 |
|
A leading psychologist in the area said the shootings suggest a 'sadistic personality.'
'This is someone who takes pleasure in the pain of other creatures,' said Ole Theinhaus, chairman of the Psychology Department at the University of Nevada-Reno.
'To think of 30 horses killed this way, to keep killing while the horses are suffering, you lose the ability to connect with a person who can do that,' he said.
Associated Press, February 1, 1999: [Headline] Marines maintain innocence in shooting of wild horses
Two marines charged in the shooting of wild horses in Nevada say they are innocent and at least one is frightened by the public outrage directed their way, a defense lawyer said Monday.
* * *
'I was here on a murder case a couple of years ago and security was nothing like this,' said Jerry Polaha, a Reno-based lawyer for ... [one of the Marines].
* * *
Sheriff's deputies closed off a square block around the courthouse ... as a security precaution during Monday's arraignment.
* * *
'I got on the Internet and, wow, you should see what is on there. It's scary,' Polaha said.
* * *
Four deputies and an armed chief bailiff who goes by the name Bearclaw provided security on Monday. They escorted the suspects out of the courthouse, Bearclaw with a shotgun in his hand.
Talk about beating a dead horse. Law enforcement now treats animal-killing as murder and child-killing as "choice." And the public reaction? Sick. But the painful, lingering, death, of a human baby, who briefly survives a botched abortion, is hushed up with a news blackout and there are little more than sighs from the few who learn of the atrocity. The story rated only mention in passing by The Cincinnati Post and was virtually ignored by the national press. There was international coverage of the horse-killing but World magazine, a small-circulation, national Christian news journal, was nearly alone in reporting a May 1, 1999, story headlined "Killing a baby called Hope."
It's not news when the life of a late-term unborn child is snuffed out at the hands of Martin Haskell, the abortionist who pioneered the partial-birth abortion procedure. But it is news when there's a survivor [CBR note; tell that to the secular press]. Last week pro-lifers called attention to the case of a 22-week-old child born alive in a Cincinnati hospital - a day after Dr. Haskell began his multi-part, three-day abortion technique [on the child's mother].
The story goes on to describe the refusal of Bethesda North Hospital emergency room physicians to place the struggling baby girl on a respirator. Nor would they permit the nursing staff to provide care. Dr. Gene Rudd of the Christian Medical and Dental Society issued a statement of outrage:
Babies at this same age - 22 weeks - can and have survived outside the womb. The difference that apparently led doctors to let Baby Hope' die is that she was the product of a failed partial-birth abortion .... This clearly crosses the line into infanticide ....
How she must have suffered as she slowly suffocated. Would "horse-killer" psychologist Dr. Ole Theinhaus think Martin Haskell a "sadistic personality?" Would he "lose the ability to connect" with the doctors who ordered that she die an agonizing death? Would Dr. Theinhaus speculate that these doctors also "found pleasure in the pain of other creatures?"
This same sordid scenario plays itself out again and again around the world. Columnist John Leo reports in US News & World Report, June 14, 1999, that Canadians are just as committed to covering-up embarrassing truth as Americans.
... [L]ast month the Calgary Regional Health Authority used the law [the Alberta Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act] to get a temporary injunction against publication of further stories by the Alberta Report on "partial birth" abortions. Quoting unnamed nurses and hospital documents, the magazine stated that some of the babies in such operations at Foothills Hospital were born alive and deliberately allowed to starve to death.
American journalists can't rely on the Canadian police state's Ministry of Censorship to suppress awkward truth, so they censor themselves.
There's an old saying that if a foreign power were killing our children by force of arms, we would consider it an "act of war;" but when we do it to ourselves, it becomes "freedom of choice." Lest anyone mistakenly imagine the foregoing horse tale is an anomaly, consider that The Los Angeles Times ran a June 12, 1999, story entitled "Gruesome Deaths of Deer Prompt Protest of Fence." The report detailed a clash involving a homeowner who erected a wrought-iron fense, topped with spikes, on which deer are impaling themselves as they attempt to jump into a garden:
One deer was so deeply impaled on the fence May 26 that an animal control officer had to shoot it and carve it from the spikes.
* * *
... [M]ore than 50 area residents attended a candlelight protest vigil along the fence .... Residents say they will present a petition with more than 150 signatures to the Sierra Madre City Council next week, demanding that the fence be made safe.
* * *
Some canyon folk have taken to patrolling the area nightly with flashlights to scare deer off from attempting dangerous leaps over the fence. Other neighbors say they will hacksaw the spikes off even if it means going to jail.
To the eternal shame of the Christian Church, it is now axiomatic that Americans are way more exercised about the slaughter of animals than Christians are about the slaughter of babies.
PLEASE DON'T STOP US
This is why we GAP. We are going to make certain that no one can cover up or ignore the horror of abortion any longer. And no one is going to stop us; not the press; not the public; not the "pro-life moderates;" not even the government (at least not in the US, yet). In truth, we can only be stopped by you - and only if you refuse to support this project. Please don't make yourself part of the abortion cover-up. Send us money and lots of it and by God's grace we'll save babies and lots of them.
|
