Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Sunday, October 22, 2006
Kevin McCullough :: Townhall.com Columnist
When Liberals Shoot Children
by Kevin McCullough
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
 
Poll
Will Congress pass Obamacare by the end of the year?

Given the right circumstances, liberal feminists, activist lawyers, and judges who should be impeached for their lack of judgement - will first allow and then defend the cold-blooded shooting of an innocent child.

They did so this week.

Tammy Skinner is a 22 year old mother who has now twice had her case dismissed in Virginia. On the due date of her third pregnancy, she went into contractions, and in her own words, "got scared." She grabbed her gun, drove herself to a secluded used car lot, "told the LORD that her mind was not right,"pointed the gun at her belly, and pulled the trigger. She then picked up her cell phone, called 911, and told authorities a lie about how a man named Travis had shot her.

Tammy Skinner was already a welfare mom of two, who had been knocked up by a boyfriend who she then claimed was verbally abusive to her. Not abusive enough to stop having sex with him continually, but abusive enough to ultimately blame for her dead child.

For clarity's sake - she was having contractions when she shot her child. You see, debate all you want to about "when life begins" - but with modern medicine being what it is we know that technology can help a premature baby live sometimes months outside the womb. There is no doubt this act was murder.

According to Virginia law, any third trimester abortion that is without special medical circumstances is illegal. Virginia law is even more specific saying that "any person who administers, or were to cause... via the use of drugs or any other thing with the intent of destroying the child" is illegal. Yet even in the face of such legal specificity, Skinner's liberal, pro-abort lawyer used the Clintonian tactic to argue the meaning of "any person" and defended his client by saying the word meant "any one other than" Skinner.

The liberal lackeys, parading as judges, in the two different levels of hearings in the matter bought the argument and thusly returned Skinner back to her welfare subsidized home and to return to having more sex with men who might in fact get her pregnant for a forth time.

On my radio show I argued that not only should she go away for a very long time, but that she should have her custody of her other two children revoked. Grandma or Auntie or someone else close to them could certainly do no worse a job of living out a better example in front of them while training them in the way they should go.

But the focus of my scorn is really reserved for the pathetic logic used to argue the case.

With Andrea Yates, who systematically drowned her five children, the majority of Americans viewed the taking of such innocent life as an act of awful and immoral consequence regardless of how desperate her circumstance was.

Most Americans, minus liberal feminists, were equally outraged at the Amish schoolhouse shootings in which five more innocent lives were snuffed out with bullets to the back of the brain.

Even Scott Petersen will be put to death for the wrongful murder of his wife, and unborn child. Continued...

1 2
| Full Article & Comments | Next >
Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Kevin McCullough is the nationally syndicated host of "'Xtreme' Radio and columnist based in New York. He blogs at www.muscleheadrevolution.com. His second book "The Kind Of MAN Every Man SHOULD Be" is in stores now.

Be the first to read Kevin McCullough's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

Kevin, Good Article
I think the lack of moral clarity, or as I call it, truth (they deny it exists) leads them open to take any position that suits their needs. The consequences of this are disastrous, and we are beginning to see those consequences come to fruition.

They call much of their position nuance (not everything is black and white), but when pressed, cannot define a position on many issues. This is because in reality, they have no standard from which to judge anything, ie truth.

Child Killers
It's absolutely true that democrats have no moral compass. Democrats can't descern right from wrong. How can they let this woman kill her baby and then allow here to go back to her other two kids. They probably increased her welfare to make things easier on her too. People better realize how bad things will get if we allow the democrats to win back the house and senate. This isn't the same democrat party from 1993. This party is ten times more liberal and anti-American than before.

If democrats win control of the Congress they'll raise taxes and destroy the economy. They'll pass a windfall profits tax on gas which will increase the price per gallon by 50 cents. The democrats will cut and run in Iraq leaving the middle east to collapse. It will be a total nightmare for everyone.

Tragedy upon tragedy.
The unimaginable tragedy of infanticide is as old as human history. It is still practiced today in many parts of the world: India and China, to be exact. Usually, it is gender based and regarded as a tradition. The Society for the Prevention of Infanticide’s web site links to FBI stats which show that it even occurs here.

Mr. McCullough could have taken this horrible event and used it to educate people about infanticide and perhaps even bring the subject of infanticide to our national debate.

But instead, Mr. McCullough and others like him on the fringe, hysterical right choose to compound this tragedy by reducing it to just another silly, pointless, “we’re right and they’re wrong” diatribe of political pandering.

Now, THAT’S a cryin’ shame.

Asides and focused thought
Any talk about educating the public about the worldwide cases of infanticide would not have stopped this woman nor would it have stopped the judiciary from acting in the manner in which they did. Comments of this sort are nothing more that an aside that has no bearing on the subject matter of this commentary.

It is however an attempt to distract everyone from the thrust of the commentary, which is the lack of moral compass of so many in powerful positions or positions of influence.

With a sense of "fair and balanced", I will point out that this lack of compass is not partisan, but rather has actually become a societal paradigm for a large percentage of the population.

Emotionally Unstable
When souls live as victims, and have emotional distrubantances, that victim has the ablility to cause great harm to others. For their actions are unstable and are casted upon the innocent people they come in contact with. As we see in soceity today, many souls lashing out, seeking help, calling out for someone to intervien. This woman should not have been allowed to return to her children, she should also not be allowed to return to the behavior of sexual permissiveness, that has caused her some of her pain. There in that sin, keeps her emotional unstableness alive, with the potential to do more harm to others, rather than addressing her promblem and getting neccesary counseling that would permit her to help understand and confront her pain. People in Pain often lash out at others, for they are actually crying out for help and need desparately for someone to stop them.

This is What Democrats Mean
by a pro-abortion judge. One who will defend a mother's right to kill her unborn child under any circumstances.

At term, a baby can clearly survive outside the womb. I did over a month before term, and that was almost three decades ago.

I wish we could get links or citations to the dismissal order so we could at least see the judge's reasoning, though.

To steve: the article isn't about infanticide. It's about the immorality of the left. Stop crying just because he didn't write the article that you would have written.

This case proves
just how insane the Liberal mind is and the damage they're doing to our culture. When a woman makes an agreement between her and her doctor to have an abortion. The Liberals are fine with that. After all, her body, her choice. So shooting through her own body to kill the baby. Same thinking applies.

But what if she had made an agreement with her boyfriend to do the shooting? What would they charge the boyfriend with? Practicing medicine without a license!

What a sick bunch of people the Liberals are! Can't wait to read how the resident Liberal posters here rush to Skinner's defense.

Steve
Steve, you twist Mr. McCullough's article, which gave the simple facts of this case, into labeling it a far right rant. It is not McCullough's job to educate people who are too dumb to know that killing a baby is not murder. Who is not smart enough after a 6th grade education to know that? Also, who does not understand that it is the Democrat party and left that pushes for unlimited abortions? If that is illustrating "we're right and they're wrong", then that's what it is. You are a perfect example of the mentality that can't label a crime as a crime. Instead, you want to accuse the person who points out that it is a crime as not doing enough to educate people about something that anyone with a brain knows.

Or is it even simpler than that?
Considering that she used a gun (an instrument of pure evil in liberal reckoning-unless they are the ones directing its aim), I'd have expected at least some protestations from the usual suspects, such as Srah Brady. I gather the silence is deafening.
Maybe the problem is that the left has devolved into a mirror image, not of the right, but of American society as a whole. What we were taught to value, they have learned to demean. As Harry Stein said in an online article (quoted in "Arrogance" by Bernard Goldberg), liberals seem to love the ideal of what America could be, under their benevolent despotism; they just despise America as it exists. Or as Sutekh, the villain of the old "Doctor Who" episode, "Pyramids of Mars" put it when the Doctor asked him why he wanted to wipe out all life in the Universe, "Your evil....is my good."

cheers

eon

Murder...
Liberalism, Communism, Naziism - the only difference between these fascist groups is the label. They all have no problem with the killing innocents.

The right to life, liberty, etc.
is no longer part of our judicial system. The liberals (anti-Christian, amoral, etc.) will fit the crime however they want, to further their agenda.

Every child has a right to life from the moment the egg is fertilized....and it IS a child, regardless of what some in the greedy scientific and politic world say and try to make us believe.

Andrea Yates was wrong in what she did. Her family and her physicians also were wrong in placing her in a position from which she saw no daylight. Tammy Skinner was wrong. Surely there aren't any 22 year old women in this nation that do not know there are thousands of couples desiring to adopt. The worst of this crime is to return Tammy Skinner to her other children, knowing by her actions that their lives may also be at risk - not just from being murdered but from being abused....and abuse comes in many forms.

The liberals have worked long and hard to see to it that no conservative judges are placed at any level of our society. They do not believe in the value of life nor the right to life....just their liberal do what feels good agenda.

This is an excellent forum but apparently few liberals partake so, who reads what is here?

God has not forsaken us - we as a society have forsaken Him and our just punishments will come in due time.

What do you expect?
Only in America boys and girls. This is the right our troops are dying to defend.

Go figure.

11h

Mountain Rose
A progressive has no real choice about this issue. So they will do what they do in every issue that is a quagmire for them. They will close their ears and eyes and ignore it like it never happened. Unless of course, they can use it to beat up conservatives. Then the poor woman will have had no choice, being forced into it like she was by some Republican.

Militant Islam
President Bush has been criticized by liberals for "recruiting more terrorists".

The critics ignore the clear fact that the Muslims involved do have a set of moral veiws.

Extremist recruiter: "We must kill them because they kill their own babies, they allow their own women to be sexually exploited for 'entertainment' in magazines, videos, stage and television. Their popular 'music' urges sexual promiscuity and perversion, they show no respect for the reigious and legal foundations of ther own culture etc. (you fill in the blanks)".

They do not want this pollution exported to their world.

Who is it who makes suicide bombing atractive? Is it Dubya or the liberals?

Readers, please understand that I am no supporter of Islam in any of its guises, but the radicals do have a point. We in the west have degenerated our society to the point where something has to be done to restore us to our pevious moral high ground in the world, and our acceptance in the eyes of G0D.


Word Pictures
Moral compass, the pendulum will swing back--slogans designed to deceive or stifle or cloud debate. I have never seen a moral compass, I cannot visualize one--the pendulum swings to and fro but drives the hands ever onward in the same direction, so what can I gain from that? There is a better gauge--the Constitution and its guarantees. The courts and the Supreme Court can create rights that do not exist but they will be argued and re-argued until equilibrium is finally reached because rights are inalienable. Waco is the prime example where rights were lost and most that live in this great country are still uneasy about the outcome. In America we do not burn our citizens because they own weapons and belong to a cult. We do not Gas our children and we do not like those that do. Gassed children cannot escape a fire and the source or blame for the fire has no bearing on the decision to incapacitate children and thereby cause them to suffer the horrible fate of burning alive. Waco will never be over until those that made the decisions to violate the 1st and 2nd amendments to the Constitution are held accountable for their decisions and actions. If I had a child gassed and burned alive by our Federal Government and no one was held accountable, I would take up arms and exact retribution.

Kevin's column
The column would have more credibility if the spelling were correct and there were links to support the assertions made. What judges, lawyers, courts? (Did this event even occur?)

I can't accept the proffered idea that Grandma would be a better choice to raise the younguns, see her previous effort.

You couldn't make this story up
Libs will defend to the death (the baby's death, because it's easy) and come up with any reason why this deranged, backward woman should be innocent of any charges. Libs get into trouble when defending their entitlement to abortion this far. It's a cartoon of their world. Of course, I can hear my whacko flaming-socialist sister-in-law exclaim that if this woman could only get her abortion with a drive-to-your-home mobile abortion unit, then she wouldn't have been forced to do such a thing.

FOWG
Where ya been? This story has been on all channels.

Better check your own spelling in previous post. You know, that glass house and stones thing. LOL.

Liberals are Scum
It serves no purpose to attack liberals action by action. Liberals are selfish, liberals are thieves, liberals are the great rationalizers, liberals are Communist, Fascist, and Nazis--liberals believe they are the highest authority--they know what is best for everyone. They will force everyone to believe as they do, they will vote money out of everybody's pocket to implement what they believe. They gravitate to government because they are all seeing, all knowing, smarter than the average citizen, and they must direct the will of the non-liberals. Liberals have killed millions all over the world and when action is taken to stop them, you hear words like "genocide", and persecution. Liberals are like roaches, you spray one room, they move to another. When Communism was being sprayed in Western Europe during the 30s, the roaches moved to New York, California, and Wisconsin--now there is a new infestation and it is here in our country-it hides behind Liberalism, Progressive, Socialist, Secular-Progressives and other titles. It is still among us, ever plotting while adopting many guises and many names but it is always Marxist and it is always Communist.

Mass ALREADY criminalizes pregnant women
=> the position to turn, "every expectant
=> mother into a potential criminal."

The pro-choice People's Republic of Massachusetts, the bluest of all blue states, has ALREADY DONE EXACTLY THIS!!!

In 1999 a woman named Denise C

Mass ALRADY criminalizes pregnant women
==> the position to turn, "every expectant
==> mother into a potential criminal."

The pro-choice People's Republic of Massachusetts, the bluest of all blue states, has ALREADY DONE EXACTLY THIS!

In 1999 a woman named Denise Corneau was literally put in JAIL (or a "secure medical facility") until she gave birth out of social worker's concerns that she might harm the baby by "starving" it.

Sure she was a member of a cult called "The Way" that probably was way out there and two of her older children were suspected to have died and allegedly buried in Maine's Baxter State Park and perhaps there was a compelling state interest in protecting the child that just happened to be inside her but the fact remains that she was tossed into jail until she gave birth (at which point the state grabbed her baby). One of the dead children allegedly was a miscarrage and the other allegedly starved, the Commonwealth alleged that modern medicine (which the cult rejected on religious grounds) could have saved both children.

This is in LEXIS/NEXIS, on Google, it was in Attleboro, Bristol County of Massachusetts and went to the Mass Supreme Judicial Court (state supreme court) at least once.

One can look at the Corneau case (and the larger issues of the murder charges and the "illegal disposal of a body" charges) in a variety of ways but the simple fact remains that the "Parade of Horribles" presented by the ProChoice lawyers ALREADY EXISTS in the most pro-choice state in the union.

So, like, umm, now what do the feminists say????

Goshawk
You deserve a response.

I do not have cable. I am repulsed by network "news". I have seen no reference to this story on the internet nor heard it on the radio.

As for my take on the quality of the colunm, a professional writer should consider there may be a few dolts ignorant of the facts, such as I, in the audience. Spelling should be a paramount criterion of the professional, Eye em nt wun. :-)

Your preaching to the choir, my freind.
Unfortunately that won't do any good. A "lack of a moral compass" means nothing to someone who believes morals are purely subjective inventions of a deranged mind. In fact, they consider it a vice.

There's a wider issue of hypocrisy
The Left sees nothing wrong with abortion, in this case in-utero homicide, yet sees capital punishment as immoral and would do anything to spare the life (and in many cases free) the murderer.

Even for those who support abortion, if they can't distinguish a difference between a scalpel in a doctor's office and a gun in a car, there's a real issue about intellectual honesty.


FOWG: re typos, etc
You are assuming that the TH system accurately transcribed the KMC column to begin with. Faulty assumption.

I've seen typos and other errors in George Will columns that aren't there in the NY Times version on their website, and vice versa.

I've seen my own posts mangled as they go through the TH censor program. In one case, a whole paragraph was transposed with another, altering the entire meaning of my post.

Raping and murdering
Personally, I thought Kevin's article was way too easy on the Liberals. He forgot the part about eating the flesh and sewing it into their clothing.

http://www.fireflywiki.org/Firefly/Reavers

"If they take the ship, they'll rape us to death, eat our flesh and sew our skins into their clothing and if we're very very lucky, they'll do it in that order."

Personally, I think leaving out the cannibalism of liberals and the sewing the skin into clothing was a big oversight.

As Jayne the quintensential Republican says, "H**l, I'll kill a man in a fair fight, or if I think he's going to start a fair fight. If there's a women involved, or if I'm getting paid. Mostly if I'm getting paid, but these Liberals. Raping and murdering. Eating your flesh? Where does that get fun?"

As Jayne indicates, leaving out the eating of the flesh shows it still might have been fun to pull that gun trigger. We don't want the mistake made by the reading public that conservatives are against using guns to kill. Shooting guns is fun. Liberals prefer to use Doctors to kill because eating flesh riddled with metal is tricky. It's more difficult to sew the flesh into their clothing if it's got metal in it.

So next time Kevin, please don't hold back about the facts that Liberals eat the flesh while their victims are still living and then they sew the skin into their clothing.



Donald: you've misinterpreted the law...
... even by using your own quote. Shooting oneself and the foetus in-utero is not an abortion.

Further, per your quote: "The protection of unborn children from acts of violence other than abortion". Again, in no way does a self-inflicted GSW qualify as an abortion.

Liberal Dialog
That was a pretty funny post. I don't agree with you, but I appreciate a good sense of irony and satire.

BrianR-11:29
Hmmmm, you are right, I never considered that.

Thanks.

Welfare Cows

.....Kevin...if I were King I would decree that any unwed mother who applied for welfare would be denied until she signed a consent form to have her tubes tied...

.....if she is going to ask the State to support her children...then the State has the right to stop her from breeding .....COLOSSUS

baseball, I agree..
...but I imagine having that unwed Mother have to appeal to her Representative to take her issue of intercourse to the floor for debate. If the Public has to foot the bills for her previous acts, then they should be allowed to make the decision concerning any more that may affect them.

By the way, you should have added "doc" to your handle.

Let play baseball
I would say that all these gay's be deneid benifits also. Engaging in sexual deviant behavior adds nothing to the natural human family, only creates more probelms for society. I know some of these have sex change operations on tax dollars, converting to the opposite sex, only to marry the same sex. What a nightmare, this poses for the children of all.

Oklahoma City Bombing

.....Warrior writes..."if I had a child gassed and burned alive by our Federal Government and no one was held accountable, I would take up arms and exact retribution."....

.....except for not having a child in the fire...in essence...retribution is exactly what Timothy McVeigh had in mind...it was not an accident that the Okla City bombing occured on the anniversy of Waco...

.....In my humble opinion Clinton should have been impeached for willful violation of the First and Second Amendment Rights of the Davidians and Janet Reno should have been charged with genocide and brought up on charges for procuring warrants on trumped up charges of drug trafficking to justify bringing in the tanks and the gas.....COLOSSUS

Donaldd: Your obtuseness continues...
... to amaze.

So shooting her foetus in her body is an abortion.

Then I guess in Oregon, where euthenasia is now legal, nothing qualifies as murder anymore.

Euthenasia is a termination of life. But so is murder. Voila! No more murder.

You are an amazing dolt.

Over the top!!!
So, we're back to the old Republican tried and true scare tales of welfare queens having they can't raise. Yet it's CONSERVATIVES who want to overturn Roe v Wade to entrap women into having kids they can't raise, which will provoke more crazy, desperate acts like this. It's also about gender hypocrisy--how come Andrea Yates's husband gets to walk around scot free to father more little tykes while Andrea Yates had to cop an insanity plea because he forced her into having one baby after another. Doesn't he bear some of the responsibility for impregnating her again and again despite the fact that she had serious mental problems??? He should have been legally sterilized, putting his baby maker out of business. The system always screws women, one way or another. Men always get a pass.

It's also amazing how hypocritical conservatives are on the family values idea in light of Foleygate. For at least a decade the Republican leadership knew Foley was one sick, twisted pedophile, so they blackmailed him into staying in Congress to keep the majority and swept his little problem under the rug. Gee, sending X-rated text messages to minors doesn't sound like old fashioned family virtues to me. So Foley, having been busted, cuts and runs, hiding in some rehab clinic out of sight so he can get his story straight with his lawyer, playing the "abuse excuse" saying the parish priest of his church turned him into a crazed pedophile.

Donalld: With your fine grasp of logic
You should run for a judgeship in whatever misbegotten community has to endure your residency.

Somewhere a village is missing its idiot.

Mountain Rose...
...would that mean: an eye for an eye and a "nut" for a "nut"?

BrianR, FOWG
BrianR, never thought about the Townhall text filters myself. Spouse I could blame them for my poor grammar? LOL!

FOWG.. I understand.

titanicidiot
Foleygate? That's all you've got? Foleygate?

After the presidency of the Rapist-in-Chief, Billy Drop-Trou? Barney Frank of the Best Little Whorehouse in the Basement fame?

Ah, yes, the party of double-if-any standards.

BTW, just what in he11 does that have to do with this topic?

TITANICZILLA - No Minors in Foley Case..
Check your facts girly girl...

And no sexual contact with any pages - not that we have evidence of yet anyway...

But what did GOP do? Make him resign... What did your liberal heroes do to a fellow Congressman who had statutory rape with a male page? Censured him - let him in stay in Congress - and when he died last week Kerry, Kennedy, and Clinton all called him a great role model, (or to with in the column above - a "roll" model...)!

Steve
Did i read you to say that only the "hysterical lunatic right" believes his woman did something wrong for which she should be held accountable? That's what K McC is saying. You obviously are not a hysterical lunatic, so you think she should get a pass. Right?

"liberals are scum"..now what?
I wasn't going to post at this column anymore, for a while anyway. I had firmly determined to give up my time here. Then I heard a scripture verse which made me rethink what I was doing. It said:

.."But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people, in order that you may proclaim the mighty acts of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light."

If God gives us a gift and that gift can influence people for the good, it is incumbent upon us *not* to thwart that light or hide it in a bushel. While, personally, I still feel I have to discipline myself in the time I spend at Townhall, I felt need to address some comments here.

First of all, it is my understanding that a fair chunk of the Conservatives who speak here are Christians.

If that is the case, may I remind the followers of Christ here, His children, that we are called to love our enemies. This does not preclude us from speaking out about Right and Wrong, and in fact, places in us an even deeper wish to impress upon others the facts of God's Truth.

This said, I need to say a few things.

First, I think we need to remember the audience to which we speak. If we have ever been in a position to be redeemed and saved by God's grace, from the previous life we were in, we will be reminded that we have no place from which to speak that is not one bearing a grateful heart and with this gratitude, true humility.

While it is easy to look at the terrible, sinful and wicked things men do, particularly "Liberals", there has *got* to be more beyond this in our message, if the message is going to get through. I think we need to tread a bit more carefully and prayerfully in how we reply and speak.

I noticed Mr. McCullough spoke with a tone of disdain in his article on this confused and murderous pregnant girl, saying she lived in a "welfare subsidized home"... While what this woman did was a heinous crime, we are only at our most strong and convincing as believers if we mind the plank in our own eye.

This woman might have been a lot of things

A liberal.
A confused soul.
An opportunistic liar.
A thief of God's life.
An unwell soul on public relief.

But to write a story about such a pawn in the tale of lawyer's and judges wicked deeds, and not stick to what counts, her moral failure, and the bigger meaning of this, is to strain at a gnat and miss the most important thing.

Mercy triumphs over judgment...

How do we know that this girl is not so unwell she is stuck and "welfare”, for her, is the best thing? I think we can get stuck going on about politic aspects. But throw the baby, no pun, out with the bathwater here...

Not too long ago, but long enough that it's far away, I recall being kind of a liberal. Or, at least, that was some of my company.

I don't deny their ethos IS Communistic, and that that ethos is insane. Nor will I deny that the judges and lawyers here are, by far, to blame for the death of this child, equally, or more, than the Mother is...

While I don't feel it is right to have mercy on such Evil deeds, how are we about people?

If one of the greatest things we can do as an act of love is to speak God's Truth to them are we doing that in love?

Or is it more rhetoric and talk so combative that those who need to hear the word of life get turned off and walk away?

"Come, let us reason together". That's what God says...

While it is normal for caring or outraged people to become upset and strident, occasionally, about such important things, what do we have to say when we are past the rhetoric?

How do we, respectfully, bring the other person to Truth and what we have to say, without chopping off his head?

It is said that in abortion, or before any abuse, we make the person, in our minds, an object, so easily disposable thereafter, for our use...

Are we not doing this, to some degree now, more or less, with the liberal?

While it is important to be clear and not lukewarm, as we try to, also, be loving, when we speak to others about Truth, I contend it is quite possible to do both things.

A different approach than what's been done and seen here, I know.

But beyond what seems safe is the greater possibility of more clarity and recognition in that soul, and, perhaps, a true change of heart.

It is for this reason, and as I noted, not to hide my light under a bushel, that I came back here.

But not because I enjoy all the things that other Christians have to say, or should I say, sometimes, how they are said.

We have the same Truth, we may understand His Love. We know that one without the other seems weak, and has little clarity.

But OH the beauty and joy God has when we marry them both, as they belong, together!

I will leave with this scripture verse from James 2

"1 My brothers, don't hold the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ of glory with partiality.

2 For if a man with a gold ring, in fine clothing, comes into your synagogue, and a poor man in filthy clothing also comes in;

3 and you pay special attention to him who wears the fine clothing, and say, "Sit here in a good place;" and you tell the poor man, "Stand there," or "Sit by my footstool;"

4 haven't you shown partiality among yourselves, and become judges with evil thoughts?

5 Listen, my beloved brothers. Didn't God choose those who are poor in this world to be rich in faith, and heirs of the Kingdom which he promised to those who love him?

6 But you have dishonored the poor man. Don't the rich oppress you, and personally drag you before the courts?

7 Don't they blaspheme the honorable name by which you are called?

8 However, if you fulfill the royal law, according to the Scripture, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself," you do well.

9 But if you show partiality, you commit sin, being convicted by the law as transgressors.

10 For whoever keeps the whole law, and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all.

11 For he who said, "Do not commit adultery," also said, "Do not commit murder." Now if you do not commit adultery, but murder, you have become a transgressor of the law.

12 So speak, and so do, as men who are to be judged by a law of freedom.

13 For judgment is without mercy to him who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment.

14 What good is it, my brothers, if a man says he has faith, but has no works? Can faith save him?

15 And if a brother or sister is naked and in lack of daily food,

16 and one of you tells them, "Go in peace, be warmed and filled;" and yet you didn't give them the things the body needs, what good is it?

17 Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead in itself.

18 Yes, a man will say, "You have faith, and I have works." Show me your faith without works, and I by my works will show you my faith.

19 You believe that God is one. You do well. The demons also believe, and shudder.

20 But do you want to know, vain man, that faith apart from works is dead?


There are always consequences...
"Neither life nor happiness can be achieved by the pursuit of irrational whims. Just as man is free to attempt to survive by any random means, as a parasite, a moocher or a looter, but not free to succeed at it beyond the range of the moment - so he is free to seek his happiness in any irrational fraud, any whim, any delusion, any mindless escape from reality, but not free to succeed at it beyond the range of the moment nor to escape the consequences." "The end does not justify the means. No one's rights can be secured by the violation of the rights of others." --Ayn Rand
Phillipians 3:8

Warrior
Me too. There are times when a man has to stand on his own two feet. By the way, i've heard the shooter who shot Randy Weaver's wife in the head received so many threats he was put in the witness protection program. Is that a fact, or just wishful thinking? There are still a lot of folks in Colorado who stand on their own two feet.

The Answer to Everything
OK, I thought I'd post the answer to everything here.

First off, if you believe that 30 million abortions equals 30 million murders, why are you not pulling an Abraham Lincoln and passing a constitutional amendment banning abortion even if that means civil war and the bloodiest American war ever?

Second, all abortion should be illegal. It is a well known fact that less than 1% of rape cases are reported and less than 0.1% of incest cases. In practicality, having exceptions for rape and incest are wide enough to drive a tractor trail truck through. The loop hole would result in too many abortions at the benefit of a handful of incest and rape cases. All abortions should be illegal.

But that is just the beginning.

Nowhere in the Bible does it advocate putting up your kid for adoption. Adoption should be illegal. People need to take responsibility for their actions. People cannot use adoption as a form of "birth control". Every person on the face of this planet needs to understand if you have a child it is your responsibility else pregnancy might be taken lightly. Every study done shows that the biological parents make the best parents. Adoption should be illegal except when the parents are both dead. If father and daughter have a child, the father is still the biological parent and hence father and daughter should marry if need be.

America should adopt Colombia's stance on children's rights where abortion is illegal. Every child born in Colombia, by Constitutional law, has a right to both it's father and mother's name. Every child has a right to know who its parents are. Further, every father has a responsibility to pay for child support whether said father marries the mother or not. This includes cases of rape and incest. The mother names the father and in the case of any question, a Judge makes the final call. With DNA testing Judges will have a much easier time of it.

Finally, because biological parents make the best parents, mother and father should marry even in cases of rape and incest. Italy actually had a form of this law on the books until about 1980 when some fashion model was sued for marriage and had the marriage overturned on appeal.

The Answer to Everything is that ultimately a child's rights to life goes beyond abortion, but speaks to the responsiblity of that child by the biological mother and father under all cases, no exceptions. In order to realize this, of course then divorce will be illegal and adultery punishable by death by firing squad in public display. Next of kin will be financially responsible for any support and taking care of any children.

Amen.


Pirate
Isn't that Corneau case a liberal microcosm. Millions of abortions are ok, but a woman who "endangers" her baby is jailed and forced to term. Without further judgement, i can say someone is skarewing up big time. How can they maintain such mutually exclusive principles? Power to control is all.

Biology lesson

.....titaniczilla...it is not Roe v. Wade or the absense thereof that entrapts woman into having children they cannot afford...

....it is holding their legs open when they should be keeping their knees together...Biology 101...thought you might like to know.....COLOSSUS

Clintonous obsessiveness
You're all infected by a disease called Clintonous Obsessiveness. One symptom (Dick Morris has this) is this eternal obsession with Clinton. You can't start a sentence without "But Bill Clinton ......" You fill in the blank. The other tried and true symptom is the "when in doubt blame Clinton for everything ..." syndrome.

Get a new act, or call Karl Rove Strangelove for new talking points This has worn thin.

Gee, I didn't think the holier than thou crowd supported peophiles so much. Who'd a thunk it.

MrsV,
MrsV: It's very commendable that you want to love your enemies. I don't. If they earn my hate, they're going to get it. I leave it to other, gentler souls to do that.

That having been said, I don't hate someone just because they disagree with me politically. That's not what this country is all about. That also strikes me as a very unpleasant way to live one's own life. Going through life hating, probably, most of the world? That's a recipe for insanity.

I don't think anyone here "hates" anyone else here; we don't even know each other. Ridicule doesn't necessarily equate to hate.

titanicdolt: re Billy Drop-Trou
Um, talk about obsessed, look at the log in your own eye before worrying about the speck in someone else's, Mr. Foleygate.

You're the one who raised the off-point topic.

liberal dialog
Interesting post. However, don't forget that conservatives have tried to pass an anti-abortion amendment, and it was defeated.

As to the Biblical adoption references; I'll be the first to admit that in no way am I any sort of Biblical scholar, but aren't there passages in there that the brother of a dead guy is supposed to step up to the plate and take care of the dead guy's family? Bearing in mind my disclaimer, would that not be applicable?

tell me ....
"Most Americans, minus liberal feminists, were equally outraged at the Amish schoolhouse shootings in which five more innocent lives were snuffed out with bullets to the back of the brain."

If anyone out there, Kevin or otherwise, can find me a liberal feminist who thought those Amish shootings weren't outrageous, please post here. Until then, this remains firmly in the category of "Baseless, hysterical far-right rants."

BrianR
Regarding your reply to Donaldd about euthanasia. Just think. This case may allow 'Hit Men and Women' to come out of the closet! I mean, they would only be performing a needed medical service, right? Even the lawyers would benefit! Because of the competition, doctors would sue the Hit folks and the Hit folks could sue the state for civil rights violation. Everybody benefits except the murdered baby. Which of course doesn't matter to Liberals.

job objectives
The job of a lawyer is not to judge their client but to give them the best possible defense. It is the job of the prosecutor to seek justice for the victim of a crime not the the defense attorney. Some crimes are particularly heinous but the perpetrators of these crimes have just as much right to the best defense as an innocent person. If this is distasteful to a person they don't have to become a lawyer. And certainly you should not condemn a person for doing their job properly as there are enough incompetent people doing their jobs impropely in the world. Our whole legals system is based on the concept of equal justice under the law, and though we seldom achieve this ideal was should at least strive towards it.

Liberal dialog: a further thought
IMO, abortion is not, nor should it be, a federal issue. It's an issue for the individual states under criminal, civil, or medical regs.

Not only was the Roe decision an abortion itself, the case should have never been granted certiorari in the first place. The states would have long ago settled the issue individually, and we wouldn't be constantly having this divisive dialogue.

Goshawk: Heh heh heh
Good point!

The docs and the hit folks could even merge practices; share the costs on investments in medical buildings; group rates on advertising. The competition would hold down costs. The state could institute a "hit person certification" requirement. Tax the proceeds and increase revenues.


concord123: I agree
That was, to say the least, baseless and hyperbolic.

Shocking
I read the article at http://www.abcews.go.com/US/LegalCenter/story?id=2585102&page=1
Unbelievable. And the writer's style, so impersonal, it gave the article a surreal feel, like something from another world. To dismiss the charges in this case, I think, is horrible. The article goes on to say it all comes down to the definition of "any". I started wonder how Clinton got involved with the case. This girl should have been convicted of at least manslaughter, if not murder, and put away for life.
I find it to be the worst form of inhuman behaviour for a woman to kill her own child.


Concord2123
Good catch of a gratuitous unsupportable exageration. I've seen more than one on this thread. After a quick check, i'd say the libs are leading the cons about 2 to 1, not bad considering their fewer numbers.

Another example of liberal fascism
This case is but another example of the theories and policies that are the underpinning of liberal fascism. Truth doesn't matter, morality doesn't matter, the facts don't matter when it applies to their actions and philosophy. Funny how they matter when it concerns conservatives and Republicans. Its funny how when you point out the hypocricy of liberal fascists they accuse the dissenter of hate, intolerance, not caring, ect....never appearing to have that self introspection of thinking people. Mr. McCullough defined the underlying principle and gave a description of the actions taken by these ideolouges that tell us they "care" for the children in other political context's but not in this one. The shedding of innocent blood pollutes the land and corrupts the people. Study the effects on the progressive socialists and beware of the long term consequences, because it will only get worse, because they will get worse and more evil in their actions and policies. Watch and Wait and You will See.

Kimberly: A Second Amendment issue?
Actually, the anti-gunners typically do use high-profile shootings to call for gun bans; not as much recently as they've learned it's a loser for them as an issue.

That having been said, I will certainly grant that there are hysterics on both sides.

Liberal Feminists Support Shootings...

Kimberly... tell us...
Can you point to a single instance in which in the last 20 years and NRA'er pointed a gun to her own belly and smeared hers and her innocent child's remains across her car's front seat?

And as to the players in this case being "liberal" - the mother, the attorney, and both judges believe in the right to an abortion - the card carrying issue of every liberal in America today...

We are waiting for your articulate responses...

Donaldd
The DA seems to disagree, as do we.

Random thoughts on the passing threads
1. I don't care for McCullough's style. On the other hand, he does make Ann Coulter sound like Miss Manners, and that is no small feat. It's a free country, if you don't like him, don't read him.

2. Despite his editorial distortions of what "liberal feminists" may personally feel about the Amish school shootings, the larger point, ugly as it is, is true: the legal rationale behind abortion on demand (which is what we have at this point) is easily and only lightly stretched to apply to situations like these. Years ago, Sandra Day O'Connor famously said that Roe v. Wade was on "a collision course with itself." This case was just such a crash. At this point, an unborn baby has rights if and only if her mother wants her. She has none if her mother doesn't. You can like that fact or dislike it, but legally speaking, it IS a fact. This case is NO different from the pregnant woman who asked her boyfriend to kick her and hit her in the stomach with a baseball bat, killing their unborn child. He gets sentenced for criminal assault, and she gets nothing, because, of course, she has the absolute right to decide whether her child is a child or not. It is absurd, but utterly explicable under the reasoning that our legal system now uses. It is absolutely the legacy of Roe v. Wade, and it was inevitable. An unborn child is EITHER a human being or it is not. If it is, then it must have rights like the rest of us. And in that circumstances a woman's "right to privacy" could never trump the child's right to life, any more than you could use your "right to privacy" to lure your neighbors into your kitchen and poison them. If the child is NOT human, then it has no rights. But because we lie about it, our legal system is a bloody mess. Literally.

3. I do not want to hear any claims about the oppression of women. When it comes to children, women have been given Godlike powers - they decide who lives and who dies, and no one - NO ONE - not the chld, not the child's father, not the grandparents, not the state - has any say in the matter whatsoever.

4. FOWG makes a comment that eerily echoes something I have thought about militant Islam for some time. There is much about Western culture - particularly when it comes to sexuality and respect for human life - that is contemptible. Is Islam the "swift sword" that the song refers to?

5. I appreciate the observations about treating individual people kindly. But to my way of thinking, that is the same kind of muddy reasoning that people use when they say, "Judge not, lest ye be judged." No one can claim to know anyone else's culpability in the eyes of God. But that is not the same thing as saying that the behavior is not subject to criticism. Can you imagine the insanity if we could not, as a society, condemn certain behavior? Oh -- wait a minute -- we're already seeing that.

6. Relatedly, as an attorney I can certainly write scathing things about the legal system, or laws (including judicial opinions) that leave the most innocent among us complete at the mercy of someone's terrified whim.

7. In that vein, I also think that people - including this woman's attorneys - overlook the deterrent effect of criticism, judgment and social stigma. This woman is not to be condemned because she was "terrified" about having another child -- how many of us in her shows would FEEL the same way? One of the purposes of fear of shame, social stigma, criticism, judgment and yes, criminal prosecution, is to get us to gird our loins and do the right thing at a time when we feel weakest. The problem is that we have lost any sense of moral certainly, and thus our legal system has come to hold FEELING to the same standard of public respect as LAW. This is viewed as being more sympathetic. Far from it. It is abandonment. We have abandoned all of those strictures that are society's underpinnings, and now people have nothing to cling to when they feel desperate. So they lash out and do whatever they "feel" like doing, or whatever crosses their minds, and the judges let them off.

why
why does mr. mcCullough always use such inflamatory titles. How the h3ll does he know that the lawyer and the judge were liberal. And if i am much mistaken isnt it a jury that convicts people not defense lawyers and judges. If anyone is to blame for getting this girl off it is the DA for having a weak case.

i dont like kevin MuCullough he is just another example of extremist gone bad. WE DONT NEED PEOPLE WHO CATIGORIES AN ENTIRE GROUP BASED OFF OF THE RESULTS OF ONE INCIDENT. That goes for both sides. This story is just another example of why i hate politics.

Kevin McCullough = Ignorant Oik
...and he can't spell. It's "role model".


donaldd: re Euthenasia
You wrote: "Euthanasia, as far as I know, doesn't legally exist in the United States, yet. Physicain assisted suicide does. That sir, is not euthanasia."

Did you study English at the Clinton School of Linguistics?

Uh, yeah, it is the same thing.

Donaldd: Here's the link
Since you like them so much, to Oregon State's page on euthenasia, and you can see all the stats for how many presriptions were written for lethal drug overdoses.

http://egov.oregon.gov/DHS/ph/pas/index.shtml

Fun reading! Enjoy.

BTW Donalld, we do agree
if I read your post correctly, that the abortion issue should not be a federal one, as I wrote earlier. It is properly one for each state to decide.

However, your statement "States do not want to totally eliminate abortion" is probably not accurate. If given free reign to choose without federal or judiciary interference, most states will probably end up with some form of restriction ranging from absolute bans to restricted choice. Some states, such as NY, CA, OR and others (the Blue states) will probably allow unrestricted abortion.


Donaldd: wrong on legal filings
A DA never files a civil suit, that is filed by a plaintiff against a respondent as a totally different type of legal action, and no prison or jail time can result. The only judgements are financial. Commonly known as "lawsuits".

DAs file criminal complaints against defendants who are exposed to the risk of incarceration. The complainant in these cases is "the people of the state of..." or the US Gov.

Lawsuits can be filed for any reason. Your neighbor's dog poops in your yard. Criminal charges are filed when penal code is violated.

Judges do not make any determination of any sort as to what kind of case is filed.

"Roe Vs. Wade" and "Random thoughts..."
Donaldd: "An Unborn Child or fetus is not subject to Constitutional Law nor the Bill of Rights."
Yes, and that's a problem. We had a similar class of people in this country about 150 years ago - they were called slaves. Today we look with disdain on the concept of slavery. I hope someday we can look back on abortion on demand with the same disdain, for both practices marginalize and dehumanize human life.

Laura Hollis: Well-reasoned post; I hope folks will take the time to read it twice and think about it.

BTW Donaldd: Another link
This time for the Merriam Webster definition of "euthanasia".

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=euthanasia

As you can see, your interpretation was, of course, wrong.

The end result of liberalism
I copied this editorial out of the Yellow Springs, Ohio newspaper. Antioch College is located there. The college has influenced the town so that it is a very liberal place. I lived there for 20 years. I am a conservative. I am not surprised that this has happened.

"End Antioch's toxic culture"

By Ralph Keyes

Last summer I showed a friend from Colorado around the village and Antioch campus. When we got to the trashed second floor of Antioch’s Student Union with its crack-house décor, my friend visibly blanched. What was he thinking, I asked?

“That I want to jump on a plane and go home to protect my daughter,” he replied.

My friend’s response was probably like that of any visitor who is sympathetic to Antioch’s historic mission but dismayed by what they find here. This could explain why Antioch’s new president, Steven Lawry, has reacted with such vehemence to the atmosphere he’s encountered on campus. If I were an Antioch student today, I’d probably be lining up to sign a petition denouncing his attempts to temper that atmosphere. But with 40 years’ perspective, Steve Lawry strikes me as just what Antioch needs at this point in its history.

Lawry is the first Antioch president in recent memory who’s been willing to say unequivocally that the culture on campus is so toxic that it must change. As I understand it, this is for two reasons in particular. The first has to do with Antioch’s soul, the second with its survival.

To reclaim its soul, Antioch must return to its historic mission of encouraging an open exploration of many points of view in a context of social justice. Certainly this was what Mann, Morgan and McGregor had in mind. I don’t think those presidents would have considered providing a safe haven for students with alternative lifestyles to be part of Antioch’s mission. Yet this is what the college has essentially become. In the process, rampant substance abuse has been tolerated, along with forms of communication that include “F*** you, a**hole” addressed to the president, and a student newspaper that asks readers what they would say to a “narc.” Sample answers: “Stop snitchin‚ snitches get stitches,” and “Die mother****** Die.”

Granted that this type of gangsta posturing is little more than an adolescent version of a kindergartner saying “Mommy, I just said ‘doody!’ Did you hear me mommy? ‘Doody!’ ” Still, it makes for a hostile, intimidating, aggressively vulgar campus environment. A professor I know who taught a single course at Antioch said she never would again because of the offensive way students treated her and each other. There is a word for administrative tolerance of such dysfunctional behavior: enabling. Someone on campus needs to act like a grownup, draw a line, and say “enough.” This type of behavior is unacceptable. I’m glad to see that Antioch finally has a president who is willing to do this. Perhaps he has overreacted at times, but the current toxic state of student life at the college invites overreaction. Drawing a bright, clear, firm line between acceptable and unacceptable behavior is the only way to restore Antioch’s core values.

The second reason for taking such a firm stand involves the institution’s very survival. Antioch’s enrollment has been plummeting for years. It is now around 350. Today’s Antioch resembles an endangered species that can only survive in a narrow, isolated, protected ecosystem. Should its role be to provide such protection? Or should the college temper its harsh tone and broaden its reach to attract a wider range of students? Even as well-administered, socially conscious institutions such as Earlham and Oberlin can barely accommodate all the students who flock there, Antioch has its smallest enrollment in decades. There are many reasons for this, but one of the most important is the way the college looks through the eyes of a parent. Even those who are sympathetic to Antioch’s historic mission and visit the campus to determine if this is where they want their child to spend the next four years, at an annual cost approaching $40,000, are faced with this question: “Would my kid be safe here?”

Students themselves pick up quickly — when visiting, or after enrolling — that if they don’t get in step with a certain lifestyle and acceptable range of views, their life will be made miserable. A popular campus pursuit is “calling out” those who don’t fit in. “If you can’t take the heat,” these caller-outers seem to suggest, “get off the campus.” Scores do. That’s a primary reason enrollment is so low, why so few students come to Antioch in the first place, and why so many leave after enrolling.

Antioch is a modestly-endowed institution with few wealthy alumnae. To balance its budget Antioch needs perhaps twice as many tuition-paying students as are now enrolled, at a minimum. Only when the college can assure parents that their kids will not be in harm’s way here and their tuition money will be well spent, and assure students themselves that there is room on campus for many points of view and many ways of life can Antioch hope to increase its enrollment. Does this mean becoming a pale clone of Wittenberg or Wooster? Hardly. Back when Antioch had nearly 2,000 students it was an innovative, intellectually vigorous institution filled with feisty, independent-minded, socially conscious students. Reviving the type of open, zesty, multi-hued institution Antioch once was and can be again is its best hope for survival. President Lawry’s attempts to get the college back on that track may seem drastic. However, drastic steps may be the only way to renew Antioch’s historic mission and give it a prayer of surviving.

• Ralph Keyes is a 1967 graduate of Antioch College.

Mountain Rose..
...you stated:
"To me, this would not only include irresponsible women, but men who are serial sexual offenders. This would involve the medical removal of any body part that may be used in crimes against humanity."

That's what I was referring to....I hope you found it as funny as I did.

Baseball Doc
."..it is holding their legs open when they should be keeping their knees together...Biology 101...thought you might like to know.....COLOSSUS"


Maybe men should be keeping their pants up.

Just a thought.

Mountain Rose..
...exactly!

Donaldd
I don't know what state you live in and don't care. But in my state (Washington) one of the most liberal in this country, you kill a fetus by shooting yourself in the belly. That is conserded Murder.

Donaldd:
Your initial post on criminal cases: "Frivolous Criminal complaints are filed as are Civil suits. A judge must rule on the evidence whether to procede with either a Criminal or Civil action before the court. Only when evidence justifies a need for trial is a jury needed."

That's what I was clarifying for you. DAs file criminal cases, which are totally a different issue from a civil case, which are filed by plaintiff's attorneys. The paragraph quoted above was incorrect.

HOWEVER, it looks like we're in total agreement on the status of abortion law. It seems we both agree it is, and should be, a state issue, not federal, issue.


donaldd


The Act applies only to offenses over which the United States government has jurisdiction, namely crimes committed on Federal properties, against certain Federal officials and employees, and by members of the military. Because of principles of federalism embodied in the United States Constitution, Federal criminal law does not apply to crimes prosecuted by the individual state


Titaniczilla, Kimberly, donaldd
Bushous obsessiveness
You're all infected by a disease called Bushous Obsessiveness. One symptom is this eternal obsession with Bush. You can't start a sentence without "But George Bush ......" You fill in the blank. The other tried and true symptom is the "when in doubt blame Bush for everything ..." syndrome.


RE: social stigma.
"In that vein, I also think that people - including this woman's attorneys - overlook the deterrent effect of criticism, judgment and social stigma. This woman is not to be condemned because she was "terrified" about having another child -- how many of us in her shows would FEEL the same way? One of the purposes of fear of shame, social stigma, criticism, judgment and yes, criminal prosecution, is to get us to gird our loins and do the right thing at a time when we feel weakest. "

What you say is correct with respect to the power of stigma and shame. However, blaming liberalism is barking put the wrong tree.

Social scientists have known for years the root of the loss of social stigma, albeit being a divorcee, mass murderer or a child molestor.

That cause the is the elimination of the stranger brought about by technology. The study I read was dated back in the 1970's before the cell phone and the Internet were not included. But even bacl then they had pinned down that three inventions thathad eliminated the stranger.

1.) The Automobile. The Automobile single-handedly let men run away from the families and be somewhere else in 24 hours. Women were easier to keep at home before the automobile because walking distance was pretty much it.

2.) The telephone. They have interesting studies to show how men regularly lied to their wives about conditions in the outside world to keep them at home. With the advent of the telephone, women could easily have daily contact with other women to begin comparing notes.

3.) The television. Television, more than anything, normalized mores and principles. Television also overnight became the preferred form of socialization for people. Your T.V. is not going to put a social stigma on you or embarass you.

The studies done back then were on women who married American GI's during WWII and after and then were brought to the U.S. By all accounts it took on average 7 years before the expected docile servants became westernized and started challenging their men on equal footing. Expectations about women being servants and hand-maidens, fetching newspapers, cooking and cleaning without thought were soon dashed.

Of course one can blame liberals for TV programming even during the 1950s, but the real impact TV had socially is that it is psuedo-socialaztion. We feel like we are socializing when we are not.

Therefore, today we no longer have a social notion of a stranger in our community. We are all strangers. Social groups are formed fast and the groups life expectancy is fleeting. Given groups are self-selected then one can be joined or abandoned at will and it is hard to imagine in this modern era ever applying a social stigma and making it stick.

replies Laura Hollis
some replies..

For Laura Hollis..You said, and I believe you were referring to me:

"5. I appreciate the observations about treating individual people kindly. But to my way of thinking, that is the same kind of muddy reasoning that people use when they say, "Judge not, lest ye be judged." No one can claim to know anyone else's culpability in the eyes of God. But that is not the same thing as saying that the behavior is not subject to criticism. Can you imagine the insanity if we could not, as a society, condemn certain behavior? Oh -- wait a minute -- we're already seeing that."


Not really Laura Hollis. Being kind and "muddy reasoning" are two very different things..

Being kind is also not the same as throwing out a phrase like "judge not lest yee be judged", particularly if the phrase applies..And it did..

I don't agree that "No one" can know of another's culpability in God's eyes either, although we might not know all of His mind, we have a very good understanding, as Christians, where He stand son right and wrong and sin..

I think I understand what you were trying to say..

I think your comments were coming from the camp of..don't be too kind or too loving, because that could be mistaken for letting bad behavior off and is therefore not a fair or true critique.

But I never meant what I said that way.

My words were a clarion here, most specifically for Christians..

Unless you are one, and especially value your faith, what I had to say may fall on deaf ears..

It is possible those with faith might have also not appreciated my words..

Their loss really, because that kind of insolance, or ignorance, usually comes to bit folks back in the backside, whether or not we forgive them..

I see no disparity, again, and I said this before, between being honest about bad behaviors and flawed ethics and displaying that distaste and dislike in a kind and respectful vein.

Brian-reply..
Brian, you said this to me:

"MrsV: It's very commendable that you want to love your enemies. I don't. If they earn my hate, they're going to get it. I leave it to other, gentler souls to do that. That having been said, I don't hate someone just because they disagree with me politically. That's not what this country is all about. That also strikes me as a very unpleasant way to live one's own life. Going through life hating, probably, most of the world? That's a recipe for insanity. I don't think anyone here "hates" anyone else here; we don't even know each other. Ridicule doesn't necessarily equate to hate."

I am not sure that simply following what my Lord wants and commands is "commendable" of me, but I guess it may be, thank you Brian. I am well aware of the fact that Christians, Conservatives and even the liberals here may not "hate" one another. As you are not a Christian, you may not have gotten my full point. I just think at this point in dialogues with, or about, Liberals it weakens my argument, particularly as a Christian, to make rhetorical slurs about them...

Or make unfair judgments about their poverty or socio-economic state..Particularly when WE may be MUCH much more materially blessed AND fortunate. Not perhaps me, personally, but other Christians.. ..We need to be wary of unfair judgments about anyone, them...

But that's not the crux of this story or issue...This story about this young girl needs to be a MUCH bigger story than it has been in the news...Mainly because of just a few things. First, and in no special order:

It sets, and reinforces a new precedent about law when it comes to murder. Judges giving this woman a free pass are effectively saying: 'Not only is this act acceptable, but any man or woman in similar shoes should feel fine about acting out in such a way someday'...

So there is an evil precedent set here. It should be a story with as much fanfare as, say, the Schiavo girl story, where the state and the judges starved her to death. Cold blooded and premeditated acts are no less than this murder by this young girl.

Despite my talk of love and how we are to treat others, it no more softens me on this thing. By any standard, even Liberal ones, they so fond of talking themselves in circles, without coming to firm and fair definitions of Good and Evil, this is an act of murder.

The baby was full term, a human being by any standard. This we all can agree. Letting this women loose on the streets is comparable to them saying:

'We are happy to let killers go in America, especially those who vocally kill their own youth"...

I don't care about lawyers wanting things *for* the client. They do that client, and society, NO good by closing their eyes to such insane and wicked behavior and throwing her back on the street.

Let me be clear...

As loving as we must be as people of faith, we do NO loving act or kind gesture by making things easier for those who willfully commit terrible acts or crimes, by letting them walk with no consequences.

I gain nothing by just being loving if I cannot speak the Truth. Right and Wrong must always come into play, when we talk about Truth.

Letting this woman walk away is almost the ultimate crime by the judges here, and not just some craze misguided youth!

For all intents and purposes, these judges have committed a greater crime, by making this seem alright, or legitimate, cold blooded murder of one's vulnerable child, in the eyes of society, and all humanity.

God knows what kind of H e l l they will be about to pay..

Yes, Liberals, generally, have no fear of God, as they don't care to know His standard...

So, often, such concerns are just happenstance and fly out the window...



Horrible, Orwellian Precedent
Horrible, Orwellian Precedent

And, if you read my previous comment, if this is the horrible new precedent about:

Babies, parents, people, killing and murder, then it stands to reason, that by the likes of these judges..

A person, in a mad fit, or just for selfish reasons can commit a crime like it’s just anything..

Extend that idea to things like, for example, Eminent Domain...

Well they can now legally seize our homes...

In all of this how far are we from these sick judges making ‘’laws’’ to seize our loved ones, God forbid...our babies? Our children...

Can someone say Nazis anyone?

I can...

Nazis...


Kimberly..Hun, get a grip...
Kimberly

Hun, get a grip...

You have mis represented the important things Kevin has said here...

Your senseless and juvenile vitriol is babbling around the most important things...

A woman killed her own child in cold blood...

Apparently, that means nothing to you...

MrsV: I'm not a Christian?
Really? Because I don't think the same as you? What makes you write that statement? How do you know anything about me or my faith?

Donaldd: Right. Got it.
I apparently misunderstood. Thanks for clarifying.

BrianR
BrianR writes: Sunday, October, 22, 2006 1:42 PM

>>"liberal dialog
Interesting post. However, don't forget that conservatives have tried to pass an anti-abortion amendment, and it was defeated "

That was his point!

This is still America, Brian. A minority of Christians still cannot impose its religious dogma on everyone else, in violation of our Constitution ... for now.

And it's amzing to me -- all the looney-right screeching on this page -- where nobody seems to have checked the actual facts of this case.



AP-R: It probably surprises you to know
that you and I agree on this. That was actually my point, too.

In my convo with Liberal-Dialog, I was just trying to correct his facts, not dispute his, or yours and my, point.

I'm a very strong believer that this is clearly a state issue, not federal.

BTW, AP-R
I'd like to invite you to take a look at an essay I just posted on my blog, entitled "On War nad Partisan Politics". Aside from the fact that I just shamelessly plugged my blog, I think you might actually find quite a bit with which you might agree. I'd certainly welcome your comments, and I promise you that I treat everyone who reads and comments on my blog just as I would guests in my house.

Ignorant AND judgmental!

Bigotry means judging an entire group by the actions of a few ... whether done by the Klan of old ... or by the looney right of today.

McCullough uses this story -- which he misrepresents -- to condemn all of liberalism, and to actually --- shamelessly -- claim that liberal feminists favor the shooting of children.

This is followed by 117 responses (so far) -- mostly screeching (like conformist Chicken Littles), "the sky is falling, the sky is falling ..."

No one ... not a one ... bothered to check the facts, before unleashing their frenzied anti-liberal hysteria. SHAME on you all.

The judicial ruling was based on the wording of the statute, which applies to "killing the fetus of ANOTHER."

Wipe the egg off your faces.

Blaming the prosecutor would be more accurate -- but that wouldn't permit mindless liberal-bashing. And we do have a constitutional ban on ex-post-facto laws.

A travesty --- of course --- but hardly the godless liberal conspiracy described here by ....

.... ignorant AND judgmental, what a combination!

(They will now attack ME -- shoot the messenger -- which is their mantra)


Warrior
I do not know the exact quote..but Thomas Jefferson once said that it might take a bloody revolution every 10 years or so to keep the freedoms.

It is just possible he might have been right.

Buck
He wrote that the tree of liberty needs to have its roots periodically nourished by the blood of patriots.

Not an exact quote, but the gist.

BrianR
BrianR writes: Sunday, October, 22, 2006 8:39 PM

>>>"AP-R: It probably surprises you to know
that you and I agree on this. That was actually my point, too."

I caught that.

>>"In my convo with Liberal-Dialog, I was just trying to correct his facts, not dispute his, or yours and my, point "

L-D is usually pretty sound -- meaning not a knee-jerk partisan :-) ... but I had no idea where he was going here.


Stu - "role” or “roll” model?

Stu maybe I’m wrong. I took “roll model” as “roll” in the hay. It was funnier that way.

God resists the proud…

“The truth is liberals…lack moral discernment that values innocent human life and can clearly and easily draw a line between moral and immoral actions. And in my thinking that lack of moral judgement has corrupted nearly everything else they touch.“-Kevin McCullough

Kevin thanks for this conclusion. What has happened to the culture for a young woman to murder her unborn child? This is the definition of the phrase ‘without natural affection’ found in the depths of human depravity given in Romans 1.

The same kind of corrupt thinking that cannot condemn this act is what is infecting the whole culture. We are told that abortion avoids the problem of an unwanted child. Does anyone wonder why the child is unwanted? It is written that ‘children are a gift of the Lord; the fruit of the womb is a reward.’ [Psalm 127]

From the prophet Moses, “Proclaim the name of the Lord: ascribe greatness to our God. He is the Rock, His work is perfect; for all His ways are justice, a God of truth and without injustice; righteous and upright is He.” [Deuteronomy 32:3-4]

Whatsoever is built on this Rock will endure. What is built on the opinions of men will go the way of men to corruption and death. Men suppress the knowledge of God and conclude that what they can see is all there is. The lack of moral judgment is the result. ‘As a man thinks, so is he,’ so this does effect everything else. The change in the way men think leads to the cultural decline.

After the graphic depiction of human depravity given in Romans 1, the apostle presents the doctrines of redemption. The only remedy for our corruption is to know the immutable God revealed in Jesus Christ. We have the truth revealed about God and about ourselves. Our great need is grace to believe it. Grace to overcome our pride and admit our helplessness.

‘God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble.’



Buck & BrianR


buck writes: Sunday, October, 22, 2006 8:46 PM

I do not know the exact quote..but Thomas Jefferson once said that it might take a bloody revolution every 10 years or so to keep the freedoms.

-----------------------------------------------
BrianR writes: Sunday, October, 22, 2006 8:50 PM

He wrote that the tree of liberty needs to have its roots periodically nourished by the blood of patriots.

-----------------------------------------------

You're both right.

But Buck was recalling my own favorite Jeffersonian thought.


What he believed was that each generation had to stage its own revolution -- he saw liberty as an ever expanding battle, in which our founding was only one milestone.

This is perhaps why Jefferson is revered on both the left and the right -- and why libertarians proudly deny being either left or right.

Jefferson knew the value of properly adopted constitutions -- but his historical sense would also support the NECESSITY for a "living, evolving" constitution.

Bluntly, Jefferson would have been appalled at the thought of a 21st century America, still governed by the constitution of his own generation.

Here are selected excerpts from his letter to Samuel Kercheval Monticello, July 12, 1816 -- on reformoing the Virginia Constitution (already!)


"Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the arc of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment. I knew that age well; I belonged to it, and labored with it."

"Let us follow no such examples, nor weakly believe that one generation is not as capable as another of taking care of itself, and of ordering its own affairs. Let us, as our sister States have done, avail ourselves of our reason and experience, to correct the crude essays of our first and unexperienced, although wise, virtuous, and well-meaning councils. And lastly, let us provide in our constitution for its revision at stated periods. What these periods should be, nature herself indicates. By the European tables of mortality, of the adults living at any one moment of time, a majority will be dead in about nineteen years. At the end of that period, then, a new majority is come into place; or, in other words, a new generation. Each generation is as independent as the one preceding, as that was of all which had gone before. It has then, like them, a right to choose for itself the form of government it believes most promotive of its own happiness; consequently, to accommodate to the circumstances in which it finds itself, that received from its predecessors; and it is for the peace and good of mankind, that a solemn opportunity of doing this every nineteen or twenty years, should be provided by the constitution; so that it may be handed on, with periodical repairs, from generation to generation, to the end of time, if anything human can so long endure. It is now forty years since the constitution of Virginia was formed. The same tables inform us, that, within that period, two-thirds of the adults then living are now dead."

http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/P/tj3/writings/brf/jefl246.htm

Example

If you read it all, you'll see that Jefferson thought the Senate was bad because of unequal representation. At the time, Senate representation was a compromise to maintain state power in a rough sense to the confederacy.


In a sense, one generation abandoned Jefferson by adfopting the direct election of Senators.


But -- as I argue in a column linked below -- a later generation SHOULD have seen a new reason for a US Senate appointed byu state governments -- the original Senate provided an EXTERNAL check on the runaway growth of the federal government.

See my "Reinventing Federalism" at
http://libertyissues.com/federalism.htm

The new idea: an expansion of what libertraians call "competing governments" as the only way to control government power.

Restoring the old federalism -- or the origianl constiution -- means restoring soemthing that we know has failed.

Reagan was no so stupid. He knew we needed a NEW federalism, and tried to launch one -- I'll show you why he failed.








ValiantForTruth
ValiantForTruth writes: Sunday, October, 22, 2006 9:29 PM

>>>"From the prophet Moses, “Proclaim the name of the Lord: ascribe greatness to our God. He is the Rock, His work is perfect; for all His ways are justice, a God of truth and without injustice; righteous and upright is He.” [Deuteronomy 32:3-4]

>>>"Whatsoever is built on this Rock will endure."

Let's all pray that you are wrong.

Just a few verses earlier. Deut 13, God commands us to immediately stone to death all other prophets and their followers -- even if means slaughtering your own wife and children.

Even Islam isn't THAT barbaric.


What seems to be missing here
Is the question whether the law could be bent and stretched to include this woman's crime without the unwanted side-effect of being applicable to some poor lady who couldn't tell the signs of placental detachment from intestinal discomfort and a pregnancy that was "bleedy."

It's like the case of the lady who would not consent to a Caesarean because she didn't want to ruin her "perfect" stomach, and lost one of her twins as a result. The law cannot force someone who is assumed to be competent to undergo a medical procedure, and the tragic results in this case don't change anything.

Donaldd
I hope you cited a Virginia statute, then, seeing as federal does not apply in this case.

jerubaal
jerubaal writes: Sunday, October, 22, 2006 9:40 PM

>"I hope you cited a Virginia statute, then, seeing as federal does not apply in this case "

If anyone had seen the Virginia statute, including McCullogh, they'd have seen that the "killer" is not guilty.

But then we wouldn't have a "conspiracy of Godless liberal judges" to screech about for several thousand words. :-)


McCullough Lies

"Skinner's liberal, pro-abort lawyer used the Clintonian tactic to argue the meaning of "any person" and defended his client by saying the word meant "any one other than" Skinner. "

Uhhhh, no ... not according to news reports.

The statute cited by the prosecutor defines as a crime killing "the fetus of another"

The defense argued, and the judge agreed, that it was her own fetus -- which is why the case was dismissed.

In other words, the fetus had to have been "any one other than" Skinner's.

One more time, I must wonder why McCullough is even allowed his repeated spewing of nonsense on TownHall.

If we expect moderate Muslims to stand up to THEIR extremists, then when do we stand up to ours?


Is this Town Hall or The Enquirer?

Where in this column is there anything about liberals shooting children?







Reply: Anti-Partisan_Righty

Thank the Lord that the New Covenant has come!

With the NC comes the need to discern between that which is old and that which is new. We can agree that stoning belongs to the old, and in the old there was a need for it.

The character of God doesn't change, but His dealings this His creatures does. This is called progressive revelation of the covenant of grace.

If you care to engage further check out the article on the blog entitled, ‘Discerning between laws in the kingdom’. It was written for folks like you.

Brian-Because you told me..
Brian said to me:

"MrsV: I'm not a Christian? Really? Because I don't think the same as you? What makes you write that statement? How do you know anything about me or my faith?"

I'm not up for games Brian..

I replied as I did because you told me..
and others on one of Kevin's previous boards here, that you were not a Christian, a few weeks ago.

Your were asked, as I recall, in quite a point blank way, and your reply was that you weren't or that you "never said you were" a Christian.

ALSO, if you WERE a Christian, you would not have to play games or be coy about it.

It would be plain.

A Christian worth his, or her, salts does not have to lie or puss y foot or cover up his or her being a Christian and a person of faith.

Now if you are intimidated to be free with that here, well that's quite another story..

But, from what you shared, in addition to various comments you have made here, including your advocacy of "hating" people, and having no problem with it..as opposed to Christ's admonition to love your enemies..

(*Notice I didn't say don't hate Evil..which is a GOOD thing..)

..I would say that was any thinking person's, particularly true Christians, set of insights from all you've shared on these boards and presented.

My purpose for commenting here is not to get lost in quagmires, talking about the details of why some man has a problem with being clear about yes or no and his faith.

You may consider yourself a "Christian". Many people do, and they are not..

I can call myself a candy-striper or Judd for the Defense, it doesn't mean these things are true..

No matter how much I may, or may not, want them..

There has not been much I have seen either way since those comments to make your "faith" very clear here, Brian.

The scripture says by their fruits you shall know them.

I can't, and won't, apologize because that's a quandry for you..

I have never met a real Christian sincere in their faith who has had a problem sharing their love for Christ, and His will.

Not ever.. in 17 years..

You may be some kind of "Christian" by your sights, but some of what you've said does not jibe with any Christian standard I've ever known..not really..

Now it is true I don't know *all* about you, but I know about Christians, real ones..and what God's Word says about these things..

I don't buy that a sincere Christian would deliberately pretend *not* to be one and then be hazy about God's Truth..

That's my perspective, and that's the truth..

You're free to argue the facts of what I have seen, and not, about you by way of your replies on this board, Brian...

But not if I don't want to..;^)




ValiantForTruth
ValiantForTruth writes: Sunday, October, 22, 2006 10:02 PM

>>"Thank the Lord that the New Covenant has come!"

You scare me.

>>"With the NC comes the need to discern between that which is old and that which is new. We can agree that stoning belongs to the old, and in the old there was a need for it. "

In other words, people like you decide which words of God should be obeyed and which should be ignored.

In this case, you even tell us that Deuteronomy should be both revered and ignored.

How con-veeeeen-yent.



Brian- GSW vs Abortion
Last time I checked fatal self-inflicted GSW and abortion and assisted suicide all ended with the same result.
Taking of life.

BrianR
BrianR writes: Sunday, October, 22, 2006 8:42 PM

>>>"BTW, AP-R
I'd like to invite you to take a look at an essay I just posted on my blog, entitled "On War nad Partisan Politics".

Read it.

Liked it.

Left a few positive comments ... and one thoughtful one. :-)


Anti-partisan_righty
The new covenent simply means that man is not bound my the laws of Moses because Christ died on the cross as payment for our sins and offers us a way, through faith in Christ as Lord and Savior, to have a personal intimate relationship with God through Christ both now and throughout eternity. Before Christ the only payment for sin was death-spiritually,emotionally and physically. There is no contradiction there in what ValiantForTruth wrote.

Where is spell check...
enough said

Mrs. V -- a bit TOO Christian?

Mrs.V writes: Sunday, October, 22, 2006 10:04 PM

Mrs. V questioned BrianR's Christianity:

>>"ALSO, if you WERE a Christian, you would not have to play games or be coy about it.
It would be plain.
A Christian worth his, or her, salts does not have to lie or puss y foot or cover up his or her being a Christian and a person of faith"

I speak as one who disagrees with Brian on almost everything ... and as an atheist.

After a few months of debating Brian on many issues, I have never doubted his sincerity or his Christianity. And I appreciate this opportunity to state that I admire him for not using his faith as a holier-than-thou battering ram, unlike too many others here.

His faith may not be as blatant as some here ... but he gives Christ no reason to be ashamed.


APR still an ignorant fool
He hasn't read Deuteronomy and still hangs on that one passage. His brain is missing the cells which let him realize those laws were for Gods people wandering 40 years in the desert.

Did you know you can be executed for speaking the wrong words in this country? Its called treason and espionage. That is just because you can cause the deaths of many with such a tactic. Yes it can get your spouse executed too.

Analogies aside, there is no way to know why God passed that law to Moses. It was 3300 years ago!

He thinks his morals are above God's - why I have no clue but I am sure he has some mystical power we know nothing about. God of course sees this life in addition to all eternity -but what does he know, right APR?

He still refuses to answer why the religion of peace shoots nuns in the back, stones homosexuals, cuts off social workers heads, forces conversion at the end of a gun, ...etc.

Concerned
Concerned writes: Sunday, October, 22, 2006 10:48 PM

>>"The new covenent simply means that man is not bound my the laws of Moses ..."

I know what it means, you arrogant twit.

It means -- to some -- that they can pick and choose which parts of Deuteronomy should be obeyed, and which parts should be ignored.

Man's law over God's law ... dressed up with fancy language.