Well actually, states HAVE controlled education of the children within their borders up until even now. Common Core, as I’d think you’d know given the general claims of opposition to it of those on this site, is the first suggestion of taking some federal control over the curriculum itself. So actually, if any government is more to blame for the current state of education it is the more local.
 May 17, 2016 at 4:32pm
“Dr. Keith Ablow: Transgender Extremism Is the Biggest Issue in America”
What about stagnant wages? Or inefficient resource consumption and distribution? Not revitalizing infrastructure (water, electricity, roads, etc.), or maybe making sure people have access to quality healthcare? Or even terrorism of ANY variety–white supremacists, rogue “law enforcement”, eco-terrorists, or Islamic terrorists?
Third. True. But a predator had to be more creative in finding ways to commit his crime. Prior to Obama’s war women women, if anyone saw a man in a women’s facility, it unusual; we knew potentially could be up to no good; and anyone could call security or police. Now, it I mandated to be a common occurrence, and if a woman objects, the man can call security or police on HER for discrimination. You have to remember, this is a WOMAN’s facility we are talking about. Male sexual predators are opportunists. Before, their access to women and girls was limited. Now it will be unfettered, providing them with unlimited LAWFUL access to their victims. Before, this access was LIMITED and UN-lawful. Now, it will be Un-limited and LAWFUL. This puts the safety or women and girls at greater risk. I would have thought that this would be obvious. I guess not.
May 16, 2016 at 11:44pm
“Millennial Students Feel ‘Pressure’ to Support Clinton, Even Though They Don’t Trust Her”
Yeah, that’s called fascism, or rather the rhetoric thereof to be more specific–it’s a symptom of the fact that you don’t live in a democracy. And while the Republicans are certainly some of the worst offenders in this regard, the Democrats do little better, as these young people’s responses exemplify.
May 16, 2016 at 11:41pm
“Trump can still sway millennial females if he’s willing to stand up for issues like equal pay for equal work, paid maternity leave, reproductive freedom, sex discrimination and other GOP lightening rods.”
No one’s gonna buy that ****–he waffles as much as Clinton, and this is maybe the ONE issue Clinton has minimal waffling on (that and killing brown people by drone).
May 16, 2016 at 11:34pm
You could all surprise everyone and unite behind Sanders–he’s neither Trump nor Clinton, and that would thread the needle between #NeverTrump and #NeverHillary. ;)
 May 16, 2016 at 11:23pm
She (either) was probably talking about one or more of the crimes she (Clinton) is likely guilty of (or maybe, “likely would be guilty of, in any universe where she was subjected to a fair and just legal system”).
 May 10, 2016 at 1:26pm
I don’t wanna be “that guy,” but did anyone consider the possibility that maybe these kids maybe AREN’T his then, if he actually did have a vasectomy and it actually was performed correctly. Because to the best of my knowledge, assuming those two things, it’s pretty much physically impossible for him to have kids again without another surgery to attempt to reverse the prior one. So which is more likely–divine supernatural intervention or infidelity?
The Grahams need to be institutionalized
along with Pat Robertson.
For a little while longer at least.
Archon : Guess that's true since they still send Trolls here.
 July 31, 2015 at 9:13pm
What’s so bad about using fetal body parts if they’re going to help others? The fetus has already been aborted–I know that that’s what conservatives are really opposed to, but insomuch as they’ve yet to succeed at actually stopping it, what sense (or moral principle) is advanced by trying to stop the beneficial use of fetal tissue by others? The fetus wasn’t viable, and it’s just going to decompose otherwise. What good, exactly, is the opposition to its use doing? If anything, it seems rather wasteful and anti-life to me…
What if they were tasty too. According to your reasoning why not have a fetal sushi bar type of restaurant. After all as you pointed out ...they are dead anyway. As Hillary would say "What difference would it make"
 May 24, 2015 at 1:10pm
Oh because it would be “sacrificing a cop to public sentiment” to indict the guy who literally climbed on the hood of two unarmed people’s car and emptied clips into them? Is that how that works now?
"...sacrificing a cop to public sentiment..." is code for "holding cops to the law" or judging cops by the same moral standard as the rabble. Cops are special, don't you know that? When you kill, it's murder. When they kill, it's "cleaning up the streets". Soon, this abject submission to authority, this rationalization of murder, this national self-enslavement will backfire. But then, it will be too late. The beast will be loose and too powerful to control. Watertown was the test of public tolerance. No one fought back. No one stood up for their rights. They submitted like rabbits, like the German Jews in the '30s who justified their abject surrender as "proving themselves to be good citizens". And so they were. The Nazi's did nothing illegal. The Jews (6 million) and six million others (Gypsies, homeless, mentally infirm, poor/sick, dissidents) were all killed legally. It is called "law & order" in every country, now, as then. This is government. This is its true meaning. This is what you are supporting when you salute the flag and repeat the "Pledge of Allegiance". Are you proud to be a "good citizen"? Think again!
[-4] May 20, 2015 at 12:17pm
Yeah except the KKK killed actual people.
 May 20, 2015 at 12:15pm
Then you’re not opposed to the death penalty, you’d just apply it differently than we currently do.
 May 20, 2015 at 12:13pm
You mean “murder of innocents”?
Don’t you conservatives tend to support the death penalty? You know that at least SOME of the people who have and will be executed under such a policy are innocent, right (at least 4% by most estimates)?
Don’t you conservatives also tend to support drone bombing strikes? You have even the faintest IDEA how many innocents have been killed by that policy? Or is that just one more thing you’re OH-SO-MORAL and well reasoned ideology just blindly supports?
I do not support abortion, yet I support the death penalty, and I DO NOT support drone strikes.
Did you know that 100% of babies aborted are innocent?
May 20, 2015 at 12:06pm
Bitch were ALL just a clump of cells–the question is the scale, the functional capacity of that architecture.
Gosnell was simply using a colloquialism to refer to the relative simplicity of this functional capacity in many/most/all fetuses.
And it’s not what a thing or entity WILL (maybe) be in the FUTURE that determines PRESENT rights, at least not simply and in and of itself (as you seem to suggest in your implicit argument against the morality of abortion). Otherwise, by the SAME line of reasoning no ADULTS, CLEARLY people in the moral sense, would have rights because at SOME point in the future they’ll be dead (and this with FAR more certainty than that any given fetus would be born as a living child but for a medically induced abortion), and if we give the dead any rights (and personally I’d say we don’t, except vicariously by the rights/interests of the living) it’s CLEARLY far fewer rights than we insist on as minimally just for the living.
[-4] May 20, 2015 at 11:51am
Oh so someone making an anti-Gosnell propaganda piece thinks he’s the epitome of evil? What a surprise.
And this is what passes for “news” on the Blaze.
And look I’m not even saying that Gosnell is s good person or SHOULDN’T be in prison. He had illegal unsanitary and unsafe conditions in his clinic, which if I’m not MISTAKEN actually resulted in the death of a woman. If this is true he totally belongs in prison–and I say this as someone who is about as pro-choice as Americans come. But that conclusion, my conclusion, is based upon reasoning applied to the facts–not some unthinking emotionally reactionary projection of my religious prejudices onto a situation, coupled with a knee jerk reaction that law/policy reflect all my stupid thoughtless baseless beliefs. This little piece of propaganda passing as an “article” is just nothing more than one giant appeal to emotion and a fap to conservatives’ preexisting beliefs with no substance or analysis to it (if it’s supposed to be an editorial) or novel facts (if it’s presenting itself as a traditional “news”piece).
Maybe her conclusion is actually based on meeting and talking to the man rather than something she read or heard.
 May 16, 2015 at 7:32pm
What happened to that whole conservative BS about “personal responsibility”? It seems PRETTY DAMN IRRESPONSIBLE to KEEP having children with the same genetic mix, when you KNOW there’s a 1 in 4 chance they’ll have CF. She didn’t even have to have an abortion if THAT’S her issue–she could have avoided the whole dilemma by adopting, having kids with donor genetic material WITHOUT the CF gene, or simply not had more kids.
 May 16, 2015 at 7:30pm
No ideology is a bigger affront to the notion that ALL human life has some minimum intrinsic value than modern American “conservatism.” You people have NO moral high ground to stand upon, to pretend like your pro-birth invasion of the medical field is based upon any such high-minded principles.
You just want to insert your baseless (almost always superstitious) preconceptions about the world into public policy, without any actual persuasive grounds for anyone, INCLUDING yourselves, to think your claims about the nature of reality (the nature of, for example, fetuses specifically–and their ability, or lack thereof, to have rights). Stop pretending you’re anything more than irrational busybodies–it’s positively LAUGHABLE for you to portray your position as anything but. At least be honest about what you believe–you don’t just want to not have an abortion upon your own unproven beliefs, you want to take away that ability from EVERYONE ELSE on that total lack of any factually demonstrable basis.
May 16, 2015 at 7:20pm
In your mind apparently it can’t EVEN be that maybe you and them were placed in an IMPOSSIBLE situation with NO good options, and what EITHER of you chose was perfectly reasonable and moral, and that in either case be something that has benefits and drawbacks–something that is not a perfect choice in EITHER situation, a far from perfect situation. No–you can’t even FATHOM that. Let ALONE, that it’s actually YOU that’s guilty of everything you categorically paint those who don’t agree with you and make the same choices as you as being guilty of.
May 16, 2015 at 7:17pm
We all suffer–MOST of us DON’T have to suffer the UNIMAGINABLE torment of a disease that vastly reduces quality of life with constant lung infections, complications, and sicknesses ON TOP of all the suffering we normally experience AND that cut’s short life expectancy. even IN the ideal conditions (the so-called “developed” world) your child was born into, to an average of 37 to 50 or so.
Your child, NOW that he’s here, may not regret his existence–it’s doubtful if he, if ANYONE, can ever know enough to know better, to be truly informed, understand the alternatives, on that score. BUT, that doesn’t mean that IF you could have known BEFORE he was even conceived, that the moral choice WOULDN’T have been to have a child another way (or adopt a child)–even most CONSERVATIVES aren’t so absurd in their morality as to assert a duty to attempt to CONCEIVE at all possible opportunities (just because post hoc you can look at the child you have now and be happy with, and/or rationalize, your decision to have him, and just because he will probably never be able to know any better). And MAYBE, just MAYBE, you’re even wrong about abortion–MAYBE, just because YOU didn’t choose it, you’ve BALDLY asserted that it was an “outrageous” and “morally abhorrent” thing to choose to avoid having children with CF, DOESN’T just mean your right–MAYBE, in fact, you’re WRONG about that, and it is YOU who made the tragic, IMMORAL, decision. No–it has to be everyone who choose differently.