Kevin McCullough

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.

But in Skinner's case there was no punishment, no sentencing, no consequences. And the fault on this point sits with the lawyers and judges involved.  

Liberals fundamentally lack a moral compass. That is why they can harp on a homosexual Congressman for flirting with other men when he is a republican, but when one of their own sodomizes a Congressional page - they merely "censure" him when alive, and call him a "roll model" when he dies.

The judges in the Skinner case could not discern the "humanity" of an innocent child that only wanted to live, over the "choice of convenience" of the woman who pulled the trigger and splattered that child's brains across her car's front seat.

Skinner's attorney asserted that going harder on his client would've put the judicial system into the position to turn, "every expectant mother into a potential criminal." He further argued, "What if she falls under the stairs under suspicious circumstances? What if she gains weight? Or not enough weight? Was she trying to kill her baby?"

Wow, how completely convincing is an argument that equivocates pre-meditation (driving to a secluded spot, loading a gun, and having a story made up) intent to kill (pointing the gun at her stomach) and murder (pulling the trigger) to the amount of weight a woman gains?

The truth is liberals don't care because they 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.