THE SHOCKING TRUTH ABOUT JABRIOL based on his usenet past.

"Jabriol" wrote in message
m... wrote:
More Watchtower taught intolorance, judging of others and his
usual troll and flame~war starting garbage.

Jabriol [Antonio L. Santana/Candia Camden NJ congragation] never
answered these
questions we've asked him so many times. All questions are
based on Jabriol's past posts on Usenet.

Why did you fail as as a human being, a father, a grandfather,
family man, a Jehovahs Witness and a husband?

01. Was it because you believe a man should beat a women into
submission as you posted on the support newsgroups? You claimed
you "bashed her face in" and "grinded her face in gravel" and
"whomped her head in." Your own words quoted here.

02. Was it because you blamed your own daughter for being raped
when she rejected your cult's beliefs and wanted a normal life?
Remember how you told her and the women on the rape support
groups that they "deserved it" and they "looked for it?" You
told them rape was normal but told your daughter she was "used
goods" and no man would marry her. Contradiction there, no?
You drove her over the edge then had her committed - finally the
state of NJ took custody of her [that's on Google too.] Some
people believe you were the father of her baby. Were you?

03. Was it because you married the first women who said yes?

04. Was it because you call bi~racial children "black *******
human wannabes" and "baboons?"

05. Is it because you demand your wife "services" you like a
common prostitute?

06. Is it because you tell the depressed on support groups to
commit suicide as evolution dictates.

07. Is it because one young man named Chirs Dubois did kill
himself after your goading?

08. Was it because you then tormented his mother and then
threatened her?

09. Was it because you claimed all post-menopausal women should
"just die."

10. Was it because you claim there should be no chairty and if
someone is too disabled or sick to work should be left in the
streets to die?

11. Was it because your disease leaves you totally impotent and
even Viagra does not work for you?

12. Was it because you said all obese and overweight people
deserve to die?

13. Was it because your wife disagreed with you over your
daughter but failed to protect her from your constant verbal
attacks?

14. Was it because you claimed welfare mother should have their
children removed and be sterilized?

15. Was it because you claimed all women are whores if they
desire sex but not a child from the act?

16. Was it because you said women should use coat hangers to
abort themselves?

17. Was it because you claimed all those with AIDS should be put
to death?

18. Was it because you always lie about, then threaten people on
usenet to get your way and shut them up?

19. Was it because you said women who stop at a club or bar are
looking to be raped and deserve it?

20. Was it because you suggested we use our dead loved ones for
dog food?

21. Was it because you suggested in Talk.Origins that humans
should have intercourse with chimpanzees?

22. Was it because you told the parents of a deceased Hunters
Syndrom child they shouod be chemically sterilized to prevent
them killing any more children on a whim?

23. Was it because you suggested we allor our aged to die so
there are more resources for the young?

24. Was it because you suggested we use our elderly to bait
wild animals?

25. Is it because you post as a women using the identity of the
dead?

Tell us Jabriol, what was the real reason you lost custody of
your daughter and no one in your family has anything to do with
you? Why do all the people in your congragation avoid you? Why
are you the most hated man on Usenet, even ignored and avoided
by other Jehovah's Witnesses. Why do you feel lying about other
posters is justified? Is that TheocraticWarfare in practice?

It is known that Mrs. Santana made no effort to save the child
from Jabriol's attacks.

Anonymous in N.J.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services.
The original sender is unknown. Any address shown in the From header
is unverified. You need a valid hashcash token to post to groups other
than alt.test and alt.anonymous.messages. Visit www.panta-rhei.dyndns.org
for abuse and hashcash info.

Excuse me folks,

Why do you people continue to pander to this individual here on rec.ponds.
I have yet to see a post from this individual that has any thing to do with
rec.ponds. I have the individual blocked and it is working great, but this
morning I have deleted over 60 messages that deal with his OT crap because
of responders. Come people go to the proper forum to discuss his issues.

Tom L.L.
--------------------------------------
"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
message ...
Followups redirected to what appears to be the most relevant group
in this mix.

In talk.abortion, jabriol

wrote
on 15 Apr 2005 19:31:23 -0700
.com:
NOW THE THREE QUESTIONS

There are three questions that are basic to the entire abortion
controversy:

The first is: "Is this human life?" As we will see, the answer clearly
is Yes.

Subtle point. "Is this A human life?" might be another question,
which may also have to be answered at this stage of your analysis.

Here it gets murky. While I'm all for the preservation of human life,
I also recognize that there is not a positive question, but a
comparative one he which one is worth more, right now?
Especially to an outsider? All male Right-To-Lifers are outsiders.
(So, for that matter, are all male Pro-Choicers.)

That answer is a medical and scientific one, for we cannot
impose a religious or philosophic belief in our nations through force
of law. The second question is: "Should we grant equal protection by
law to all living humans in our nation?" or,

This gets even trickier. We already discriminate.
Case in point: do we allow 16-year-olds to drink, have
sex, vote, shoot up drugs, and murder other humans? Yes.
(Law enforcement isn't perfect.) Do we *desire* as a
society that 16-year-olds drink, have sex, shoot up drugs,
and murder other humans? Absent the occasional pedophile
or high-school civic activist, "no", for the most part.

In the first three cases we want to wait until
they're mature enough (for various reasons "mature"
= "chronological age"). In the last two, we launch a
multi-pronged prohibition campaign which consists of
stings, informants, raids, and such, and routine
patrols which can be anything but routine should something
happen; from what I've seen on COPS (which can be likened
to distilled reality) it can get very hairy, but what they
don't show you is the paperwork afterwards.

This is not to say I condone, say, black-white or male-female
discrimination without cause. Ideally, we'd discriminate
based on capability, but a voting compentency test probably
wouldn't go down all that well. But I digress.


"Should we allow discrimination against entire classes of living
humans?"

You'd do well to remember that "entire classes" includes grown women,
or at least sufficiently developed children after menarch who,
for various reasons, decided to indulge in what their glands
are screaming for. Whatever happened to the notion of the
debutante? (The school prom, perhaps?)


The third question is about Choice and Women's Rights.

And another question is how zealously we should pursue the matter.
I've already mentioned drinking, having sex, voting, and drug use.
These are prosecuted with various amounts of effort.

It's all very well to theorize -- heck, I do it all the time.
But where does the rubber meet the road? Where do the
integrated parts of the army of the Executive get involved?
Yes, it's an army -- although it's not usually looked on as such,
but it is an organization:

- Beat cops: these are the infantrymen, going out there and
making sure the law is enforced.
- Detectives: these guys sniff around and/or sift through clues
to build a case.
- Special Weapons And Tactics: These guys do the exciting stuff,
but probably not on a day-by-day basis. Count them as backup
artillery, perhaps.
- County/State Attorney: champions of The Law.
The standard lawyer fights for you (and you of course
pay for his or her services). These guys fight for
the interests of the state, and are responsible for
determining, among other things, whether there's enough
information there to build a case before the judge,
and then carry it through to conviction.
- Public defender: I feel for these guys and gals. Overworked,
probably underpaid, and having to work with the criminal
element, as well as the poor who aren't criminals but get
picked up anyway under suspicious circumstances.
- Jail Guard: I'm not sure quite where these fit in but they
have their issues, from the criminal who happens to be
in because he embezzled the books but is otherwise a gentle
soul to a totally psychopathic criminal who'd kill if he
ever was let out of stir and is carefully watched when
he *is* let out to exercise.
- Bureaucrat: This is the guy or gal we love to hate, but it
also is the guy or gal who performs essential services,
mostly of a clerical nature. Many crimes (embezzlement
among them) are detected simply by looking at the books
and noting discrepancies. There's also a lot of paperwork
in prosecuting a case; thank heavens for an invention by
Xerox many many years ago, as mimeograph doesn't handle
graphs all that well (and smelled bad to boot), and I'd
really hate to have to employ monks with split quills.

I will note the existence of sergeants, sherriffs, and such,
but beyond that, I'm not sure how the system works, as
I'm not a management specialist.

So ... what is the objective of this army? To enforce the Law,
with any luck.


COMMENT

For two millennia in our Western culture, written into our
constitutions, specifically protected by our laws, and deeply imprinted
into the hearts of all men and women, there has existed the absolute
value of honoring and protecting the right of each human to live. This
has been an unalienable and unequivocal right. The only exception has
been that of balancing a life for a life in certain situations or by
due process of law.

Never, in modern times - except by a small group of physicians in
Hitler's Germany and by Stalin in Russia - has a price tag of
economic or social use-fullness been placed on an individual human life
as the price of its continued existence.
Never, in modern times - except by physicians in Hitler's Germany
- has a certain physical perfection been required as a condition
necessary for the continuation of that life.
Never - since the law of paterfamilias in ancient Rome - has a
major nation granted to a father or mother total dominion over the life
or death of their child.
Never, in modern times, has the state granted to one citizen the
absolute legal right to have another killed in order to solve their own
personal, social or economic problem. And yet, if this is human life,
the U.S. Supreme
Court Decision in America and permissive abortion laws in other nations
do all of the above. They represent a complete about-face, a total
rejection of one of the core values of Western man, and an acceptance
of a new ethic in which life has only a relative value. No longer will
every human have a right to live simply because he or she exists. A
human will now be allowed to exist only if he measures up to certain
standards of independence, physical perfection, or utilitarian
usefulness to others. This is a momentous change that strikes at the
root of Western civilization. It makes no difference to vaguely assume
that human life is more human post-born than pre-born. What is critical
is to judge it to be - or not to be - human life. By a measure of
"more" or "less" human, one can easily and logically justify
infanticide and euthanasia. By the measure of economic and/or social
usefulness, the ghastly atrocities of Hitlerian mass murders came to
be. One cannot help but be reminded of the anguished comment of a
condemned Nazi judge, who said to an American judge after the Nuremberg
trials, "I never knew it would come to this." The American judge
answered simply, "It came to this the first time you condemned an
innocent life."

Ponder well the words of George Santayana: "Those who do not remember
the past are condemned to relive it." Wm. Shirer, The Rise and Fall
of the Third Reich, Simon & Schuster, 1959

Is this unborn being, growing within the mother, a human life? Does he
or she have a right to live? Make this judgment with the utmost care,
scientific precision, and honesty. Upon it may hinge much of the basic
freedom of many human lives in the years to come.


The other question, of course, is "does the human being
containing the unborn child have a right to live?" True,
modern pregnancies are low risk -- but one can't say
"no risk". The latest numbers I have handy suggest about
400 women will die because of complications during pregnancy,
40 of them during an abortion. (It is possible but unlikely
that the CDC is cooking the numbers. The main problem is that
this is a distributed counting issue; "death during pregnancy
with an abortive outcome" is clearly enough defined but there
are so many other ways to die...heart failure, kidney failure,
and such among them. From a data gathering standpoint, it
looks tricky.)

I've already mentioned the army above, dedicated to upholding the law.
I should probably mention the other two branches:

- Legislative: the creation of the law for the Executive to enforce,
and the Judicial to judge. For purposes of this debate they
do not participate save declaring an intention. Of course guess
who generates the most hot air.
- Judicial: when presented the facts of the case by both sides,
judges whether the accused committed a crime and what the punitive
judgement should be. There are also judges who check the
cases (appeals process) to ensure proper conduct, and throw out
cases where conduct was obviously wrong.

So...here we have a woman, who is pregnant (though not
observably so unless one has a sniffer or can discern
some sort of personality change), walks into a clinic, and
walks out (all this observed by a passing patrol officer).
Depending on circumstances, has she committed a crime?
Should she be arrested and charged with murder? What
evidence would be allowed during prosecution in the case?
Who would be a "jury of her peers"?

And how about the doctor? The original bone of contention
was a Texas statute mandating five years imprisonment for
performing an abortion on a willing woman. (It mandated
ten for an unwilling one. Admittedly the notion of a
woman being strapped down to a guerny screaming all the
way as things are inserted into her innermost core is a
little unsettling -- and fortunately highly unrealistic;
either the doctor will inject her with a sedative or she'd
walk in there on her own.)

I'm also assuming that the doctors are bright enough to at
least be circumspect, making the beat cop's job a little
tougher. Are they on the same side of the Law? Hard to
tell absent a mounted camera in the office/operating
theater, which would probably run afoul of Amendment III
(depending on where the feed is directed -- an interesting
technological sideline which the Founding Fathers did not
take into consideration during drafting of the Bill of
Rights!) but a volunteer with a small zoom unit might be
in the operating theater taking pictures which s/he would
later volunteer to the Executive, as a tipster -- but most
surgeries of this sort are little more than "in then out
with bloody lump", as I understand it, and that lump could
be a cancerous tumor, which will make the DA's job a lot
tougher without clear and present paperwork that it was
in fact something destined to be a bouncing baby girl or
boy, and that gets very tricky, though the age, gender,
and general health of the patient might be available.
This sort of procedure can easily be done in a room with a
stainless-steel table, if it's large enough to handle the
doctor, the patient, the table, and possibly a scrub nurse.

There's also the issue that the lump could (and probably
will) be sucked up in some sort of machinery. The only
such machinery that comes to mind is commonly used in
dentist's offices to keep their mouths clear of spit during
various procedures. All I see is the tube, of course
-- and that tube is translucent plastic. Presumably a
similar machine is available for abortion procedures.
Is that tube going to be clear plastic? Not for long,
unless they wash it very carefully (which they probably
should anyway) prior to the procedure.

Of course, some of the worst offenders in Nazi Germany were
the doctors, performing heinously sadistic experiments on
living subjects. The name "Mengele" will probably invite
ridicule -- if not worse -- to any of his family so tagged
therewith. (He was never brought to account; he died of
drowning caused by a stroke while swimming in 1979. Even
then, the discovery that it was the Angel of Death had
to wait for then newly-minted DNA techniques, in the
mid-80's.

http://www.auschwitz.dk/Mengele.htm

)

But he might have been directly responsible for the deaths
of some hundreds of thousands. The abortion run rate,
about 0.8-0.9M/year, is far worse, if one subscribes to the
belief that what's being removed is a living, breathing,
human being in there fully ready to vote, live, and love,
or at least wave its arms, mewl, and puke a little while
doing the diaper.

I submit that it's not ready, in the vast majority of cases.
But never mind that -- how is the Law to be effectively enforced?
What hardships should we endure in order to do so? The Law
must be enforced, but it costs money to do so. I'd have to
look but suspect property taxes are the primary funding for
county police (though Oakland funds part of its operations
selling cars seized during drug deals); state and federal are
paid for by income taxes, as well as property seizures.

I'd rather have them pursuing real criminals, real
murderers, real dangers. How real of a danger to the
community is a woman, probably emotionally distraught,
seeking an abortion? How real of a danger is the woman
who has had six or more abortions? Absent other indications
(e.g., she's a nymphomaniac with visible symptoms of the clap --
and since clap (= gonorrhea) often has no visible symptoms
the Law has a little problem here, too) it's not clear.

But OK, have it your way. Pass an Amendment:

SECTION 1. With respect to the right to life , the
word `person' as used in this article and in the
fifth and fourteenth articles of amendment applies
to all human beings irrespective of age, health,
function, or condition of dependency, including
their unborn offspring at every state of their
biological development.

SECTION 2. No unborn person shall be deprived of life
by any person: Provided, however, That nothing in
this article shall prohibit a law permitting only
those medical procedures required to prevent the
death of the mother of an unborn person: Provided
further, That nothing in this article shall limit
the liberty of a mother with respect to the unborn
offspring of the mother conceived as a result of
rape or incest.

SECTION 3. The Congress and the several States shall
have power to enforce this article by appropriate
legislation.

(this is part of H.J. Res 4. Introduced Jan 4, 2005.
Current status: in Committee. Sponsor: Missouri Representative
Jo Ann Emerson (District 8). I can't give an URL but
search for 'Right to Life' at http://thomas.loc.gov ; their
submission protocol is a little weird, and requires
Javascript. Or one can search for 'HJ Res 4' if
one selects "Enter bill number" first.)

Note the exceptions for medical and rape/incest.
There's just two problems: does the rape/incest have to
be proven by a court conviction prior to the procedure,
and how precisely does a Catholic hospital, to pick an
example at semi-random, determine whether an abortion,
a procedure equated with the intentional taking of human
life with premeditation (first-degree murder), be deemed
medically necessary?

Variants of this language have been attempted for over 30 years.
When will the states get to ratify this bill? (Would 38 of
them want to?)

Yet another Unfunded Mandate -- but a necessary one, if one believes
all of the pro-lifers, to save all of those unborn children out there.

I should also mention that this does not correct the situation
created by Roe vs. Wade; it *overcorrects*, mandating a Federal
ban on the procedure except for exceptions it happens to like.
Some have mentioned in the past that the question would be left
up to the individual states -- an ideal that is probably unrealizable
in light of modern transportation. Don't like Missouri's laws
regarding abortion? Buy a plane ticket to New York. If you're
really lucky one can buy a ticket for you, especially if one is
a 16-year-old runaway, to put its best face on the situation
(I strongly suspect pimps -- if not worse -- are on the lookout for
attractive "strays"; they'll get picked up, all right).

Enjoy the sausage from all of the Legislative grinding. :-)

--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.