Sunday, January 8, 2012

911 Tells Mom "Do What You Have To Do": Oklahoma Mom Sarah McKinley Kill...



Thank goodness we are still able to bear arms in America. As a mother with children, you had better believe I would shoot to kill if someone entered my home to harm me or my babies. We have every right to defend our homes and our families. And I fail to understand why other nations have taken that right away from their citizens. 

Story below:

A teenage mother shot and killed an intruder after a 911 operator said she was allowed to defend her infant son and herself with force.

Sarah McKinley, 18, killed Justin Martin with a single gunshot wound on New Year's Eve when he forced his way into her Blanchard, Okla. home and came at her with a long hunting knife, ABC News reports.

The deadly encounter occurred about a week after the young mom's husband died of cancer, according to TV station KOCO. Martin darkened McKinley's door on the day of her husband's funeral, several days before the shooting. He claimed he was a neighbor who wanted to say hello, but she didn't open the door.

Martin returned with an accomplice on Dec. 31, and they tried to force their way into the modest house. When McKinley heard the men trying to break in, she called 911.

She also holed up in her bedroom with a 12-gauge shotgun and a pistol, while she put a bottle in her three-month-old son's mouth.

"I've got two guns in my hand -- Is it okay to shoot him if he comes in this door?" McKinley asked the 911 operator.

"I can't tell you that you can do that, but you do what you have to do to protect your baby," the dispatcher told McKinley when she asked a second time. The call went on for 21 minutes as the men powered their way into McKinley's house.

Police found Martin slumped over a couch that McKinley had used to barricade the door and pronounced him dead on the scene, TV station News 9 reports. They said McKinley's use of force was justified.Eventually, Martin kicked in the door and charged at her with a knife, but McKinley fired before he could injure her.

56 comments:

Silverfiddle said...

More scum of the earth being shot to death by homeowners would probably lower the rate of break-ins.

We have a make my day law here, and the conservative DA cuts a lot of latitude to homeowners. Probably 2-3 people a year are shot breaking in to someone's home, and the overall burglary rate is very low. These two facts are probably related.

D Charles QC said...

A brave mother doing the right thing.

Ducky's here said...

Why doesn't the right ever focus on the more common story of hubbie going bonkers and blowing away the family in a murder/suicide?

Take your choice. There are no guarantees and there's always another side of the coin.

Life may be more random than we are willing to admit.

dmarks said...

The murder suicides are a tiny fraction compared to the instances of homeowner defense in the parent post.

jez said...

How many intruders are shot dead in self-defense every year?

Leticia said...

Silver, I agree. I believe every home should have a weapon of some kind, that would deter any low-life from even contemplating breaking in a home.

Charles, yes, and such a young mom, at that. I am proud of her.

Ducky, those are rare instances or rather somewhat isolated instances, I know they do happen, though. Break-ins occur all of the time. And as a mom who is sometimes, rarely, alone at night with her small children, you had better believe anyone trying to break into my home, will be shot and taken out. No one messes with me or my babies, ever.

Dmarks, exactly. You hear about it on a daily basis. We need to instill some fear into those scum bags heads.

Jez, no idea? That would be interesting to find out, though.

Debbie said...

In some states you cannot protect yourself this way, the "castle law" or something. You are required to retreat. Even in this case some were questioning whether she "had the right". So stupid.

Where we lived one time, the sheriff told me if anyone tried to break in on me "shoot him, then call me and I'll help drag him inside". That's my kind of sheriff, ha

This is a sad case, the mother was only 18, newborn baby, husband had died on Christmas day I think of cancer.

Debbie

Liberalmann said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Liberalmann said...

Debbie, I know facts are optional with wingnuts but no states disallow the use of deadly force on your private property and the 'Castle Doctrine' expresses exactly this.

I am for gun rights and I'm glad Obama is as well. I don't support assault rifles or concealed weapons. Some loony, redneck states (Arizona, Tennessee, Georgia, Virginia) have even passed laws recently allowing concealed weapons in bars.I guess it's a good way to thin the herd of morons, lol!

Ducky's here said...

Might as well allow them in bars. The extreme gun loons have had the law changed so they can go to church strapped.

Leticia said...

Debbie, I like that Sheriff. Sounds like a true protector of his citizens.

Liberalman, what's with the name-calling? Anyhow, In 2007, Obama voted for a bill that permits concealed weapons to be carried by retired law enforcement officials, but is adamantly opposed to concealed weapons being carried by American citizens. Where have you been. He has never supported our 2nd Amendment rights.

To lib and Ducky, I believe that even in bars or any establishment, owners should have the right to bear arms to protect their properties.

Would I bring back the old west, no, but most people are very responsible with their weapons.

Jersey McJones said...

It's irresponsibly simplistic to suggest we "all" have weapons in our homes, for both statistical and realistic reasons. For example - I sleepwalk. Sleepwalking can be very dangerous. I've started cars, left doors and windows open, spoiled the fridge, spoiled the fish tank (if you catch my drift), and much more over the years. With that consideration in mind, it would probably be pretty crazy of me to keep a gun. Just the same, I do have a couple of legal "weapons" at home to protect myself and mine, and one of them is a dog.

Burglars and rapists and such are much less likely to attempt to break into a home that has a dog, even a moderately sized one.

Most people, like myself, don't have a problem with people owning guns in general, for hunting, self-protection, etc. But we manufacture far more guns than we than the legitimate market can absorb, guns have flooded the streets of our inner cities, and flow to all sorts of bad actors abroad. We simply can't account for all the guns and ammo out there, and much of it is in the hands of dangerous people.

We need simple, national, as least intrusive as possible, regulatory and registration and sales systems so that we can try to finally start to get the guns out of the hands of the bad guys. I can't see what the problem is with that.

If that intruder from Leticia's story had a gun, there's a good chance they all would have been dead, even the baby.

JMJ

D Charles QC said...

I tend to side with JMJ's views but note I am a Brit.

Regardless of my point of view from a legal standing, the fact is that fatality from violent crime in countries that have a prohibition on domestic fire-arms is much lower.

When Australia quite successfully got rid of the last bastion of weapons after the Port Arthur Massacre, the rate dropped a stagering level.

Now I know about your Constitution and the history that built your nation - so that is why I tend to nod with agreement at JMJs comments. I find it "beyond words" that there are semi-automatics and basically weapons of war in some homes. It reminds me of that criminal nut-job whom shot up innocent people in Liege last month, remember? What a cache of weapons he had!

Teresa said...

Good for her. Her shooting the intruder was absolutely justified.

Obama is the most anti-gun President in U.S. history.

dmarks said...

Ducky said: "The extreme gun loons have had the law changed so they can go to church strapped."

There's nothing "extreme" about protecting basic Constitutional rights. IF you don't like guns, don't own them. Problem entirely solved.

The only individuals who actually count as "extreme gun loons" are those who commit crimes using firearms. and you will find that the NRA-types tend to come down harder on these actual loons than non-NRA types.

dmarks said...

Liberalmann careless said about conceal carry: "I guess it's a good way to thin the herd of morons, lol!"

Actually, crime and violence tend to go down in the wake of enacting concean carry. So much for your wish for there to be more violent deaths.

Leticia said...

Jersey, I agree. I don't mind having regulations. Your sleep walking must be very difficult on your wife. The refrigerator must have been a nightmare for you all.

Charles, which is why Jersey mentioned regulations. Background checks are done for automatic weapons I believe. Honest citizens register their firearms.

Teresa, yes he is. And even the Democrats, well some, were not comfortable with his stance to ban citizens from carrying or owning firearms.

WomanHonorThyself said...

lets pary we dont lose these rights hun.:)

Malcolm said...

I heard about this story on the radio last week. Good for Ms. McKinley.

Here is some info about President Obama and his stance on the 2nd amendment:

http://mediamatters.org/research/201103170004

dmarks said...

Malcolm: Do you have something to provide that is a little more balanced than a Democratic Party blog/campaign site?

I won't even click such a link knowing it is Media Matters. Media Matters tells me what Democrats think of issues, rather than actually what is going on with these issues.

And on matters like Glenn Beck, it's a purely partisan tit-for-tat.

Similarly, I won't go to Newsmax or Limbaugh.com to find out the facts about Republicans.

Malcolm said...

dmarks: Will these do?

http://factcheck.org/2008/09/nra-targets-obama/

http://www.politicususa.com/en/palin-obama-guns

I'm headed out the door now, but I'll be back to respond in more detail to your comments.

jez said...

Let, it would be interesting to find out how many, and we'd need to if we wanted to back up dmarks' claim that murder suidides are a tiny fraction of them.

Leticia said...

Angel, maybe we should all consider joining the NRA?

Malcolm, what is amazing this was a very young mother, mourning the loss of her husband, and still had the strength and courage to stand up and protect her family.

Jez, just this morning I heard about a murder/suicide. It's awful. I wonder where we could find such statistics? I'll do a bit of searching.

Leticia said...

Obama voted to ban hundreds of rifles and shotguns commonly used for hunting and sport shooting
Illinois Senate, SB 1195, 3/13/03

Obama endorsed a ban on all handguns Independent Voters of Illinois/Independent Precinct Organization general candidate questionnaire, 9/9/96 Politico, 03/31/08.

Obama voted to allow the prosecution of people who use a firearm for self-defense in their homes Illinois Senate, S.B. 2165, vote 20, 3/25/04

Obama supported increasing taxes on firearms and ammunition by 500 percent. Chicago Defender, 12/13/99

Obama voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting
United States Senate, S. 397, vote 217, 7/29/05

Obama opposes Right-to-Carry laws
Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, 4/2/08, Chicago Tribune, 9/15/04

Liberalmann said...

Obama has done nothing to curtail the 2d Amendment. He has supported it and signed a Bill allowing private citizens to carry weapons in a National Park!

dmarks said...

Liberalmann's comment above is directly and decisively contradicted by Leticia's list above that of actual votes by Obama in violation of second amendment rights.

Leticia said...

Dmarks, even with actual proof, liberals still refuse to accept it.

Magpie said...

"I fail to understand why other nations have taken that right away from their citizens."

Alright, as the foreigner, I'll bite:

I'll never persuade you of anything because of your cultural addiction to guns, but anyway...

Having a gun is often percieved as a cowardly thing to do. It's a thing loser posers do.

"Look at me, I couldn't run as far as a block I'm so unfit, but I got me a gun so I'm real tough"

Adjusted for population size, you are eleven times more likely to get shot in the US than in Australia, where we have fairly strict gun regulation.
(You can have certain types of firearms, you just require a licence – like you do for driving a car).

The number of firearms-related deaths in the US is equivalent to three 9/11s every year.

Many are kids who found their parent’s gun and played with it.

There is NO WAY I would ever accept US-style give-any-idiot-a-gun laws in my country.

Malcolm said...

Here is a link which provides some context on Obama's voting record in regards to gun control:

http://factcheck.org/2008/09/nra-targets-obama/

The bottom line is that President Obama is a gun control advocate. That's no big secret. However, this does not make him anti-gun.

dmarks said:

"Do you have something to provide that is a little more balanced than a Democratic Party blog/campaign site?

I won't even click such a link knowing it is Media Matters. Media Matters tells me what Democrats think of issues, rather than actually what is going on with these issues.

And on matters like Glenn Beck, it's a purely partisan tit-for-tat.

Similarly, I won't go to Newsmax or Limbaugh.com to find out the facts about Republicans."

dmarks, it's understandable why you wouldn't appreciate the excellent work done by Media Matters. I did get a chuckle when you compared them to Limbaugh.com and Newsmax. That's like comparing the Beatles to Milli Vanilli. In case it's not clear, Media Matters are the Beatles in my analogy.

Teresa said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Teresa said...

Relying on Media Matters telling the truth is akin to thinking that Al Qaeda isn't the enemy.

D Charles QC said...

I think the US in general has painted itself into a corner when it comes to partisanship in the media. The victim is the public, context and availability of getting accurate and unbaised reporting.

There is no need for finger pointing, all sides do it and the problem is rather than getting rid of it when it became over the top, it was just do it more, harder and who cares that everyone knows it.

We could do an argument on who did it first - was it the concept behind FOX? Arguing that it was countering CNN would be flatery to CNN whom we have to be honest have been following the same standard (a touch liberal but willing to bite anyone from anyside if it came to it). I think FOX started it and it just spiralled out of countrol. Media Matters is certainly not the type to deny the existance of Al Qaeda but it is certainly only there to target the Right and critics and thus is a waste of space. Having said that the Right has got it down pat when it comes to agenda based media outlets and then there are the real far-right with even more sinister motives - literally to sway your emotions, build your fear, hate and again - context, truth and the average American is the victim each time. FrontPage and WND fans, are you getting the drift?

I have said for the last twenty five years that I dream of the day that we can return to quality journalism where the only factor was the subject itself and nobody in our outside the media cared if you were left, right, fat, skinny, short, dark, tall, female or even gay.

Teresa said...

Fox News would not have been needed if all the major news outlets hadn't veered far Left, off of the reservation. Yes, Fox leans right but for the most part, they report you decide - during the day. Bill O'Reilly may be included in that too. CNN leans Left in the same way that Fox leans Right. The cable channels all do spin during some parts of the day. And, they all have opinion shows during some part of the day. But, many news channels have become mouthpieces for this administration covering up many stories that would cause the public to look unfavorably on the President and highly distorting other news stories.

D Charles QC said...

The problem with that argument Teresa is that the other networks do not have a single authoritarian leader whom actually gave a daily brief to its editors telling them the slant for the day and pay particular attention to not contradicting the Bush Administration.

Rupert Murdoch has been around for a lot longer than most of this mess, his experience in Australian and British Tabloid Media (he is the master of Tabloid) had his skills refined.

All sides have a lot to play but when it comes down to pointing some fingers, Rupert Murdoch is a catergory in itself and FOXNews has proven to be obedient. WorldNetDaily and NewsMax are, like Media Matters, just alternative mouthpieces for political parties (or thier interest groups) and should be shunned, if for anything, for claiming without a glimmer of guilt, to be honest media outlets. Now that is shameful.

D Charles QC said...

Perhaps Democratic Senator Al Franken said it most colourfully. He argues that mainstream media organizations have neither a liberal nor a conservative political bias, but there exists a right-wing media that seeks to promote conservative ideology rather than report the news.

He may have a point....

Teresa said...

Not even close. There is a Left Stream Media which primarily promotes Left-Wing ideology. CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, and MSNBC versus one lowly conservative balanced network, Fox. Rupert Murdoch's son is a progressive who was in charge of the tabloids in the U.K. and look how that turned out.

D Charles QC said...

Think again,

Young Mr Murdoch was given control of the NewsPaper empire - the one that is financially going down the tubes anyway. Dear ol Rupert has his hands only on the money making ventures which includes Fox.

We are talking about decades of savy here. As for the list you gave, non have shown a direct allegiance or have been controlled by a political oligarch like Rupert. They certainly had a leaning but it would be, in my honest opinion, totally misleading to call Fox one lowly conservative balanced network" and even Fox would call that insulting!

If anything, to fight percieved liberal left-wing bias from so many networks, it would explain the over-the-top full hard-right bias of Fox.

Do not get me wrong, I detest the bias in any of them. When I watch news I watch five different channels to ensure that nothing is missed out and I am talking SKY (Murdoch), BBC, CNN, Reuturs Channel, Al Jazeera English and TVE (Spain's government Channel). My comments about Fox is what is clear and evident and my being many times over the decades placing and in fact winning compensation for clients against abuses by Rupert's empire.

Malcolm said...

Teresa: Can you back up your claim that Media Matters doesn't tell the truth?

Teresa said...

Malcolm,

Definitely. Can you provide proof to back up your claim that Media Matters tells the truth?

Malcolm said...

Teresa: Your response is that you definitely can prove Media Matters doesn't tell the truth. However, instead of proving it, you try to turn it around on me. Is that the game we're playing?! That's pretty weak. When I've talked about the numerous times Fox has lied and distorted, I'm ready and willing to back up what I say. I'm not going to ask any of you Fox supporters to prove they tell the truth! With that being said, here are a few examples of where MM was right on the money in their research:

Bill O'Reilly and Laura Ingraham smear Planned Parenthood:

http://mediamatters.org/research/201201050021

CBS runs error-filled report on "New Solyndras":

http://mediamatters.org/research/201201130017

CNBC's Bartiromo Adopts Right-Wing's Boeing Falsehoods:

http://mediamatters.org/research/201110310007

Since I don't want to go into an in depth back and forth about Media Matters in the comments section here, I'll give you the opportunity to prove that they don't tell the truth. If you're game, you can write a guest post at my blog in which you detail how Media Matters has shown a pattern of lying.

According to my watch Teresa, it's "put up or shut up" time for you. >;]

D Charles QC said...

Though I think Media Matters is a political mouthpiece more than anything else, it does (as can any such site) report facts. Additionally, if it is a retaliation to an attack then they will not only make sure that it is correct but will milk it and rub it in. Media Matters produced a number of items on the bais of the Washington Times and they have been pretty accurate. There war with Fox is public so they will also correctly point out every single error or bais on Fox. The rest, that is up to the Democratic pundit management that steers it for their own political use....

Apart from that, I will have to say to be fair that it is Teresa's turn to put some proof in the pudding...

Leticia said...

Magpie, there will always be some morons that find a way to acquire guns illegally. But most law abiding citizens register their guns, as I have. I live in a dangerous neighborhood, there have been two shootings across the street, cops are always called in. So, yes, in my case, if someone breaks in, they are there to do me harm and my children harm. I will defend my home and our lives. I wouldn't even hesitate. And thank you for your input. It is appreciated.

Malcolm and Charles., I stay away from most liberal media sites, but on occasion they get it right. As I posted on another post, I get some of my information from liberal sites as well.

Teresa said...

Malcolm,

Your the one that first made claims of Media Matters truthfulness and then turned it around on me so stop with the dirty tactics and accusing me of what you actually did. That is another example of the Left's dirty tactics.

Bill O'Reilly and Laura Ingraham did not smear Planned Parenthood. The main purpose of PP is to perform abortions. You might want to actually look into PP's claims, their own statistics, rather than just believe them based on their word. Using their own statistics LifeNews. proves that Media Matters distorted the facts and lied.

http://www.lifenews.com/2011/02/23/new-planned-parenthood-report-record-abortions-done-in-2009/

http://www.lifenews.com/2011/04/11/politifact-misleads-in-bashing-jon-kyl-over-planned-parenthood/

"This document, dated February 2011, shows Planned Parenthood affiliates nationwide did 332,278 surgical abortions or abortions using the dangerous RU 486 abortion during in 2009.

That’s 2.5 percent more abortions than the September 2010 report the abortion business released covering 2008 and showing it doing 324,008 abortions, which was a 6.1 percent increase over the 305,310 abortions it did in 2007. The 2007 figure was itself a 5.3 percent increase over the 289,750 abortions Planned Parenthood did in 2006."

BTW - I didn't claim that Media Matters lies all the time. What I claimed is that they either distort the facts or lie much of the time.

Teresa said...

"With approximately 1.2 million abortions done annually in the United States via surgical abortions or the mifepristone abortion drug, Planned Parenthood has increased its share of the abortion industry to 27.6 percent of all abortions done annually.

The new document the abortion organization posted shows Planned Parenthood provided prenatal services to merely 7,021 women and referred only 977 women for adoption services. These numbers were a 25 percent drop in prenatal care clients and a whopping 59 percent decline in adoption referrals from the 2,405 adoption referrals in 2008. The abortion business helped only 9,433 prenatal clients in 2008, down substantially from the 11,000 women it provided prenatal care to in 2007 — showing health care given to pregnant woman has fallen substantially over the years.
Continued -
As a result, Kyl is correct because 97.6 percent of pregnant women going to Planned Parenthood are sold abortions while less than 2.4 percent of pregnant women received non-abortion services including adoption and prenatal care. That’s up from 96.5 percent of pregnant women going to Planned Parenthood getting abortions in 2008."

Media Matters got the 3 percent wrong. You actually have to dig deeper and do a search on PP's website to find out the truth.

D Charles QC said...

Teresa and others.

I'll tell you what erks me about all sides when it comes to issues and agendas.

Note, I am a Catholic and pro-life with abortion under strict criteria. Now having said that I am a lawyer specialising in social justice and the subject of abortion comes up regularly.

Teresa, your post shows some areas that I have issue with. Not the stats, I am sure they are correct, it is how it is presented and how it alters context and this is the bit that erks.

For instance your post says:

The "abortion business helped only".

To references, is it a business, does it help, the word "only" implies failure. Is it a social service? Get the point, yours (or whoever if you cut and pasted) have already put a twist and slant simply by the language. It goes on...


"showing health care given to pregnant woman has fallen substantially over the years.
Continued "

So now it is health care (not business) and actually the "substantial" is disputable and potentially a legally flawed statement - what other choices of health services were given or in fact taken? the facts are not there but the spin is, why is that?


"97.6 percent of pregnant women going to Planned Parenthood are sold abortions while less than 2.4 percent of pregnant women received non-abortion services including adoption and prenatal care".

"...are sold abortions...." now we are back to business, selling and dehumanising PP yet somehow if they chose otherwise they receive "services". There is no reference, evidence that PP are coersing and selling and again, such a statement leaves the potential for legal retribution.

There are the equivelant of PP in both Britain and Spain (of which I am registered to practice in). What comes across my desk often is the emotions from both sides that turn into accussations that turn out to be far from the reality. Organised agendas only add flames and more wider distribution of the lack of reality.

Again, I am pro-Life so I have my position, having said that, I am sure that spins and abuse of context happens on all sides - be it pro-abortion or pro-life - as in the examples that I have just given in the text shown in the posting. I actually am tired, fed up and close to detesting game-play with facts for agendas.

With all respect, of course.

Teresa said...

Why don't we all just bow down to the perfect D Charles QC (major sarcasm) who knows how to say words just right always and defend the pro-choice crowd when claiming to be pro-life. Your nitpicking about how the pro-life people word things while innocents are allowed to die in the name of choice is repugnant to me and I am so sick of smug people like you and Malcolm who act like a bunch of know-it-alls when you give fodder to Hitler likes such as the pro-abortion industry. In your mind you might think that your pro-life but the way you write does a great disservice to the pro-life cause. There is a war going on against innocents and has been since Roe v. Wade so if you don't like certain terminology just get the heck over it. The abortion industry is worse than what Hitler Did. It has murdered many more lives than Hitler did.

Apologies to Leticia for my tone but I've had it with liberals and politics in general.

Over and out.

D Charles QC said...

Teresa, I had it with a number of types of people and frankly speaking your in all three categories.

I chose to believe something but accept the rule of the majority and will not play the "spoiler" because the majority do not think like myself. My Church, of which I am an active and faithful member, ruled on what is "pro-life" and also rules on participating in life. Thus, I "had it" with spoilers.

Another "I had it with" is those that pretend to stand for principles but cannot accept the actual one that they claim to love and adore so much - it is called democracy. They want it but cannot simply handle it. They become sarcastic, slither like snakes around it but when it comes down to the crunch, they cannot accept it in totality.

The last thing "I had it with" is the so called "wannabe real conservatives" whom are in fact neo-fascists in reality - in otherwords, they want it their way or no way and would rather sink the ship, not play ball and kick and scream. The like to play the moral superiority but in fact it has to be "their morals", not anyone elses - such as the majority. They have no room to manouver and if someone disagrees with them then they must be liberals or RINO.

Teresa, just so you get it - your everything that I dispize - you must believe that your way is the only way, the only solution and you condemn absolutely everything else. You immediate go for the "old hate" excuse that anything else is liberal. Now, learn something. I am a paying member of the British Conservative Party and have been for 32 years. I have been at various points the Chair, the Treasurer and the Secretary of the local Conservative Party over these three decades. The Party chose to disband because of Gibraltan identity - I chose to remain one of 11 Conservative Party members still paying from their pockets here.

Why am I saying this? Because your an idiot and "everything I have had it with" when it comes to fascists pretending to be conservatives and whom if you actually ask, wouldn't know a Conservative or a Liberal from a can of catfood and your own lunch. I hate armchair blog-furnished wannabes.

With all respect madame (and to the blog owner), you really pick em.

Leticia said...

Teresa, no need to apologize.

Charles, wow, okay...I have some difficulty comprehending your "conservative" stance when most of the time your words point out "liberal." Now that may not be entirely accurate but you do tend to defend more liberal propaganda than conservative. Just an observation.

Anyhow, I am not a Catholic nor do I claim to know the religion, but from what I have learned, through, some very devout practicing Catholics, that they truly believe in every word that is in their bibles, they do their best to adhere to the teachings.

D Charles QC said...

Leticia,

If you carefully read what I say, I actually defend those that do not defend themselves and do not really push my own stance. I tend to question and put an emphasis on what may in fact either happend, did happen or was possibly the intention.

That should never be construed as being my own personal view nor that of say, a liberal, an appeaser nor weak.

What I most certainly do is push people and provoke to get out their real views, or more importantly, how much they is talk and how serious they are about their views.

In the case of the above, it is quite clear that there are three types of conservatives in America. Those that simply follow conservative values, those that think they are conservative but follow a mix and are libertarian and then there are those that claim to be real conservatives but are in fact by their extremeness and polarized views actually no longer actually being real conservatives. They are also the first ones to condemn and mock anyone else as being liberal, socialist, etc, etc.

Now I understand that British and American Conservativism in politics is quite different - but the core values and ideals are the same. You have a serious problem in your country by having this last element having a say. They simply should call themselves something else and the Conservatives in America should purge themselves clean.

The Catholic Church makes itself as clear as can be in regards to issues like abortion. It also makes it clear that the only way to deal with matters is through participation and education, not in-your-face damnation. Thus, you have a situation such as Spain, a majority Catholic Kingdom that allows gay marriage and a bit liberal on abortions. Doctors and clerics are free, if not encouraged, to make it clear to the public how they stand and the public are free to chose.

The point is because the public vote for something, they get the majority, thus they make the rules. For those of us who did not vote that way must accept, that is democracy. Somehow, there is an entire political spectrum in your country that says democracy is only when it follows my way and that is simply wrong.

With all respect, a great number of the Tea Party, people like Teresa and perhaps to a degree even yourself are losing grip on what is conservatism and democracy.

Malcolm said...

Teresa: Your first paragraph is a bunch of circular logic so I'll just let that lay.

When I took a glance at the 2 detailed comments you left about Planned Parenthood, I decided to wait until the weekend when I had more time to research them and follow up. I need not have bothered waiting. I went to both of the Life News links you provided and found they are cherry picking the facts. Their agenda was also clear because in the two articles, only 1 of the 7 links about Planned Parenthood‘s figures actually linked back to PP. The other 6 links were to stories Life News wrote about PP.

The argument Life News is making (along with Sen. Jon Kyl and O’Reilly/Ingraham) is that Planned Parenthood’s core business is abortion. That’s simply not true. In both of the Life News reports that you linked to, they are focusing on the services provided to pregnant women. However, pre-natal services is only a small part of what PP does. You should take your own advice and really look into the work PP does. I actually did research on them last year. Ironically, it was due to a slanted post you wrote on your blog about them.

When you visit the link below, you’ll see that STI/STD testing and treatment rank 1st (38%) in terms of the types of services PP provides. Life News is only looking at the services provided to pregnant women.

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/PPFA/PP_Services.pdf

It appears you did one of two things:

1. Took Life News at their word and didn’t even bother visiting PP’s site yourself
2. Visited the PP site and ignored the information which didn’t fit into your narrative

Regarding Jon Kyl’s false statement about PP, a spokesperson for him later claimed the senator’s remark "was not intended to be a factual statement but rather to illustrate that Planned Parenthood, an organization that receives millions in taxpayer dollars, does subsidize abortions." So he knew when he made those comments about PP that what he said was BS! As far as I know, Steven Ertelt (the author of the two Life News articles you linked to) and O’Reilly/Ingraham haven’t recanted their false statements about PP. If you or any other pro-life advocate wants to argue about the number of abortions performed by PP, that’s a worthy debate. However, you should at least be straight up and not ignore the numerous other services provided by PP.

Media Matters was right when they reported that abortion services made up 3 percent of PP’s medical activities in 2010.

Teresa's attempt to prove that Media Matters distorts the facts or lies much of the time= Strike 1! If you want to step up to the plate again, be my guest. However, if the Life News articles are the best you can do, you should stay on the bench.

Teresa said...

Malcolm,

You're the one who is misreporting and skewing the facts to fit your own agenda.

Teresa said...

D Charles QC,

It evident that you believe in moral relativism and do not stand for pro-life principles. I am pro-life and walk the walk instead of only talking the talk and only claiming with words that you are pro-life like you do, only giving the pro-life lip service out of feeling an obligation but not what is truly in your heart. You may say you believe in Catholic dogma but do you really believe in Catholic beliefs. And, btw, the United States is NOT a democracy, it is Republic. Your the type of person who equates the poor with the unborn. You wrongly do that. The matter of how we help the poor is a matter of prudential judgement and an unborn life - the abortion issue - is not a matter of prudential judgement. Your the type of person who equates the pro-choice movement and the pro-life movement as equals. That is a false dichotomy. You are the one who needs to go back to morality and Catechism 101 class. Your the one who needs to stop it with your arrogant smugness of moral superiority. What you claim I did is what you actually did. If this was my blog I wouldn't have been so nice to either you or Malcolm.

Malcolm said...

Teresa: So in light of the info I provided about how Life News and other pro-life advocates have smeared Planned Parenthood, the best you can do is reply with a "I'm rubber, you're glue" defense?! Come on, that's weak as hell!

Let's see if you can answer these questions honestly about the 2010 Planned Parenthood link included in the Life News article:

1. Did STI/STD testing and treatment rank 1st (at 38%) when it came to the services provided by Planned Parenthood?

2. Did abortion procedures only make up 3% (ranked next to last) of the services done by PP?

3. Did Life News distort the facts by making it seem as if abortions make up the majority of the services PP provides?

"If this was my blog I wouldn't have been so nice to either you or Malcolm."

Teresa, that's hardly a revelation.

Teresa said...

Malcolm,

Let me take a deep breath and re-examine this issue in a calmer state. In. Out. Ok. Now, as I understood it, the disagreement was originally about Fox News, and Media Matters was offered as a source of evidence for Fox News presenting distortions and lies instead of facts. O'Reilly and Ingraham claimed that abortion is the "core business" of Planned Parenthood. Media Matters said that was a lie and offered as proof the statistic that abortions made up only 3% of their medical services. Clearly one side or the other is either mistaken or actively deceiving people. I contend that it is Media Matters. The 3% statistic is irrelevant to the claim that Planned Parenthood's core business is abortion. More relevant is the fact that abortions produce 40% of PP's reported income, more than any other single category of services or revenue producing activity combined. The rest of their income, 60% comes from other services, private donations and federal funding. No one category of revenue-producing activity equals let alone surpasses that whopping 40%. That makes abortion Planned Parenthood's core business, because the business is what makes money. Other services are offered, but they do not fall under the business category if they do not produce revenue for PP. It's a simple concept. Business is what makes money. Abortion is their core business because it make more money than anything else they do.

Malcolm said...

Teresa: Your original argument was that the main purpose of PP is to perform abortions. You even linked to two Life News articles (both of which focused on the number of abortions performed by PP, not the dollar amount those abortions generated for PP). Since I debunked the “proof” you provided that Media Matters was wrong with their 3% figure, you want to change the argument to revenue. OK, I’ll play along.

I went back and listened to the O’Reilly/Ingraham segment again. When they used the term “core business”, they never framed it in terms of revenue. Instead, they focused on the number of abortions performed. Also, Bill said that when you walk into PP, “You know what it is. You know why they’re there”. That statement falsely implies the number of abortions performed by PP outnumbers any other service. Were Bill and Laura referring to revenue when they said “core business”? If they were, why didn‘t they cite any dollar amounts? The segment would have been better if there was a guest who served as a counterpoint. Not only would the segment have had some balance, but maybe the counterpoint person would have asked Bill and Laura to clarify what they meant my “core business”.

Even if Bill and Laura did state that 40% of PP’s revenue comes from abortions, they still would have been wrong:

http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2011/apr/21/ronald-renuart/florida-republican-says-abortions-make-37-percent-/

You did the same thing Rep. Renuart did. You’re claiming the abortion income percentage makes up 40% of PP’s total revenue instead of just its health center (clinic) income. Those are two different things, as you can see from the PP report linked to in the Politifact article.

Now, it could be true that most of PP’s health center income comes from abortions. However, we don’t know this for sure because PP doesn’t release those figures. Besides, medical costs vary from location to location. Now, if you’re upset about the high cost of abortions, don’t hate the player (in this case PP)… hate the game.

Also, Laura Ingraham was wrong when she claimed PP spends 56 million a year on lobbying.

I want to point out that only one of the Media Matters links I provided was related to Fox. MM’s mission is to monitor, analyze, and correct conservative misinformation in the U.S. media. This means anyone is open for critique (including such so-called left-wing media outlets as CNN, ABC, and NBC). I think it just seems like MM only targets Fox because they are the biggest offender when it comes to conservative misinformation in this country.

By the way, are you going to answer the 3 questions I posed to you about Planned Parenthood and Life News in my previous comment?

Malcolm said...

Teresa, where ya at?!