Local Author's Book Raises Eyebrows

Harriett Ford, author of Shadows in the Night, the story of Ted Kuhl's unjust conviction, writes again:

Book Title: Frankly Madame

Author: Harriett Ford

Publisher: Publish America

Run! That's the feeling a parent has when it comes to selecting reading material without sex, violence, witchcraft, sorcery, magic-the list goes on.

Former Rockford resident and author Harriett Ford, has the answer.

Publish America is announcing the release of her book, FRANKLY MADAME, a highly entertaining suspense adventure with a message: Stay away from witchcraft, mediums and other enticing supernatural draws which are actually forbidden in the Bible. The book explains WHY while offering plenty of thrills and surprises.

Readers say they are "charmed," raising gleeful eyebrows at finding such a book for youth and young adults. "We've got a ghost, an unsolved murder, a voodoo witch, buried treasure and a zombie-we've got a hit!" says Publish America.

Who doesn't love attractive characters (maintaining Christian values) in exotic and spine tingling situations?

Ask for FRANKLY MADAME at area bookstores.

Ford is available to speak at local events, book clubs and churches. Contact her at www.deniedevidence.com.

Phil Nicolosi: What About Ted Kuhl?

Phil Nicolosi seems to be interested in making gun crimes his highest priority. See http://www.wrex.com/News/index.php?ID=23456 for that story.

Mr. Nicolosi, your office used a gun (or, interestingly enough, the lack of a gun) to put an innocent man behind bars 10 years ago, where he still languishes - Ted Kuhl. How ironic that you would now want to punish criminals who use guns as hyper-criminals. If you want to be taken seriously, turn the mirror on your own office and do the right thing by Ted Kuhl. Go to http://www.uncleraisin.com/UR/rockford/KUHL.asp for that story.

Uncle Raisin

www.UncleRaisin.com

"Raisin" the Standard Against Injustice

George Ryan gets a 6 1/2 year vacation

Friend, Yesterday former IL Governor George Ryan went to (uheeeem!) "prison". As much as we don't like the idea of prison as a punishment for the sort of crimes he is guilty of, we'll take it. Six and one half years for corruption crimes. This case might be as much about the (corrupt) system being bigger than any particular politician, than it is about the crimes for which Ryan is being imprisoned. Ryan being imprisoned is equivalent to a mob hit designed to send a message - it keeps the other criminals in line. Can we honestly sit here and think that most politicians don't engage (at least in some form or to some degree) in racketeering? Please! This kind of behavior happens at all levels of government. That's what keeps UncleRaisin.com going. My first bad feeling about George Ryan was his first run for the office of Governor in 1999, while campaigning he took a very conservative stand against gambling in IL. Good! I thought. Then, not one week into his term, he embarks on a statewide tour to promote gambling. Wow! Talk about a dramatic turnabout in position.... IL Republicans have never recovered. They never will until someone comes forward with an actual backbone and fortitude to tell the truth about who they are and what they believe about the issues - and then do as they say when governing. What do we believe is proper punishment for George Ryan? He should be required to pay back 4 times what he stole. It should be immediate and without mercy. "Prison" in the country club at Oxford, WI may not be the greatest, but it is far from justice. George Ryan should die a popper, leaving nothing behind except a reputation as a thief. That would satisfy the demands for justice in this case. Best Regards, Uncle Raisin Editor

Spotlight on Christensen and Liberal Lutherans

Rockford, IL

One need not assume that Abortionist Christensen is a greedy man - that he aborts children just for the money. The stereotype abortionist in the imagination of many abortion opponents is that of a sleazy, incompetent practitioner who couldn't make it as a regular Ob - who lacked the skills, the personality, the manners, the charm to succeed in a competitive field - and after many years of schooling, determined to do what he had to do to make a living. "If hacking children to pieces pays the bills and it is okay with the police, why not?" Thus one might glibly imagine his thought process. But we must confess here that we are ignorant of the particular depravities which inspire this distinguished abortionist. (The contention that a high percentage of abortionists are, as a group, less skilled and more vulnerable to litigation than those of other specialties is not disputed here; however, we are aware of no evidence to controvert the fact that this abortionist seems to be quite the craftsman - or demolitionist, as some might have it.)

There are plenty of intellectuals among abortionists as well as their apologists. And such reasoning people don't necessarily give a rip about the popular argument fed to the gullible masses; viz. a "woman's right to choose." Rather, their alarmist warnings take up the concerns of the save-the-earth crowd who are concerned with the "population bomb" and all the pollution with which human kind afflicts dear Mother Earth. During the 60s and the following two decades when starvation was reported in Bangladesh, Ethiopia, and other places in the world, fears of famine were fanned by the bleak prospect of ceaseless population expansion. Fears of exponential population growth propagated by Thomas Malthus at the turn of the twentieth century, were taken up by Paul Ehrlich with his Population Bomb (1968). His book sold over two million by its fifteenth printing in 1983. The hysteria-mongering subtitle said: "While you are reading these words, three children are dying of starvation and twenty-four more babies are being born."

And the "over-population" scare was not the only justification which intellectuals embraced. There were babies born with serious defects which, for the benefit of everyone, would be better off dead. The "therapeutic abortion" would be a soothing way to advocate for curbing "population explosion." Nobel Laureate Francis Crick, the discoverer of DNA, offered his very unscientific, however candid, socio-political opinion on the matter a generation ago when he argued that newborn children ought not be declared persons until three days after birth. This policy would give physicians time to run thorough tests and determine the physical well being of the neonate and allow him to be terminated if such a decision seemed good (for the parents? the whole of society? the over-burdened tax payer?). Peter Singer, similarly, regards a retarded child of comparable value to a pig. The professor of Bioethics at Princeton University thinks quite consistently with anyone who rejects the religious doctrine that affirms the dignity of man as an "animal" created in the image of God and thus distinguished from all the other creatures of the earth.

Of course, these kinds of cold, philosophically Godless conclusions could not be successfully advocated in the public square. Too forthrightly barbarian. But contending for women's rights works in the arena of popular opinion. "Choice" would be the best propaganda term to use. Surely the American people could not deny the "Right to choose"! That was the argument which became the means of popularizing the effort to de-criminalize what had been outlawed since the beginning of Christian civilization. "Liberty!" "Personal rights!" "Freedom!" "Privacy!"

So, what have these shifting mores to do with Dennis Christensen? What manner of man is he?

Pastor Matt Trewhella, founder of Missionaries to the Preborn in Milwaukee, has had dealings with Abortionist Christiansen indirectly for many of his 30 years as a career abortionist. Pastor Trewhella is aware of five abortion clinics owned or operated by Christensen in Indiana, Wisconsin, Illinois, and Michigan. Christensen's Church, Bethel Lutheran, was picketed once in 1991 when street activism was at a peak. That year in October at the University of Wisconsin-Madison over 150 students arrived for a weekend from many colleges and universities to demonstrate, block doors, and hear speeches from the likes of Beverly McMillan, M.D (the famed former abortionist who opened the first and now only remaining abortuary in Mississippi), Joseph Scheidler, legendary in bull-horn skills predating Operation Rescue, and others. The students picketed Bethel Lutheran that weekend and left town. Missionaries to the Preborn under the leadership of Pastor Matt Trewhella subsequently maintained a regular presence until Christensen took his "business" elsewhere. But little else is known of the character of Dennis Christensen, the abortionist.

H has an ignominious history for a Lutheran Christian, one might suppose. But modernist Lutherans, like modernist non-Christians, have in common the fact that neither believe that mankind has an authentic revelation from God. There is no Law from God. There is no reliable communication in the written Scriptures. Any would-be Revelation has been subject to corruption and so mankind is left to judge for itself what seems good and right. Hence, the contemporary capitulation of that second largest of Protestant denominations (along with, incidentally the third largest, the United Methodists) to modernist toleration of abortion as well as sodomy. Christensen, then, is not a solitary reprobate, but stands in the company of collapsing church denominations all around. We may imagine in him the best of motives. He is not necessarily greedy. He may well have intended to expand his abortion business in a campaign to "save the planet."

In the summer of 2006, the OSF (Order of Saint Francis) Health Systems accidentally sold a building in Loves Park to Christensen whose plans were to open a second abortion "clinic" or relocate his Broadway St. facility (again, whether as entrepreneur, philanthropist, or savior of the planet, we know not). Upon discovery of this regrettable transaction, OSF begged to have the agreement expunged and the property returned. How could they live with the thought that they had sold a building to an abortionist? When Christensen agreed to return the property for $750,000, what an excruciating choice? Allow the abortionist to have the building and expand his loathsome "practice" or pay him $ 3/4 million? They had sold the building to him for $ 1/4 million. So the abortionist runs off with a cool half million just for being a despicable abortionist. And the Catholic hospital pays it to him. Not a good day for the good guys. Now, it is not known whether this abortionist benevolently "provided" free abortions to the young girls Madison with that quick windfall or whether he indulged himself in a vacation, but as local television was reporting the story, Christensen was "out of the country" (see Troy Kehoe, 13 News, Rockford, Illinois, June 15, 2006).

A closer look at the doings of the abortionist discovers him working hand in hand with churches and hospitals in the city. And he butchers not just little babies, but larger ones. The "procedure" among us lay folks is called, "partial birth abortion." Among practitioners or - as they like to be called - "providers," the "procedure" is called D and X for (dilation and extraction). And Christensen is quite a skilled "provider," respected among his peers. He was one of six physicians which Planned Parenthood teamed up with as fellow plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the state of Wisconsin, one of those several states in recent decades which managed to muster the energy to pass laws against killing those larger, more "viable" babies, babies well into the third trimester of life in the womb. He has admitting privileges at SwedishAmerican Hospital in the event that any of his patients, whose children he kills, are injured during the "procedure."

In that case (Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin v. Doyle, 44 F.Supp.2d 975 [E.D. Wis. 1999]), Chief Judge John C. Shabaz writes the decision in support of the law and for the protection of the children (which was later reversed by on appeal in favor of the abortionists). He includes in the record the written testimony of two of the plaintiff abortionists Dennis Christensen and Bernard Smith who describe the D & X "procedure" which they have been "performing" and wish not to remain outlawed:

In the intact D & E procedure (which is also known as "dilation and extraction," "D & X" or "intact D & X"), the physician dilates the cervix and then removes the fetus from the uterus through the vaginal canal intact. The physician extracts the fetal body intact, usually feet first, until the cervix is obstructed by the after coming head, which is too large to pass through the cervix. Then the physician creates a small opening at the base of the skull and evacuates the contents, allowing the calvarium to pass through the cervical opening. The intentional removal of the fetus intact is what distinguishes an intact D & E procedure from a D & E procedure.

Judge Shabaz includes in the "memorandum and order" a description of the newly outlawed procedure as recorded by the leading OB/GYN physicians' professional organization:

Similarly, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists ("ACOG") defines the D & X procedure to include the following steps:

1. deliberate dilation of the cervix, usually over a sequence of days;

2. instrumental conversion of the fetus to a footling breech;

3. breech extraction of the body excepting the head; and

4. partial evacuation of the intracranial contents of a living fetus to effect vaginal delivery of a dead but otherwise intact fetus.

The abortionist who developed the D & X method of killing a child is Martin Haskell, owner of the Women's Med Center of Dayton, Ohio. The Court recorded the following concerning him:

Haskell also testified that in perhaps 75% of the D & X procedures he performs, he cuts the umbilical cord before removing the fetus from the uterus. However, sometimes the child is partially delivered before he cuts the umbilical cord. Haskell stated that the child is likely to die within minutes after Haskell cuts its cord.

The effort to outlaw partial-birth abortion on the state level in Wisconsin (which succeeded in 1997) had followed failed efforts on the federal level. The Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, passed by the will of the people through Congress, was vetoed by President Clinton in April of 1996. A description was more fully aired at Congressional hearing prior to the passing of that Act. During Congressional hearing, a registered nurse and former employee at Haskell's abortion "clinic," gave description of her observations in terms more graphic than the prosaic court record. Brenda Pratt Shafer "had been pro-choice until one day in September 1993, when the nurses agency assigned her to a three-day stint at the [Haskell] clinic" (Julia Duin, Washington Times, June 21, 1996). "The clinic, operated by Dr. Martin Haskell, specialized in the type of abortion in which an unborn child is delivered feet first up to his or her neck. The doctor then stabs it in the back of the head with a pair of scissors, then suctions out the brain." The Times goes on to report Mrs. Shafer's testimony:

Mrs. Shafer said she watched, horrified, as the doctor performed the procedure on a 6 1/2-month-term male fetus with Down syndrome. With his head still in the birth canal. "The kid was kicking his feet, hanging there," she said. "I kept on thinking to myself, 'This isn't really happening.'"

When the doctor forced the scissors into the base of the skull, "the baby jumped," she said. "I watched the life being drained out of it. I almost threw up all over the floor."

Worst of all, she added, the mother then wanted to see the then-fully delivered child, who had "the most perfect, angelic face I have ever seen." The mother then "held the baby in her arms and screamed and begged God to forgive her."

"Mrs. Shafer claimed that none of the six or seven procedures performed that day were for life-threatening situations and that only one case involved Down syndrome. The others included a woman who was getting a divorce and a teen-age girl whose parents insisted she abort her pregnancy.

There is difficulty with the aborting of a large child. His dismemberment is a strenuous task for the abortionist and can be hard on the mother as the instruments are manipulated about to cut, rip, or tear appendages apart from the child (the euphemistic term used regularly by Christensen and recorded in the court records is "disarticulation").

Traditional D&E abortions, the most common type of pregnancy termination during the second trimester, involve, dismembering the fetus. Dr. Haskell said he prefers doing the "intact D&E" or "D&X" procedure after 20 weeks gestation because bones and ligaments become tougher and stronger at that age and are more difficult to pull apart" (Washington Times, 21 August, 1999)

The D&X method of killing a child enables a certain, "legal" killing (i.e. while the child is still in the womb) with reduced physical trauma to the mother. Moreover, Christensen explains in his affidavit to the court that in the process of "disarticulation" in the case of the D&E tends to leave behind too many disturbing remains of the child. A separated fetal "part" might protrude outside the birth canal, leaving behind "living cells and a beating heart."

Presumably, this method of killing larger babies is rare. Among the six plaintiff abortionists, Christensen is the only one who uses the D&X method. In fact, the Court noted that there is "no evidence in the record that any physician in Wisconsin, other than Dr. Christensen, performs the D&X procedure." Judge Manion in dissent of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeal says of Christensen:

In 1997, he performed 2350 abortions in Wisconsin, 300 of which were second trimester abortions. Yet, he performs only one or two D&X procedures per year. And Dr. Bernard Smith, who performed approximately 2500 first trimester and 500 second trimester abortions in Wisconsin in 1997, does not even perform the D&X procedure. It seems counterintuitive that before the law was enacted Dr. Smith had decided not to perform the D&X procedure, yet he now contends that the absence of the D&X is a substantial obstacle to a woman obtaining an abortion. This disingenuity is what likely caused the district court to conclude at this juncture that the defendant's experts were more credible than the plaintiffs'.

These men seem to lying about the frequency of late term abortions or the extent of their particular involvement with the killing of these larger children.

Within a few months of the Seventh Circuit's reversal of the District Court in June, 1999, a story came forth from Haskell's abortion clinic in Dayton. A baby was born on 4 August at Good Samaritan Hospital in Dayton. The child was to be aborted by Dr. Haskell at 25 or 26 weeks gestation according to Mary K McClelland, spokesman for the Montgomery [Ohio] Children Services Board which had temporary custody of the child (Washington Times, August 21, 1999). This was the second time, at least, in four months that "a woman about to undergo a late-term abortion at the Women's Med Center of Dayton has experienced premature labors and delivered a live child. But in the previous case, which involved a 22-week-old female fetus known as 'Baby Hope,' born in a Cincinnati hospital, the infant lived for only three hours." Haskell had testified that he kills no children after 24 weeks, which may cause doubt concerning the testimony of his plaintiff colleagues.

To be sure, the killing of the larger children is harder for our young abortion culture to grow accustomed to. It takes time. Our champions of this brave approach to a more candid infanticide lead the way gradually so that we need not at once face the stark delivery of a live child along with the termination of the same at that moment. It must be done still under the cover of darkness. The intentional gymnastic turning of the child to the breech position in order to bring his head to pause delivery long enough to kill him represents a burdensome effort to maintain self-deception. In due time, as the collective conscience grows colder, we will be able to face, unashamed, the simple murder of a child before our eyes rather than as he abides hidden in the birth canal where we can pretend his non-existence.

Our dissenting Judge Manion wishes that the conscience of the people may be pricked by display of the truth. (And then? Perhaps might he wait for the people to revolt rather than "higher" Courts to correct themselves?) He suggests rhetorically near the close of his hopeless dissent:

When the abortion doctor does a precautionary ultrasound to determine whether the fetus is six or sixteen weeks along, why not require that he turn the screen so that the woman can see the image of her baby and its stage of development? She would at least have a limited view of a beating heart, the beating heart the doctors in today's case are so concerned about leaving behind when they pull one dismembered part of the fetus from the mother's body.

He does as well as a judge in his position can do. Unless he wishes to simply proclaim the undiluted truth, flout stare decesis, and take up as an impeached judge a new career with Missionaries to the Preborn or Operation Rescue.

Our pioneer abortionists have found a way to make this process, the road to outright infanticide, a gradual one. Incrementally, the children are destroyed at later and later stages of development while advanced medicine allows for "viability" to occurs at earlier and earlier gestational age. The voice of the Churches of God is faint. And First Assembly and WQFL have given aid and comfort to those who blaspheme God by destroying those fashioned in His image.

Let God arise and His enemies be scattered. Exsurgat Deus!

Ted Kuhl

Ted Kuhl: Wrongly Convicted What are the basic duties of the State's Attorney Office? What would be at stake if there was an admission that they put an innocent person in prison? Is there the fortitude of character in Winnebago County's Office to do that in Ted Kuhl's case? Just how political is this office? The slogan that reads as a bi-line to the Winnebago County State's Attorney Office is "The duty of the Prosecutor is to seek justice, not merely to convict." It sounds good. It even plays well to the people at large. But, is it truthful? Truth isn't something you'll hear spoken of in legal circles too much. In fact, a popular TV character that portrays an L.A. lead Prosecutor of high profile crimes, named Shark, has a saying that he feeds to his underling Prosecutor lawyers: "truth is relative; pick one that works." Does that only play in Hollywood though, or does it depict reality, at least to some degree? When truth is not a principle function of the courts, justice is next to impossible to achieve, and impossible to guarantee by any part of the Judiciary. If it is true (no pun intended) then in order for justice to be the objective, it is imperative to have as much evidence admitted into trial as possible (assuming it is real evidence, and not contrived or manufactured out of whole cloth). Yet, Motions in Limini are sought by Prosecutors every day. Limini is a Latin term that means "to limit". Hence, a Motion in Limini is an effort to remove certain pieces of evidence, people, words and phrases, etc. from the forthcoming trial. Truth and Justice are not mutually exclusive; they are mutually inclusive. One without the other is incomplete. Another tactic the Prosecution uses is to make circumstantial evidence by spinning a story that seems plausible and that fits the facts from a certain vantage point, in order to bridge a gap in their theory. For example, if you have familiarized yourself with the Ted Kuhl case, you'll know the police never recovered the gun that killed Janet Nivinski. The police investigators reconstructed the scene, which put Mr. Kuhl in a position that would have required him to shoot Ms. Nivinski left handed - in the dark. Okay, fine (for now). Let's ask the next question: did Mr. Kuhl's hand and arm test positive for gunshot residue? Ooooops! Either the police didn't test him for that, or they did and they left it out of their report. Not to worry though, the police tested his clothing and it came up negative for gunshot residue (and blood spatter). So, in light of that how do they stick with their theory, given the hole that shoots through it (pun intended)? One would think that they were counting, either, on a jury that is gullible, or a defense attorney that was incompetent...maybe both. Let's pile on a little bit: added to the circumstantial story above, Ted Kuhl was never in a position that he could have gotten rid of the gun in a place the police would not have found it. All of the cars were searched (even though the police report doesn't reflect that - problematic in itself). With Mr. Kuhl's car parked 45 yards from the victim, and next to Rick Mueller's car, just exactly where was the gun put? It defies reason that Ted Kuhl shot Janet Nivinski, and then hid the gun, ran toward Dennis' Video Game Arcade, rush back the other way to were Janet laid in a pool of blood to try and give attention to her, all within 12 seconds of the shot, according to parking lot video surveillance footage. I'm sure Ted was a great guy and all, but it is plain old impossible to accomplish all of the running, hiding and throwing in just 12 seconds - he's not Superman. Add to that, if you've ever shot a gun, the RUSH it provides? Can you imagine the adrenaline that Ted Kuhl would have had to suppress if he did all of that? Even more, if Rick Mueller had the murder weapon thrown in his car, why didn't he produce it for police as the linchpin of Ted's guilt? The Prosecution's story is not a possibility!!! This, by the way, is only one of many such problematic issues within the body of "evidence" presented to the jury: too many to include here. Back to reality: why would Mark Karner and Glen Weber, Assistant Winnebago County State's Attorney Prosecutors, feel like they could spin that story? Is Albert Altamore really that bad of a defense lawyer that he would make such "rookie" mistakes as to not challenge this unreasonable foolishness? What was going on that Altamore would not point out gaping holes in the Prosecution's theories? It is baffling to the thinking person to learn the made-up deceit that, in the end, passed as "justice". How could this be? The reasonable average person doesn't want to think that there is some nefarious plot to cover some insider's mistakes or worse, but one has to wonder...what went on here, for which an innocent man has spent 10 years in prison for a crime he didn't do? Remember, "truth" has little relevance in the court room. There's no doubt there's plenty of blame to go around, but who of these people can honestly say they didn't have a hand in sending an innocent man to jail?

• Winnebago County State's Attorney, Paul Logli

• Assistant Winnebago County State's Attorney, Mark Karner

• Assistant Winnebago County State's Attorney, Glen Weber

• Defense and Appellant Lawyers, Albert Altamore, Dan Cain and Peter Nolte

• Judge Morrison

• Chief of Loves Park Police, Patrick Carrigan

• Loves Park Mayor, Lindberg

• The County and Loves Park Investigators assigned

• Who else....

When the search for the truth is compromised or removed from the judicial process, justice will always suffer; and in this case, justice suffers right along with Ted Kuhl.