On January 23, 1973, millions, and potentially billions of human babies were killed on contact by the most virulent disease ever recorded in the history of man. The disease is the human mother on an inhuman mission and purpose, coupled in unwholesome alliance with the United States Supreme Court and a segment of the medical profession that constitutes the extreme dregs of any working class of individual.

The form and kind of doctor (and nurse) employed in the disease can be compared to any parasite attached to any host in nature, such as an egg implanted by a fly in a festering wound on an animal in the throes of death. These latter aspects of the disease (also identified as doctors and nurses) are as mosquitoes, or leeches, attaching to the host baby in order to insert a reed-like appendage into the host and suck out the life blood, or in this case, the brains and blood. These aspects of the overall disease that have attacked humanity at the beginning stage of existence are parasites of an uncommon breed, so cruel and thoughtless as to be impossible to describe in human terms. This is because they are not human beings. This aspect of the disease only resembles human beings, as some animals in nature mimic other forms of animal. They are as mirages that have appearance but no other identifiable substance, except that they have the power to infest and destroy babies at a particular state of the baby's existence. At this point they can only be called vermin, or filth, or disease, but not human beings.

Anything that destroys human life on contact is a disease. It makes no difference what the disease appears to be. It may appear exactly as a Supreme Court of the United States. It may appear as a mother. It may appear as a doctor and nurses. It may look like anything. To the appearance of diseases there is utterly no limit. It is the end result that must be gauged and considered; not the appearance of the disease. For example, in pre-Pasteur times nobody knew what a germ was. When Louis Pasteur came along and showed what germs were and what their effects could be unless controlled in some way, his efforts were met with scorn because the germs he isolated and identified were not readily visible. People could not see them. All they could see were effects. Therefore they refused to acknowledge causal properties. The same principle is at work here, today. Because the disease of premature death on intrauterine babies appears to be of human origin, mankind is stymied. Even some of the smartest among us look upon this historic disease, scratch utterly confounded heads, and exclaim: "DUHHHHH! DUHHHHH! DUHHHHH!" It is as though mankind cannot see the disease, only its effects.

We must differentiate here because human beings have reasons and purposes, even for butchering and slaughtering their own young, whereas diseases do not, right?

Wrong!

All diseases have reasons and purposes. A mosquito has the reason and purpose of sucking blood. If it destroys the host by transmitting Malaria, the mosquito has no concern. It only seeks the blood of the host. The U.S. Supreme Court has the reason and purpose of making sure that the brains of an "unwanted" baby about to be born are sucked out. That the baby is destroyed is no concern to the Court. The U.S. Supreme Court is therefore a disease on man. It is a carcinogen that kills on contact. That this Court appears to be composed of human beings, even august and respectable ones, is secondary to the effect wrought by contact with it for the life and limb of the host baby. If the Chief Judge of the U.S. Supreme Court walked into one's home and gashed one's wife open to suck her blood out, would one care that the judge looked like a proper human being? Would one justify the act by saying, "Well, after all, it is the Chief Judge of the U.S. Supreme Court, and he is a human being with a purpose." I'll bet not. I'll bet that anybody so afflicted would consider only the end result.

How is the instant case different?

The principle of criminality is the same. Does anybody care that a burglar is a human being, with reasons and purposes of his own? No. A burglar is stopped and extinguished in whatever way is required, even to the death, not as a human being, but because of the effect he has wrought.

Nobody yells, "Apprehend that human being!"

They cry, "Arrest that criminal!"

Why is the word to describe him or her no longer "human," but "criminal?"

In an instant, when a conventional kind of criminal has broken the law, his humanity is secondary to the effect his conduct has wrought. The end result of his conduct takes paramount importance, even above his humanity, in the same manner that the effects of any disease take precedence over the name or kind of the disease. If it had not hurt anybody, history would have taken no note of the Black Plague, for example. Nobody would have paid it any mind. Its effects were what raised all the eyebrows. The Black Plague could have been caused by a group of human beings instead of rats, but I don't think people would have noted the differences in the nature of the effects of the Black Plague at that time. Ancient peasant people living in a dark age in Middle Europe were smarter and wiser than so-called modern man today. At least there was widespread alarm when they began dropping like flies. Nobody at that time would have averred, "It's okay to die of this plague, because human beings are behind it," even if the Black Plague had been caused by human beings. Why should considerations be different for babies today, of which millions of times more have died than did because of the Black Plague?

Maladies such as crime, and/or diseases that kill and injure and maim are feared for their consequences, or effects, and not by what they happen to be of a causal nature. If Malaria had no harmful effect on man, who would care about it? Malaria, and all other diseases and maladies on man are feared and combat is initiated against them on any front that is necessary because of what they do to man as an effect or consequence, not because of what they are.

How is the instant case different?

This disease on babies looks like human beings, the same as burglars do. Crime is looked upon universally as a disease, and the human beings constituting it are treated not as human beings, but as criminals, and even killed when necessary. So why should the appearance of this disease on babies not cry for its eradication on any front that is necessary, even to the death? Why are the people constituting this disease labeled human beings and not killers of babies? Why is it so difficult to label, in a non-human category, the originators and causes and elements of this disease that kills so many millions of babies?

Each of the elements named above, when coupled together--the mother on a baby-killing spree--the U.S. Supreme Court that clears and paves the way for her--the serial baby butcher/doctor and nurse that do the mother's murderous infanticide, is actually a highly efficient disease on humanity. Specific in its carcinogenic nature, the disease that these elements constitute kills only the human host baby existing between conception and birth. But it is so virulent that it often attacks babies even after they are born as they live and breathe (and cry.) When a parasite (doctor or nurse) homes in on a baby in a particular environment the host baby must die, simply because the disease must be perpetuated.

The disease is able to grow, as a cancer, and attaches itself to any and all individuals in any and all areas of life, age and position. Only human beings that possess a sense of genuine morality and deeply ingrained religious conviction are immune. Once the disease encompasses an individual that is too morally weak to resist, and takes control, that individual actually becomes the disease, or parasite on the host infant. A species example is the President of the United States: William Jefferson Clinton. The appearance was that he had little or no concept that babies even existed, but in the moment he was encompassed by the disease, he became virulent. He gnawed away efforts of the human family to save a particular kind of baby from the disease that had attacked human babies in 1973. This "gnawing away" of rescue attempts (the vetoing of a legislative effort to curb partial birth abortion, an act aimed at saving some babies from the disease) can be compared to a rat gnawing a hole through a board in a house to get inside so as to infest the dwelling and render it inhospitable to human habitation. The rat doesn't know that it constitutes an infestation, of course, as Bill Clinton must have known, but the infestation is nonetheless accomplished when the hole is gnawed through the wall of the dwelling. The effect is the same. Humans die of the disease thus wrought against them.

The disease that strikes down millions of babies a year is not human and ought not to be considered so. It is a disease that needs to be eradicated at the earliest moment in any manner that is necessary.

If the elements I named above, i.e., mother on a killing spree, the U.S. Supreme Court clearing and paving her way, and the serial baby butcher/doctor/nurse do not, in concert, constitute a virulent disease that kills millions of babies, I would be happy to hear any intelligent refutation from any quarter. If shown to be wrong, I will bow. I will also guarantee by this missive to pay anybody ten thousand dollars who can prove me wrong before an objective panel of twelve (12) normal people, as in a jury trial, where I am the lawyer for the defense. Otherwise, every morally intelligent human being ought to heed my words before it is too late. If no other action is taken in the short term, at least know and realize that diseases, pestilence, and verminous infestations can be human in origin by reason of the consequences, or effects wrought by their conduct. When the effect of such a disease is the mass destruction of babies, as the case is today, eradication of the disease is paramount.

August 25, 1999

Return to main page