"These cops" in this video should run out of the force for good. Can't handle the responsibility. Law enforcement isn't for everybody as this video attests.
It looked like they took down a second person,too. The third should sue also, as they missed him by inches. No excuse for this, period.
 July 15, 2015 at 2:30pm
These people are truly EVIL. They want us to think that guys like Kermit Gosnell are isolated but here is the proof, this is a top down corrupt and vile organization. The top CEO and top Medical director of Planned Parenthood are aware of this and seem to embrace it as a way to raise revenue! The facts about how an abortion is performed is horrifying, I know it is legal and is justified in some cases but the thought of this happening makes me so mad and the fact that I am paying taxes to pay for this to happen is unacceptable. Wait and see if anything happens to these people and their CRIMINAL actions, wait and see if you hear about this on ABC, NBC, MSNBC etc… it will be buried by the administration because it does not fit their narrative, the truth has no agenda!
What Matt either doesn't realize or more likely doesn't want the average Blazer to understand is that in reality, the majority of people are pro choice (or as he likes to call it, pro aborts.) It's just a matter of degrees. But this reality doesn't fit into his nicely tied-up characterization of who he wants you to think is part of the Pro Choice crowd. Despite facts to the contrary, he wants you to blame abortion on Liberals, and despite reality, he wants you to believe the only ones that agree with abortion, no matter how limited, are Liberals. Of course there are also both Liberal and Conservative people who do not believe in abortion under any circumstances, but reality like that totally changes the narrative Matt is trying to create and so he stays with his tired rhetoric that child sacrifice is held in deep reverence by Liberals as a way to deepen the divide no matter how untrue it is.
Once again, your idiocy shines through like the noon-day sun. Liberals overwhelmingly corner the market on being pro-abortion, but make no mistake... Matt is blaming abortion on senseless, illogical people who value their own personal freedom and happiness over human life. It just so happens the majority of this group is also liberal. We all see you must be in that group as well.
While it's true that there are many more liberals who are pro choice than there are conservatives, and while Walsh's attitude towards "pro aborts" shows who he feels these people to be, that doesn't mean Walsh actually understands who these "pro aborts" are, or that he understands that "liberalism" is not the only ideology to be blamed for abortion, as his article implies. It's just his opinion, and quite an uninformed one. I highly doubt that he believes Nancy Reagan and Barbara & Laura Bush are "senseless, illogical people who value their own personal freedom and happiness over human life", and yet, all are pro choice, as are many prominent Conservatives. And so, while they can't be lumped into Walsh's liberal criticism because they aren't liberals, by association they must be lumped into the horribly inaccurate characteristic model that Walsh puts forth regarding "pro aborts". When the facts remain that Republicans made abortion legal in the US, the highest rates of abortion have been under Republican administrations and many conservatives remain "pro aborts", his characterization of "pro aborts" is not only bogus but wholly non-credible.
From the 2012 Democratic platform (under Protecting Rights & Freedoms, curiously of all but the preborn):
Protecting A Woman's Right to Choose. The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right. Abortion is an intensely personal decision between a woman, her family, her doctor, and her clergy; there is no place for politicians or government to get in the way.
Oppose ANY and ALL efforts to weaken or undermine that "right" -- so who's extreme on this issue?
I would argue that the extreme party isn't the one who wants to retain the strength of a law, but is the one that wants to weaken the strength of a law. That's not to say that changing laws and being extreme in that determination is a bad thing, but I wouldn't call the democrats in your example "extreme" just because they want to retain the strength of an existing law.
Neither Nancy Reagan nor Barbara Bush were conservatives.
There is only one instance where someone could be in favor of abortion and still be an conservative.
And that is when not having the abortion means the mother will die.
Conservatives can say that choosing to save her life even if it means the baby dies is the right choice (and I understand not all conservatives agree on that point) because life is sacred and the mother who has been already living for a good many years and likely has a family to take care of is the one who will cause the most and worst loss, by dying.
Support for abortion just because the women does not want the 'inconvenience' of having a kid is not something anyone can support, and still be a conservative.
So you say, but that's only your opinion. Many Conservatives would say any exception would preclude you from being called a conservative. See how that works, and that's my point. Since almost all people are pro choice to a certain degree, Walsh's characterization of a pro choice (pro abort) person is screwed. It's not the degree of choice that Walsh attacks, it's the horror of the pro choice stance in general that he attacks and in which he erroneously blames all on Liberals "forgetting" that millions of conservatives are also pro choice.
 June 30, 2015 at 6:13pm
Agreed. Truth and what the author believes is based on the Bible, not the constitution. The constitution is written to prevent the government from imposing laws based on religious doctrine. If citizens agree on some of the commandments as they infringe on the rights of others then it is coincidence. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land not the bible as we do not live in a Theocracy. Sometime they are at odds and sometimes they are not. The only reason I have heard for people being against gay marriage is based in the bible, not the constitution. The bible also says divorce is sin but people don’t seem to be up in arms about that!!!!!
 May 22, 2015 at 10:21am
Libertarians argue for state control not federal, that way people have more control over how much funding and how these programs are run in each state not a blanket federal law.
Those are paleoconservatives. A libertarian simply believes in the non-aggression principle.
"Libertarians argue for state control not federal, that way people have more control over how much funding and how these programs are run in each state not a blanket federal law."
Some libertarians argue for state control, some, such as Reason magazine, argue for school choice and voucher programs only as an small step to increase freedom, not as the best choice for freedom. The author's presentation of libertarian position on education was a strawman.
As the foremost authority on Libertarianism (see name), I understand Alasdair's position. He is right that libertarians do want people to make educated decisions. Where he is so very very wrong is his endorsement of mandating education. For example, the percentage of Americans that smoke cigarettes is declining, not because of government intervention, but mainly because of privately funded groups, like Truth, who have a large ad campaign against smoking. No one is making people watch those ads. When you mandate education, people tend to not question the source. Who hasn't taken prescribed medicine without questioning the doctor if it the best choice? Many of these prescription drugs have possible side effects that are a lot worse than the affliction you are taking them for and sometimes there are alternative options. I believe all drugs should be legal and not require prescription as long as the information about the effects of these drugs is readily available. If we didn't rely on our doctors to tell us what to take, we would do our own research on what we are taking the possible side effects are, especially when it’s as easy as pushing a button on your phone and saying "what are the side effects of marijuana?".
 May 13, 2015 at 2:17pm
What about legal alcohol and prescription drugs? Much more deadly per year.
What ever it takes to get this passed! At least my kids can hopefully grow up in a world without career polititians.
 February 24, 2015 at 9:22am
Marijuana is not addictive, there are no physical withdrawals. There is a psychological withdrawal but nothing physical. My guess is that these mothers are maybe doing something else, or guess what? They are pregnant!!! Those all sound like symptoms of the beginning of pregnancy as well. Cigarette and alcohol are legal as well but we all know not to take it while preganant, same goes for pot,certain medicines, certain supplements,sushi etc…
And I guess now you'll take another toke!
Product of the 60s radical insanity...
Pot causes brain shrinkage. That is science. A teen can fully recover in three years if they quit . An adult will suffer permanent damage and by the time they are in their late 30s they will have lost 10 IQ points and have bouts of paranoia.
In 2012 over 12,000 people died in the US from MJ related accidents and overdoses. Yes over doses, this is not gamps sixties pot.
How brainwashed do you have to be to think it's legitimate to include the term "crack babies" in an article about weed?
Further, like Runeback states, there is no physically addictive compound in weed. None. So it's impossible to have withdrawals. If we're wrong, please link a study that shows evidence of a physically addictive chemical present in weed. You won't.
That doesn't mean a person can't become mentally addicted to weed. But people can become mentally addicted to anything. And for those people, it's not about what they are addicted to. It's the underlying problem that causes them to seek out something to try and mask the problem. It could be weed, alcohol, food, porn, anything. Take one away, and they'll just find some other addiction to replace it with. Solving this problem requires attacking the heart of the problem, not blaming it on some substance.
They can't seem to be able to legislate common sense or morality can they?
When you say it causes "psychological withdrawal but nothing physical", are you saying that your brain isn't a physical thing? Because that's where psychological withdrawal happens. Going on an LSD trip isn't a "physical" thing either, it's a psychological issue. But psychological issues that take place as a result of drug use are physical problems.
By your definition, cocaine has no "physical" withdrawal either. It's all psychological. Doctors used to give powerful narcotics to people in hospitals during World War II. Some became addicts, some did not. The ones who didn't become addicts were the ones who weren't afraid of pain, and who didn't feel they needed pain killers.
So by your definition, all drug withdraw symptoms are "psychological" withdrawals.
Here's a reply for the experts in marijuana. http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/marijuana/marijuana-addictive
@ mizurax and blest
I think you're both kind of missing the whole point of the article. The main message that the article wanted to get across was that ANY type of addiction to marijuana, metal\physical, has the potential to have negative affects on innocent unborn babies, and the increase of these cases due to the legalization of the marijuana.
Whether you guys wanna disagree about the mental or physical addiction aspect is up to yall. I personally KNOW that marijuana isnt physically addictive. Only mentally addictive. But I also agree with you blest on that the FACT that THC stays in your system longer than any other drug. Months sometimes as compared to the couple of days for pills, cocaine, etc.
That's being said I do feel like this opens up a whole new discussion on whether drugs should be legal. I tend lead more to my libertarian side when it comes to marijuana, and think that we should live and let live with a low powerful drug like that. It is overcrowding our prisons and driving up our taxes for these low level offenders.
But on the other hand, these people smoking weed are making their own decisions and are adults. When you add this aspect of potential harming of an unborn innocent babies I lean towards my conservative viewpoints and tend to think that nothing should be legal that could potentially hurt an unborn baby or make them addicted to any sort of substance
Source: An avid drug user from 16-23....7 years clean
Deaths by category
0 for pot. Period.
This is the librules pushing for centralized control in DC "to protect us" otherwise, they would let states make their own decisions and take pot of the same category as heroin.
Second, I have no skin in this game. I don't smoke and don't care for it.
I do care that people should have their inalienable right and free choice.
There are five naturally growing plants in my backyard and back woods native to our region that are not government controlled: one will kill in 24 hours, two will put a person to sleep in under an hour, the other 2 will get anyone high. I don't recommend any of them to anyone.
I loved weed and it was pretty hard to stop when I wanted to even when there were negative consequences.
I don't know what you consider physical withdrawals but following stoppage of heavy weed use on many occasions I personally couldn't sleep the whole night through and had almost no appetite for about two weeks.
Ok, I’ve seen this sickening article in about five places now so I’m just going to leave this here. It is VERY seldom that I feel the need to comment, but I just wanted to throw a couple cents worth of sense in the direction of the “author” of this…thing, Jennifer Kerns … Walk with me a moment.
When I first finished reading all the ignorant, fear mongering, outright lies that this article is filled with, I was beside myself, (After looking up just a tiny bit of info about the author and website it all made sense, but that’s a different discussion.) Because both my mother and I both work in the healthcare industry, this issue and its future implications in the healthcare industry are very near to me (particularly my mother though, as she works in oncology, a field that can DIRECTLY BENEFIT from THC therapies) B.S. misinformation like this article is the EXACT reason people dying of cancer don’t have access to (schedule 1) THC therapies that would at least make their last days more comfortable. Also, this rant isn’t pro-marijuana; it’s pro-journalistic integrity. Although I have partaken in the past, I don’t personally smoke marijuana these days because rules are rules and my career (in healthcare) is more important. This is about having backbone and a sense of morality about the things you publish… or having neither.
It is wildly irresponsible (and just plain wrong) for a journalist to publish PURE conjecture disguised as factual medical data. It is particularly careless when you are making wild claims of potential learning disabilities, serious birth-defects like neonatal abstinence syndrome, and intentionally misrepresenting and mislabeling chemicals as “addictive” simply to suit the negative spin you’re desperately trying to place on the issue. Having an ignorant and frankly “half-baked” opinion is every imbecile’s right, but making people think they, or their children, are in the midst of an “emerging health crisis” or potential epidemic is evil.
The problem is that the majority of readers will (and do, judging by the comments) read and take the entire article like there is some shred of truth to some part of it, overlooking the shameless and willful attempt to misinform and terrify people about a problem that doesn’t exist.
The article begins saying “the law came under fire last year for not protecting youth” as scores of kids were taken to emergency rooms after eating THC “edibles.” Well, Jennifer, the law was written with restrictions IDENTICAL TO tobacco and alcohol. It is, and always has been, THE PARENT’S RESPONSIBILITY to protect their children in general, but especially from age-restricted substances. Parents of children who ingest THC edibles have only themselves to blame for a trip to the ER. That’s the trouble with a society that embraces freedoms like alcohol, tobacco, and firearms for adults. I’ll let you look up the figures of children harmed daily by consumption or use of those two staples of American life on your own. Here’s a hint though… it’s more than “scores.” Following the same principle, during her pregnancy, it is the MOTHER’S RESPONSIBILITY to abstain from substances that could potentially cause complications, defects, etc. to her developing child, of which there are too many to name here. That being said, there is ZERO evidence that tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) consumption leads to neonatal abstinence syndrome, NONE AT ALL
(according to. Relating use of THC during pregnancy to crack use during pregnancy and the eventual birth of what Jennifer calls “undoubtedly our generation’s version of 1980s ‘crack babies’”, is a reflection of her lack of intelligence or her desire to panic parents, NOTHING MORE. You decide which is worse.
Because I majored in Journalism in my undergrad, another HUGE red flag is Jennifer’s claim “Health practitioners specializing in the field of Obstetrics & Gynecology spoke to me on condition of anonymity to report an alarming rise in pregnant patients showing up in emergency rooms and doctors’ offices and presenting mysterious complications.” (Essentially, the entire paragraph has ZERO accountability for any of its ridiculous and incorrect information) What EXACTLY is the justification for the anonymity with the physicians Jennifer claims to have spoken to and why could NONE of the information be verified by a single source? The information she allegedly received is NOT the type of thing physicians would feel the need to be anonymous about and frankly seems very suspicious from a journalistic perspective (Simple anonymous statistical data about pregnant women being admitted to the ER with specific symptoms? Are you kidding me? NO REASON for the physician’s anonymity) Jennifer repeats vague phrases like “physicians say” and “health practitioners… spoke…” because no physician in his right mind would attach his/her name to such an outlandish article. Furthermore, they would have some truly comical and unflattering things to say about Jennifer’s use of extreme overstatement with thoughtless labels like “crack babies.” This is most likely the reason that the only named sources are The March of Dimes (An organization that doesn’t even acknowledge that THC has medicinal or therapeutic qualities, check their website) and The Cleveland Clinic, a facility that ranks 46th in Pediatrics and Neonatology WITH A GRADE OF 58 OUT OF 100…That’s an “F”… making them a shaky resource for information at best, let alone the basis for a frankly dim-witted claim like babies being “born addicted to marijuana.”
I think it’s a mistake to consume ANY substance like THC, alcohol, or tobacco during pregnancy, but if outlawing THC is the only solution to protect children, where is the push to reinstate prohibition of alcohol?? Fetal alcohol syndrome (for school age children, according to CDC.gov) is somewhere between 6 and 9 children per thousand, with some estimates as high as 20-50 per thousand. If you’re confused, we call that VERIFIABLE DATA. That doesn’t even include the thousands upon thousands of children who die every year in alcohol related incidents. Where is the smart-assed quote about the benefits of that one outweighing the positives? Maybe it just didn’t hold water?
The simple fact is, unlike what Jennifer would have you believe, THE “EMERGING SITUATION” Jennifer is trying to fabricate IS COMPLETELY UNLIKE BABIES WHO ARE ADDICTED TO CRACK. (It makes a nice, dramatic headline doesn’t it? We’re trained as journalists to do these things to manipulate readers) She would have you believe that because 2 states… of 50, have legalized marijuana, that an epidemic of sick babies and pregnant women rushing to ERs in droves is on the way. This article is like “Reefer Madness 2.0″, but we’re far better educated these days; I just hope people are level-headed enough to see through these scare tactics and think for ourselves. Coining the meaningless term “pot pregnancies” and pretending to be sticking up for the “children — both born and unborn — who have no say in the matter.” Is just an attempt to polarize readers into two groups, those who want to protect babies and mothers from the evils of “pot”, and those who do not? In reality, it’s not that simple. There are positives and negatives to marijuana (just like Aspirin, alcohol, bleach, gunpowder and gasoline) that have to be DEBATED INTELLIGENTLY. These one-sided scare tactics are below us as rational adults. This is an issue we have been misinformed about time and again, but we DO have one weapon. We can DEMAND real accountability from authors and publications for the claims they make, or dismiss the things they say for what they are…junk. We deserve and should expect so much more from our journalists.
Don’t let the author of this drivel blow smoke up your asses. ; )
 July 7, 2014 at 4:05pm
April 21, 2014 at 10:59am
All started with Osiris
March 6, 2014 at 10:47am
I don’t understand how a parent cannot fall in love with their child the moment they first see them. I guess everyone is different, but I knew they were the most important part of my life as soon as they were born
Its not a matter of always 'falling in love' with their child from the beginning, but the time it takes for them to comprehend, accept, and express, how wonderful of a new world they now walk in: instead of man and wife, now it is FAMILY.
I think in such cases, the bond between all three grows even stronger than ever before.
February 27, 2014 at 2:31pm
It was bad bill to begin with. A solution looking for a problem. The whole reason it was written was the case in New Mexico when a gay couple sued a baker who didn’t want to make their cake. The law that allowed that in New Mexico does not exist in Arizona. We don’t need more laws in general.
October 4, 2013 at 1:54pm
I live in Mesa and have to say that this is not the typical mind set. In fact most people are the opposite. Based on the area of Mesa where this occurred (a town of half a million people) I am guessing this is one of the California transplants that moved here during the housing boom when they could get top overpriced dollar for their Kalifornia home and live in Arizona for less than half the price. Believe me when I say we are working hard as a community to not let this invasive mindset take over and keep the traditional values most of us hold.
June 6, 2013 at 10:08am
Remember all those who were on board with the Patriot Act when Bush muscled it through and the voices that spoke up against it. Also remember those who voted for it a second time and those who spoke against it again. Those are the enemies and the champions of the free citizens who were elected to congress.
January 15, 2013 at 11:14am
The full quote is even better
An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.
Always loved reading Heinlein. An awesome, true, and good common sense quote. Liberals will look at it and will not grok it what-so-ever.
June 12, 2012 at 4:11pm
Bath Salts are brand new they are something created in a lab like “spice” the fake weed. It has not been made illegal yet. But like spice when they make it illegal they will change the formula just a little and re-release it, because they FDA can only make specific compounds illegal. This is the game that is being played, once it is outlawed, tweak the formula and sell it again. The scary thing is that these new “designer” drugs are worse then the things they are supposedly replacing that have been made illegal for years. Decriminalizing possession of a simple plant would instantly get rid of these type of dangerous new chemical compounds that kill people.
May 31, 2012 at 11:40am
The issue at hand remains that if you redefine marriage from it’s “traditional” sense and give into one group then you have to give into every group. If gays can be married, then why can’t polygamists have multiple wives? Why can’t a bi person have a wife and a husband? Government should not involved in marriage, but is simply because of taxes and benefits. So marriage for gays tends to be more about the benefits then the definition. If two people love each other then what does it matter what it is called. If you want the same benefits then get with a lawyer to draft your intentions and make sure the other person gets the benefits of a “traditional”: marriage but don’t try to change that everyone else.
Really? There are people who still think the slippery slope argument is valid?? LOL. This was the same argument some morons put forth when interracial marriage became legal. Blacks have been marrying whites for quite some time now, and I still don't see alot of farmers marrying their pigs. No, each case is decided based on its own merits, not based on the merits of completely unrelated issues. Gay marriage should be decided on based on its own issue of equality, humanity, and equal rights, not based on bigoted fear of unrelated situations. Thats what our country is about.
I'm with you RUNEBACK!!
What? How do you define marriage? Forbidding interracial marriage was based on race, not sex (gender for those who don't know what it means). Farmers, generally, are not picketing to marry pigs. Marriage was instituted to further families. Show me the product from a 'gay' marriage and I will reconsider my position.
Perhaps one solution is for the government to cease any and all benefits based on being married or single. Then, whatever they choose to consider themselves is irrelevant. They can have a gay ol' time (pardon the pun) and the Christians can shrug their shoulders and look the other way. And think of the money the government would save, which could be mandated to go to pay off the national debt!
Why shouldn't two or more consenting adults be able to sign a contract of the unionazation of their partnership. I say remove all spousal benefits and tax breaks from all government agencies. And let people be free. Religious people can still be married and others can be civil unionized. If one man can handle 8 wives at one time I say more power to him. One drives me nuts enough.
Blacks & whites have been marrying since the dawn of history & before. They married in Spain for example. Where do you think Shakespeare got his material for the play Othello (1603 Italian novel)?
But do we have widespread gay marriage in history? Lets cite rich Greek & Roman elites who are bored & behaving badly as support shall we? Those people could bugger almost anyone so long they weren't from another powerful family. That is so gay!
You are committing a category error by comparing same sex marriage to interracial marriage. The definition of marriage is the union between one man and one woman. Telling a man he can not marry any woman who he wants would be a violation of the constitution. That is totally different than same sex marriage.
Your own argument to allow same sex marriage dictates that every has the right to call any arrangement they want a marriage. Why?
The definition of marriage is the union between one man and one woman. To say that same sex couples want to get married is a false statement. Same sex couples want to redefine marriage and believe same sex is a fundamental right.
If redefining marriage is a right for gays, your own argument dictates that redefining marriage is a right for everyone. Do you think polygamists are being discriminated against because they can't get married?
On top of that, this ruling is self contradictory. One one hand, states can not define a marriage as a union between one man and one woman because that is discriminatory but on the other DOMA prevents individuals states from defining marriage how they want.
May 24, 2012 at 2:40pm
Why, as an amateur would you crawl into a part of the cave that you had to squeeze into? That would have been the point where I turn around. Doesn’t take godly intervention or being a genius to figure that out.
March 28, 2012 at 11:53am
The Richat Structure is an eroded volcanic dome in the Maur Adrar Desert, in the Western Sahara. As the volcanic dome eroded, these onion-like layers of rock were exposed. The structure is 485 metres high, and nearly 50 kilometres across.
March 8, 2012 at 6:18pm
This link from UCLA sounds a lot like what Pollack stated