their employer is never to go there, and spread the news.
Course there’s more you can do, too.
___________________________
-----------------------------------
Dear John, I was listening to President Obama's
state of the union speech and I was thinking about the President's "death
panel," which is completely anonymous and authorizes the extrajudicial
killing of American citizens. I came to the conclusion that if anyone asks if
you support Scott Roeder, just say, "Wasn't he on the President's death
panel?" If someone says, no, just ask, "How would you prove it, since
the panel's membership is completely anonymous?" If someone complains
Roeder acted outside the normal course of law, just say, "That's how the
President's panel operates, outside our system of checks and balances. That's
what the extrajudicial killing of Americans means." If someone says the
President's panel only kills Americans on foreign soil, say, "Apparently
not. And as the coroner can tell you, you are just as dead on one side of the
U.S. border as on any other, so the difference is legally insubstantial."
If someone asks you why you think the President's panel would authorize the
extrajudicial killing of American physician Dr. George Tiller, just say,
"As always, the panel authorizes the extrajudicial killing of American
citizens to protect American lives from 'an imminent threat of violent attack'
when 'capture is infeasible,' as was the case of Dr. Tiller who as a ranking
Al-Choice figure was able to repeatedly evade being brought to justice."
Note that the internal quotes are taken from a U.S. Justice Department memo titled "Lawfulness of a Lethal Operation Directed Against a U.S. Citizen Who Is a Senior Operational Leader of Al-Choice [oops, Al-Qa'ida] or An Associated Force." So, word for word, Mr. Roeder could have simply taken his defense, including the meaning of 'imminent,' from the Justice Department's own memo on President Obama's death panel.
Note that the internal quotes are taken from a U.S. Justice Department memo titled "Lawfulness of a Lethal Operation Directed Against a U.S. Citizen Who Is a Senior Operational Leader of Al-Choice [oops, Al-Qa'ida] or An Associated Force." So, word for word, Mr. Roeder could have simply taken his defense, including the meaning of 'imminent,' from the Justice Department's own memo on President Obama's death panel.
But maybe
it's more than a coincidence, because it almost sounds as if the Justice
Department got the President's defense from the Army of God website. So maybe
that's why the Justice Department monitors your newsletter. They're copying it
for legal policy!
Of course, there is a notable difference in legal policy here. In the 1979 installment of Belloti v. Baird, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a special exception to normal rules occurs in view of "the peculiar vulnerability of children" inasmuch as such an exception is necessary to protect their lives. See 443 U.S. 622, 622-623. That means Mr. Roeder's defense is actually on a stronger legal footing than the President's, since in Dr. Tiller's case it was American children who were singled out as the target of 'an imminent threat of violent attack.'
So that gives a rough idea of the analogy. But there is no real point in trying to go over the details with court rulings, since the very concept of "extrajudicial" means the killings are being done in a manner independent of the traditional standards of the judiciary anyway. Moreover, the courts have yet to rule on the death panel or comment on the rationale behind its operation.
At any rate, when it comes to the extrajudicial killing of American citizens to protect American lives, ironically it appears Mr. Roeder and President Obama have drawn upon similar ideas to legitimize their actions. And should the Obama Administration ever be taken to court over the death panel, the President's arguments could provide a powerful legal strategy for the likes of Mr. Roeder. Sincerely, Cal
_________________________
Of course, there is a notable difference in legal policy here. In the 1979 installment of Belloti v. Baird, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a special exception to normal rules occurs in view of "the peculiar vulnerability of children" inasmuch as such an exception is necessary to protect their lives. See 443 U.S. 622, 622-623. That means Mr. Roeder's defense is actually on a stronger legal footing than the President's, since in Dr. Tiller's case it was American children who were singled out as the target of 'an imminent threat of violent attack.'
So that gives a rough idea of the analogy. But there is no real point in trying to go over the details with court rulings, since the very concept of "extrajudicial" means the killings are being done in a manner independent of the traditional standards of the judiciary anyway. Moreover, the courts have yet to rule on the death panel or comment on the rationale behind its operation.
At any rate, when it comes to the extrajudicial killing of American citizens to protect American lives, ironically it appears Mr. Roeder and President Obama have drawn upon similar ideas to legitimize their actions. And should the Obama Administration ever be taken to court over the death panel, the President's arguments could provide a powerful legal strategy for the likes of Mr. Roeder. Sincerely, Cal
_________________________
--------------------------------------
Scott’s Appeal, From Their Viewpoint:
Justices on Kansas' highest court expressed skepticism Wednesday that a
man convicted of first-degree murder in the shooting of a Wichita abortion
provider should get a new trial because he sincerely believed he was saving the
lives of unborn children.
All seven Supreme Court justices had pointed
questions for the attorney representing Scott Roeder, who is serving at least
50 years in prison for killing Dr. George Tiller in May 2009. Roeder gunned
down Tiller in the foyer of the doctor's church where he was serving as an
usher just as a Sunday service was starting.
Rachel Pickering, an appellate defender, argued that Roeder should get a
new trial because jurors weren't allowed to consider whether they could convict
him of voluntary manslaughter, rather than first-degree murder. The lesser
crime covers killings that occur when people have a sincere but unreasonable
belief that harm to themselves or others is imminent and justifies deadly
force.
Tiller was among a few U.S. physicians known to perform late-term
abortions. Roeder had strong anti-abortion beliefs, equating Tiller's
procedures with murder. Pickering noted Roeder also believed the doctor was
violating Kansas law, though Tiller had been acquitted of misdemeanor state
charges of violating late-term abortion restrictions weeks earlier.
"We're talking about his view that this doctor is performing
illegal abortions resulting in the deaths of others," Pickering told the
court.
During Roeder's trial, Sedgwick County District Judge Warren Wilbert allowed
the confessed killer to testify to his beliefs but ultimately refused to let
the jury consider the lesser charge after hearing all the trial evidence. The
defense's tactic outraged Tiller's colleagues and abortion-rights advocates
nationwide, who feared it gave a more-than-tacit approval to further acts of
violence.
Roeder raised multiple issues in his appeal, but the Supreme Court's
hearing focused mainly on whether jurors should have been allowed to consider
the lesser charge. The justices did not say when they would rule.
The justices questioned Pickering for more than an hour, twice the
amount of time set aside for her arguments. In contrast, Assistant Sedgwick
County District Attorney Boyd Isherwood didn't use his full half-hour in
defending Roeder's first-degree murder conviction and "Hard 50"
sentence.
Justice Dan Biles asked Pickering whether, in line with her legal
arguments, someone who morally opposed ending life support for an otherwise
dying patient would face the lesser charge if he or she shot a doctor who shut
off a ventilator at a family's request. Pickering acknowledged her position
could lead to such a result.
Justice Eric Rosen asked about someone with a strong belief that,
because smoking leads to deadly illnesses, selling tobacco products places
others in imminent danger.
"That gives someone the right to go out and kill the CEO of Philip
Morris?" Rosen said, referring to the tobacco company. "It's the same
principle."
Pickering said the health harm would not be immediate enough to warrant
the lesser charge in such a situation, and she emphasized that she was arguing
only that the jury should have been allowed to consider the lesser charge in
Roeder's case.
"You're saying this statute, this jury question, will be applicable
any time anyone wants to shoot a doctor," Biles responded.
The justices also struggled with Pickering's argument that Roeder
believed unborn children were at imminent risk from Tiller, noting that the
doctor's clinic was closed at the time and he wasn't scheduled to perform
abortions for another 22 hours.
"There weren't going to be any abortions performed at the
church," Justice Lee Johnson said.
Pickering said Roeder believed the harm was imminent because he was
certain Tiller would perform more abortions when his clinic re-opened for
business.
________________________
------------------------------------
Every once in a while it’s good to read a
summary of what’s going on:
In recent months we have heard the liberal
rant that conservatives are somehow anti-women promoters of a “war on
women.” The mainstream media has
swallowed and fostered this wholeheartedly.
Is this truly the case, however?
Liberals argue that abortion rights make them
pro-women. Besides the fact that
approximately half of all aborted children are female, the abortion of a child
is a cause of trauma for women.
Women who have had an abortion often develop
post-traumatic stress or what is often termed post abortion trauma. This trauma is marked by overwhelming
feelings of guilt, isolation, grief, anger, depression and shame. It is marked by damaging women in their
ability to bond with their children and their spouses.
Women who have had an abortion often develop
obsessive compulsive disorders and various forms of addictive behaviors such as
eating disorders and alcohol and drug abuse.
Women who have had an abortion often turn to the coping mechanism of suppression,
repression, rationalization and compensation.
If this post abortion trauma is not addressed through healing programs,
the outcome is disastrous for the woman and to the future of our culture. It should not surprise us that divorce has
reached epidemic proportions and kids are shooting up schools and killing their
parents!
Another little dirty secret about abortion is
that it is related to breast cancer.
During the past forty-three years, over seventy studies by the most
prestigious universities and reported in the most prestigious journals of
medicine and science have shown a correlation between breast cancer and
abortion. One study comes out regarding
a correlation of two factors and cancer, and it is all over the evening news. Forty-three years of studies is stifled by
the liberal agenda of abortion on demand.
Now, who is being pro-woman?
What about contraceptives? Conservatives are viewed as being anti-woman
because they do not want their tax dollars to go towards paying for
contraceptives. Is being anti-contraceptive
being anti-woman? If we were to ask most
couples about the negative side effects associated with the use of the pill,
most couples would have a general idea regarding these effects, either through
information obtained from their doctors or from pharmacists.
They may not be aware of the fifty-two side
effects associated with the use of the pill, but they more than likely would be
aware of the most talked about side effects such as strokes, heart attacks, and
blood clots. This alone, makes one wonder
who is being pro-woman.
If, however, we were to ask most couples
about the method in which the pill works in preventing the birth of children,
there would be a tremendous amount of ignorance. Why?
There are two major types of pills that are
being used in preventing the birth of children: those that contain a
combination of estrogen and progestogen and those that contain only
progestogen. Both of these types of
pills prevent the birth of children either through preventing ovulation or
preventing the effective migration of sperm in the uterus, or by preventing
implantation.
The pill (whether the combination pill or the
progestogen-only pill) has the potential for being an abortifacient—an
abortion-causing agent. When conception
takes place, a human being is present.
The pill at this point, because it weakens the lining of the uterus,
prevents this human being from being implanted in the womb of the mother.
This
is a silent abortion of a human being.
It certainly is not a silent abortion of
a chimpanzee!
What
is said of the pill can be said, with slight variations, of all the other
hormonal methods of contraception including Norplant, Depo-Provera, RU-486 and
Ovral.
Similar abortifacient effects are also
apparent in the use of intrauterine devices such as Lippes Loop and the
Copper-T 380A.
Contraception has led to a contraceptive,
use-up and throw-away mentality in our society.
Divorce is almost the norm; promiscuity is safeguarded from unwed
pregnancies; sex is hedonistic; people are sex tools, sex objects, or
masturbatory tools of selfishness, self-centeredness, and self-interest.
Love is lost in contraception. The person, at best, can only say, “I love
you, but only so much—not enough to spend my life with you or to have children
with you.” People with this
contraceptive mentality use people until their usefulness is no longer
needed. Then they move on to the next
empty experience.
Is it any marvel that the divorce rate of
those who use contraceptives is fifty percent while the divorce rate of those
who respect the natural order of their bodies in the unitive bond of committed
monogamy, of marriage, is less than four percent?
In the use of contraceptives, the
relationship between womanhood, motherhood, sexuality and procreation is
lost. What flows is a culture of
divorce, promiscuity, and hatred for and the objectification of women and their
procreative gifts. The contraceptive
mentality destroys the bond between husband and wife, which in turn destroys
the bond between children and parents.
It is estimated that every year some 60,000
to 100,000 young women are made sterile by HIV, gonorrhea or chlamydia. As many as a third of sexually active
teenagers have genital warts. Sexually
transmitted diseases infect approximately twelve million Americans each
year. Two-thirds of sexually transmitted
diseases occur in persons younger than twenty-five and every year more than
three million teenagers are infected.
This epidemic has caused many women to have problems with infertility—STD ’s being the fastest growing cause of
infertility. It is estimated that as much as one out of four adults has an
STD. Now, who is being pro-woman?
The media—in all its forms—has made women
into objects, not persons. This is
particularly so in the liberal promotion of sexually explicit programing.
Sex in this secular-liberal perspective is
seen in terms of self-pleasuring and usefulness. It is devoid of all spiritual purpose and is
completely alien to the very nature of conjugal love and the nature of the
person. A person’s sexuality in this
worldview of things has been distorted by the secular-liberal philosophies of pragmatism,
egoism, hedonism, positivism, and relativism.
Liberal Hollywood has distorted the meaning
of sex and thus the nature of womanhood. It eliminates from the essence of sex
the mutual vulnerability that makes human intimacy possible. Hollywood’s image of sex replaces
vulnerability for control, power, and the objectification of the person. It makes a mockery of the rights of spouses,
of the institution of marriage, and compromises the welfare of children who
need a healthy two parent home for stability.
Is it any wonder that adultery and marital
infidelity are at epidemic levels? Is it
any wonder that promiscuity has reached
levels unheard of since the time of paganism? Is it any surprise that
ten-year-olds are sexually active and that twelve-year-olds are getting
pregnant and having abortions? Is it any
wonder that once the spice of sex is lost in a marriage, the marriage
ends? Is it any wonder that rape, sexual
assaults and child abuse have reached epidemic proportions?
Now, who is being anti-woman? Who is really waging a war on women?
Finally, in the name of woman’s rights,
liberals worship at the foot of Planned Parenthood, the leading proponents of
abortion, contraceptives, and the view that no act between consenting adults is
immoral. Unwittingly, they worship at
the feet of Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. Hilary Clinton is the proud recipient of the
Sanger Award, and President Obama is the proud supporter of all that Planned
Parenthood stands for. I wonder if
Hilary is aware of Sanger’s words: “[Our
objective is] unlimited sexual gratification….
The marriage bed is the most degenerate influence in the social order….
The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to
kill it”
And
what about you, Mr. President? Are you aware of these words: “We should hire three or four colored
ministers [or perhaps a President]…. We
don’t want the word to get out that we want to exterminate the Negro
population, and the minister [or perhaps Obama] is the man who can straighten out
that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” Abortion
is the number one killer of African Americans.
There is a war on women, but it is not from
the right. It is from the left. Make no mistake about it. The left are no friend to women!
Fr. John J. Pasquini
Quote
of the Day: We cannot be sure it’s wrong to kill an abortionist because we
don‘t know when life begins. Robert
----------------------------------------
For back issues of this newsletter go to
skyp1.blogspot.com
-------------------------------------
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:
Post a Comment