It makes one wonder just where we are going…..


The Perfect Question

I have been listening to the news lately, and this post has nothing really to do with politics or democrats or republicans. I just want to ask everyone, just where is this country heading?

On the news here in Indiana, over the past few days has been a story of a couple who beat their infant girl to death with a belt. And in the weeks preceding her death, she was tortured by the parents.

Now here comes my question again. Just where are we going?

What is wrong with our country when we have parents torturing their little children, and then killing them with a belt?

The story went to trial today, with the parents going to court over this. It seems that Child Protective Services are the ones that really screwed up here. Months ago, these two parents were hauled in for abuse on the little girl, and the government took her away from them, only to give her back to them. NOW SHE IS DEAD! What in the heck is the problem with this country?

Growing up I don’t remember anything about parents killing their kids. Now I am sure that it happened, but I doubt if it happened with the intensity that it is happening now. And the problem here is people, that this horrible story of an infants death isn’t the only one. I hope they get the most that the law will give, with no chance of parole. Period! Killing that little girl was totally uncalled for.

And the problem is, that isn’t the only one that I have heard. There was also a story like that out of Georgia too. I don’t have the details on that one, but we have to get back to the moral and just America of the past, and get away from the PC crowd that is destroying this country. Stop believing the drive by media, and start listening to your common sense and your intelligence. Listen to your heart. Cause if we don’t, this violence that we are seeing will only be the beginning. Our futures will be a hell of violence. Mark my words on this people. If you don’t believe me, look back over the last few decades, and notice the increase in violence to the youngest and the most vulnerable in our society. We have to stop it. Turn back to God, or your higher power. Everyone has one. Look to your conscience and stop the bad we are doing to one another. And always remember, we need God’s blessings now more than ever.


God Bless America
God Bless our Troops and with their mission
God Bless my Readers and listeners

-Robert-
-Dwana-

And Tomorrow, I have a show planned at noon, eastern time at: Tired of all the Liberal Rhetoric Show Hope you come by and listen.

About Robert P. Garding

I am a Reagan Conservative, who is very alarmed at the Liberals who have just lost their majority over our government, but continue to act like it never happened. They have to be stopped. NOW or even sooner.
This entry was posted in Conservative Talk Blog host. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to It makes one wonder just where we are going…..

  1. jinno says:

    I cannot begin to imagine how anything could justify harming a small child. It’s sickening, it’s sadistic, and it’s a damned abuse of undeserved power. Child wouldn’t do as you said? Yell at her, maybe, but BEAT her? Downright atrocious.

    Violence of all sorts on this planet needs to stop, and while I respect your belief that we need to return to a state of moral righthood, you can’t just say end violence in America. That’s only part of the problem. You have to end violence everywhere, and it’s a downright insurmountable assignment that this country has seemed entirely unwilling to proceed with as of late.

    I don’t care if they killed people of our country. Mourn those lost, and set up a better defense. But under no circumstances, belief in God or not, should anyone attack and kill another in anything but self-defense.

  2. elwoodin says:

    Saying violence of all sorts needs to stop is a grand Idea. But we have to also realize, that some people are HELL BENT on the violence and if we do nothing, then they will kill us. Us standing by and allowing them to do their violence or trying to peacefully stop their violence isn’t going to work. For people like that the only way to stop the violence is to beat them into submission like we did in World War II with Germany and Japan. The islamic fanatics that are now our enemy stand in that catagory and beating them into submission is the only way that we will ever see a peace out of them. Think what you will, but mark my words……this is true. And if you and your liberal friends get what you want, and we pull out of that war, then we will all suffer those consequences of turning tail and running when we should have stayed and beat them instead. We need to get the job done…..the job that we started. We do not want another Vietnam, and that is where the Liberals are leading us.

    I do not want to be there anymore than you do, but we have to win this. If we are to be safe, and have a peace on our shores, we have to win this.

    -Robert-

  3. JMK says:

    Jinno countries DO NOT and CANNOT act as individuals can, the “rules” are very different.

    For instance, we cut off Japan’s access to oil and iron in 1941 and they “defended themselves” by attacking Pearl Harbor.

    As expected, America “defended ITself” by eviscerating Japan’s Armed Forces across the Pacific and ultimately dropping two atomic bombs on Japan, after they refused to surrender after seeing our tests.

    Individuals, however, are free to act in entirely different ways. For instance, the other day Redskins Safety Sean Taylor was gunned down in his own home, apparently by marauding thugs looking to rob the place.

    It was reported that he went for a machete and locked his bedroom door.

    I was shocked to read that, because, in my view, he SHOULD’ve known to have gone for a shotgun (preferably a 20 gauge since they shred flesh very well, but do far less damage to the walls and doors…a free tip to any self-defense devotees out there) and made sure that NONE of those marauders left that house still breathing.

    I know I have a slightly different view of “self-defense” than some of the more religious among us, but personally I could never let anyone get off my property once they broke in…and I only have about an acre and a half of land on which to stop such folks.

    In my view, a homeowner SHOULD be able to find out who (if anyone) sent the intruders, what their purpose was, etc. and gleaning that kind of information often requires what is euphemistically called “extreme duress.”

    I understand Sean Taylor (a relatively wealthy man) not having a body-guard, but not having (1) a silent alarm to notify him of intruders and (2) the firepower to protect his home at the ready, is beyond me.

    As for “Corporeal Punishment,” it is actually, at least in my view, UNDER-USED in Western societies. Sure, with very young children (under 5), a stern “NO” is often sufficient, but on older, more recalcitrant children, an occasional spanking may sometimes be required. Corporeal punishment is meant to deliver immediate discomfort, not any lasting harm.

    In society, we could save a ton of cash on prisons if we went to the practice of “caning” (beating/whipping) those who engage in vandalism, selling illegal drugs, prostitution, etc.

    The Arabs/Muslims have the “right idea,” but the wrong application. That is, they punish correctly, but they punish the wrong people! For instance “stonings” and beheadings are GREAT, so long as we stone &/or behead, for instance, pedophiles and violent thugs, and not gays or adulterers.

    The fact of the matter is that corporeal punishment DOES WORK! Caning does reduce graffitti and stonings WOULD indeed reduce pedophilia…..by eradicating the pedophiles. In fact, we could borrow a line from that Bill Murray movie “What About Bob,” and call it “Death Therapy,”…..and yes, it WOULD be “A guaranteed cure,” as it’s rather difficult to engage in child rape when dead.

    In other words, violence isn’t “always wrong,” in fact, it can be both necessary and useful. Without question, it’s certainly “WRONG” or “EVIL” when employed by reckless, irresponsible thuggish people, but it can be an effective form of “negotiation” when used by nations and it can be an effective tool in the criminal justice arsenal, when used appropriately.

  4. Dwana says:

    JMK, I just wanted to comment on your remark that your idea of self-defense may differ from that of “the more religious” folks, by whom I suspect you mean Christians.

    Yes, Christ did teach His followers to turn the other cheek, but the Mosaic Law teaches that someone who kills an intruder into his home has no blood guilt, and the New Testament teaches that the state “does not bear the sword in vain” but uses it to “execute wrath” on “evildoers”. So there is a religious basis for your view on self-defense. Just thought you should know.

  5. JMK says:

    That is indeed an interesting and welcome revelation Dwana. I was raised Catholic – 8 years of Catholic Elementary School and 4 yrs of Catholic HS, and though I am still “spiritual,” in that I am now a non-denominational deist, I practice no specific religion.

    Ironically enough, I turned away from faith and religion at a relatively early age (around ten y/o….a long, boring story) and soon went “the rest of the way.” In HS I had to read Friedrich Nietzsche’s “The AntiChrist,” (a GREAT book, despite the title) and perhaps the most eye-opening, yet plainspoken philosophy of life ever put forward in modern times.

    That “way” I took was the “way” of Nietzsche, which ironically enough, is a path that MOST of today’s anti-religious people refuse to go.

    The beginnings of that pathway is the idea that “If conventional morality comes from religion, and I see religion as a manmade harness used to control mankind, then our contemporary morality is arbitrary and capricious.”

    That path leads to a very ammoral outlook and amorality all too often leads to outright immorality. For a number of years (a little over a decade) I lived by the “rule” that “Whatever is good for me is GOOD and whatever is bad for me is BAD.”

    I repossessed cars for awhile and witnessed and partook in quite a bit of violence…sadly for me, I was always a very poor fighter, and even sadder for me was the fact that I thought I was actually skilled in that regard. Happily for me, my partner was a former Navy Seal whom I met as a lifeguard and who was indeed very good at such skills, so I rarely, as they say, “fought my own battles.”

    It’s also a long boring story about how I came out of all that, but there was indeed a moment of epiphany for me, and I was very fortunate to have taken, passed and gotten on the FDNY and found myself in a position to make a clean break with that former life.

    When I look back, as I often do, most of my beliefs during the worst of those times were what would be called “Liberal” views today, perhaps even extremely so.

    There were many things that changed my views, but one of the ones I recall the most vividly was watching Milton Friedman’s inspired 10 hour series called “Free to Choose” (an incredible series) on, of all places, PBS. I still have all ten hours of that series on VHS tape.

    Suffice to say, I didn’t only mean Christians Dwana, though I did include devout Christians as well (wrongly, as you point out), but I acknowledge that there are indeed TWO prevailing views on violent self-defense – the one goes that “If we all engage in violence we’ll all wind up dead or maimed,” while the other goes that “There are just some things WORTH fighting and risking your life for – your LIFE, your LIBERTY and your PROPERTY are a few of those.”

    Two women in government stake out those two positions very clearly – Suzanna Gratia Hupp’s parents were both killed in the 1991 Luby’s Luncheonette rampage, just as Carolyn McCarthy’s husband and son were shot on the LIRR by Colin Ferguson, ONLY Suzanna Gratia Hupp came away with the RIGHT conculion from her brush with tragedy, whereas McCarthy came away with the WRONG one from hers.

    Suzanna Gratia Hupp had a gun with her that day, but like a number of the soldiers from nearby Fort Hood, she left hers in the car.

    When madman George Hennard drove his truck through the front window of Luby’s they were all sitting ducks.

    A single armed patron could’ve stopped that attack as it began.

    Same is true for the LIRR shooting.

    But while Suzanna Gratia Hupp went on to sponsor “right to carry a concealed weapon” laws in Texas, McCarthy became an ill-informed proponent of gun bans.

    I think Jackie Mason said it best, “Anyone who favors strict gun control is a F*ckin’ moron!”

    I don’t know if Carolyn McCarthy is a devout Christian or not, but I know that many irreligious Liberals do favor strict gun control and sanctions against violent self-defense.

  6. First, let me say that the murder, torture or lesser abuse of a child is horrific. But I’m not convinced that things are necessarily worse today backthan in the “good old days”. I don’t know they aren’t, but I haven’t seen any empirical data on child abuse today versus child abuse in the “good old days.” Until I do, label me skeptical.

    What we do have now that, depending on how far back you consider to be the good old days, we didn’t have back then is 24-hour television and Internet news media with a lot of space/time to fill. A story that would have been considered to be too local, no matter how horrific it might have been, wouldn’t make it onto the nightly half-hour network news broadcast of yesteryear (actually, there was less than half an hour for news contentwhen you take commercials into account)–there just wasn’t time for it. Today CNN, Fox News and the Internet outlets are hungry for any story to fill their airwaves.

    And because of greatly increased competition in the news business, there is an even greater need to stand out from the news crowd ,in order to grab ratings, so, now more than ever, if it bleeds, it leads.

    Maybe things really are worse today–I can’t say for sure one way or the other–but until I see some empirical evidence to that effect, I’m going to remain skeptical. Then again, that should NOT be taken as an excuse to do nothing.

    On your point about religion, according to the Pew Research Global Attitudes Survey report released on Oct. 4, 2007, (http://pewglobal.org/reports/pdf/258.pdf), “Americans tend to be more religious than the publics of other affluent nations.” And the other surveys I’ve seen suggest that the belief in and practice of religion is declining (significantly in some cases) in most of the rest of the free world, but it is still very strong in America. So I am also skeptical about a lack of faith being the cause of problems of violence against children in the U.S. I haven’t seen any conclusive data but, if anything, the anecdotal evidence from the rest of the world, where I don’t think child brutality levels are any higher than in America, would suggest the opposite.

    FULL DISCLOSURE: I’m not an American (I’m Canadian), but neither am I an America hater. Quite the contrary, I think the founding principles of America — freedom of speech and conscience; freedom of religion and, yes, freedom from religion (my personal choice); life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness — are second to none in the world. As to my politics, you would probably label me left of center (although in my country I’d probably be labeled middle-of-the-road or slightly right of center). Then again, I hate labels because on some issues I’m very liberal, but on other issues I’m very conservative.

  7. Monty says:

    It happened in the past, you just didn’t hear about it. Mainly because the courts did what little they could and then the family/friends/neighbors took over.

    In the United States as I remember, we took care of problems, rather than closing our doors and waiting for CPS to step in, and fail.

  8. Monty says:

    Jinno, I am just now reading the responses.

    I came from an abusive household and experienced this horror first hand. So I know a bit about what I am going to say. Discipline is not a bad thing, and is not often violent. Spanking your child is not a bad thing. I have seen both extremes and a lot of the middle ground on this issue, and feel that your stance on eliminating all violence is a bit too broad. As towards other countries, I think you are totally off base. Violence can only be countered and stopped with force, as has been evidenced by the entry into nearly every war on this planet. Also you have to decide to definatively stop the violence, which often takes a very violent act to bring that end about. Thus violence is often a necessary evil. I don’t know about your background but hope you can at least see this is often the only way to stop someone evil.

    Another way to look at it is what will you do when someone puts a gun in your face? Will you beg for peace or will you fight back? Which do you think will bring about the result you desire?

    JMK, with today’s construction materials, it doesn’t really matter what gauge, that crappy moulding they are putting out in these new homes, it just shatters. But he might have had some good oak stuff, which might have held up better.

    Joel, good point about the 24 hour news media. It is true they need to sell time and fill time, which often leads to inconsequential crap being made national. Recently the hospital I work at had a baby abandoned and it made national news. Why? No one knows. We had offers come in from all over the country to adopt it, which while encouraging just shows how desperate we are for news here in the US, even when it doesn’t affect us.

  9. jinno says:

    “Another way to look at it is what will you do when someone puts a gun in your face? Will you beg for peace or will you fight back? Which do you think will bring about the result you desire?”

    I kinda ended my post with “But under no circumstances, belief in God or not, should anyone attack and kill another in anything but self-defense.”

    But if you’d like I could take a philosophical stance here, that conservatives could actually take a liking to. Jesus died for your sins by not defending himself. He could have responded to violence with more violence, but instead he took his “punishment” for the greater good of mankind. By obliging terrorists by killing in response to their killings, we aren’t protecting our country. We’re strengthening our cause.

    For every innocent father killed, a son sees Al Qaeda as a more friendly venture. For every attack on the homeland, terrorism seems a likely weapon to use as a patriot. By us accusing Iran of things that they are not doing, we are further ruining our image in the world, and only bringing nationalist values to front over there.

    A war against terror is not the same thing as an actual war. The enemy is ambiguous, and by killing to fight their killing, we only increase their numbers and add to their strength. For everyone over there fighting for this “One Nation, Under God”, the Radical Moslems are touting propaganda of a nation trying to steal them from their ways.

    We could have defended this nation by simply using defense. Stengthen security, increase patriotism for the cause of defense. Instead we’ve chosen the path of intervention, and we’ve increased the hostilities that others have with our country.

    We removed the Taliban. That’s a good thing. We removed Saddam, that’s a good thing. But the longer we stay there, the more money we spend, and the more hostilities are brought against us. Troops are either going to kill or be killed, and either scenario strengthens the terrorist cause.

    You’ll argue against me on this, but for now I’m not saying any more on the subject. Two wrongs don’t make a right, and you should never take an eye for an eye.

  10. JMK says:

    I see where you’re confusion lies Jinno, we aren’t fighting a military war against “terrorism.”

    We fought two military wars against rogue Arab/Islamic states (Iraq & Afgahnistan) that harbored, supported and allied themselves with terrorism.

    The Taliban harbored al Qaeda in Afghanistan. After 9/11 we demanded they hand them over…they did not…they needed to be invaded…and they were.

    In Iraq, Saddam’s regime cooperated with an al Qaeda led camp called Ansar al-Islam in northern Iraq AGAINST a common enemy, the Kurds. Saddam Hussein also used a strategy called “Detterence by Doubt,” in which he encouraged the belief that iraq had stockpiles of WMDs. The strategy was so effective that not only did the CIA, M-6 and the UN, to name a few believe that Saddam’s Iraq had WMDs, but so did Saddam’s own generals!!!

    The rightful fear the West had was that Saddam Hussein, who had already forged a coopertative allignment with al Qaeda in northern Iraq, might hand over some of those WMDs to al Qaeda…that was a chance the West (especially the U.S.) couldn’t take after 9/11/01.

    The post-Saddam occupation of Iraq has been a rebuilding effort on the part of the Western Coalition and a training effort to bring Iraq’s new military and police forces up to the level where they can protect their own government.

    It seems like you said “I support us going into those nations to eradicate those two regimes and wrecking their shit, but I oppose vehemently any rebuilding and/or training efforts on our parts!”

    You know what? I kinda felt the same way early on. I felt that we should’ve just toppled Saddam and re-partitioned Iraq along ethnic lines and let’em “fend for themselves,” but that’s been shown to have been a road to ruin, with the Kurds forging an independent Kurdistan and warring with Turkey and others, the Shiite Iraqis reuniting with Persian Iran and the Sunni Iraqis left to perhaps become refugees into Syria and Saudi Arabia.

    Monty’s right, in his response to you, that “As towards other countries, I think you are totally off base. Violence can only be countered and stopped with force, as has been evidenced by the entry into nearly every war on this planet. Also you have to decide to definatively stop the violence, which often takes a very violent act to bring that end about.”

    WW II justifies that stand, so did the Cold War…we needed to run the former USSR into the ground and see it destroyed, because it WAS a real threat to us.

    So is contemporary Sharia-based Islam, we can’t ignore that evil, it MUST and it will be confronted.

    The only question is, will it be willingly confronted, as is being done now, or will it be reluctantly confronted, perhaps after yet ANOTHER attack on the U.S homeland, during a different kind of administration?

  11. JMK says:

    “JMK, with today’s construction materials, it doesn’t really matter what gauge, that crappy moulding they are putting out in these new homes, it just shatters. But he might have had some good oak stuff, which might have held up better.” (Monty)
    <
    <
    I largely agree, though 20 gauge shotguns do tend to do less structural damage than the conventional 12 gauge…honestly though, I just feel bad that this guy was targeted because he had some money and some thugs were able to get into his home and gun him down without incident.

    Whatever these scum get, it’ll be a lot LESS than they deserve….they deserve to be shot in the thigh and bleed out, but even that isn’t enough, because they can’t be made to feel the numbing loss that Sean Taylor’s family will endure for the rest of their lives.

    What we’re going to see is some dipshit defense attorney trying to make this gaggle of thugs appear like victims – “victims of society.”

  12. Dwana says:

    First of all I want to say to Joel, while I’m glad you admire America and her governing principles you make the same mistake anti-religious zealots here make. Just so you know Joel, there is NO right to freedom FROM religion in the American Constitution. There is a right to freedom OF religion, which is a very different thing.

    Freedom from religion requires, almost by definition, state repression of religion. It requires taking away from religious people their rights to freedom of association, speech, conscience, and the press when the use of those rights is motivated by their faith. If you don’t believe me, just look at the former Soviet Union and other communist countries, past and present, to see what freedom from religion really means.

    Jinno, I don’t know why libs like you cling for dear life to this vile, anti-Amerian doctrine that America is the cause of terrorism because she dares to defend herself. This has become a religion to you lefties. Well, I’m here to make you lose your faith.

    Jinno, if we’re causing terrorism by waging the War on Terror, then please explain how 9/11 could’ve happened in 2001, two years BEFORE the declaration of the War on Terror and the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq?

    Jinno, how could the attack on the USS Cole, the bombing of our embassies in East Africa, and the first bombing of the World Trade Center have happened since America at that time wasn’t making Muslims mad by being in Iraq?

    Maybe Islamic terrorism has nothing to do with America’s behaviour and everything to do with what Islamic fundamentalists believe. Jinno, I know this idea is a threat to your political faith, but try to give it consideration. You don’t have to tell your liberal friends. It’ll be our little secret. Hehe!

  13. JMK says:

    Right on every point Dwana!

    Freedom OF religion is indeed very different than freedom FROM religion.

    For all those who revile religion, it’s NEVER been religion that has corrupted governments it’s been governments who’ve used, debased and corrupted religions…and yes, atheism is a faith or “religion” in so much as it BELIEVES in something (“there is no Creator or God”) without any proof.

    The ONLY logical viewpoint, from a purely scientific perspective is agnosticism – ackowledging that one doesn’t know, but that’s no reason to revile religion, nor to blame for things it’s not been responsible for.

    And indeed strict Sharia-based Islam had been at war with the West for over ten years prior to 9/11/01.

    Who is responsible for giving radicalized Islam its base (Iran) and a renewed legitimacy within the Arab/Muslim world?

    Jimmy Carter, that’s who. The guy who let the radical Ayatollah Komeini return to Iraq to claim that nation as a base for radicalized Islam.

    Before that, radicalized Islam had neither legitimacy nor a base of operations within the Arab/Muslim world.

    It can better be argued that the capitulation by one of America’s most Left-wing Presidents has led to the problems in the Mideast we see today.

  14. Dwana says:

    JMK you, too, are right on every point. Jimmy Carter was a disgusting coward who allowed radical Islam to gain a base from which it could more effectively wage it’s war against the West, a war which goes back to the founding of the religion.

    And the freedom from religion crowd does indeed revile religion. They use the establishment clause to give their hatred a thin veneer of legality and respectability but their goal is the total eradication of religion from society, NOT simple compliance with the demands of the Constitution. And they will use any Orwellian tactic necessary to achieve that goal. They’re dangerous, and they most be stopped.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s