I heard everyone, including Aikin, Romney, Ryan and Huckabee say Akin's comment was wrong, stupid and not based on any kind of medical fact. But if that doesn't matter then we can hold Obama and Biden responsible for everything they say. Really? Do you really want to hold Biden, the one man gaffe factory, responsible for everything he says? Bring it on!

Jerseyswamps, please re-read the blog. It is not about the science comment. It is about what religious beliefs you want to legally impose on others that don't share those beliefs. None of the people you mentioned have changed their position one iota on that. A Personhood Constitutional amendment is in the Republican platform- and Rep Chris Smith is in Tampa to defend it. (The only NJ Republican Congressman there.)

It has always amazed me how one person thinks he or she has the right to tell another person how to run their life. If a woman has a pregnancy, and wants to manage her future free from an unwanted child (rape or no rape) she, in consultation with her doctor and family, should be free to end that pregnancy. Who does some little pipsqueak (like Chris Smith) think he is? The world is terribly overcrowded, and family planning, with the various contraception options, is an intelligent way to manage that population. But the anti-abortion zealots will have none of that, blindly following what they think their bible says, the future of mankind, and a person’s individual freedom, be damned. Unbelievable.

You must agree that something alive and growing begins at conception. It seems you do not agree that the thing is a person protected by law, even when it grows its own facial features, heartbeat, and brainwaves. But it somehow becomes a person at some point, even before the cord is cut -- what is that magical moment? And please tell me scientifically. The change between inside and outside does not change what the little thing is.

To: mary54: At what period of time can that "object within a woman's body" be aborted? 90 days? 100 days? 250 days? Please enlighten us.

RE: mary54 "...Just because an object within a woman's body mightl [sic] someday be a person."

As stated in the 1973 Supreme Court ruling - until viability, with exceptions, of course, that take into account the pregnant woman's possible death or severe impact on her health. I believe that most, except for a very small percentage, of abortions will be elected well before the point of viability. It is just not reasonable to tell a pregnant woman, who wants to control her own life, that she must have a baby because my (and maybe not her) religion frowns upon it.

Brian,

First off, let me wish you well in your campaign. We need more competition and accountability in politics, which a strong campaign brings to all sides (would that this were true in all NJ counties).

Second, I appreciate that you've raised an important but sensitive issue. It's worth talking about. But I do not agree with your premise that "Republicans are scientifically ignorant". The point at which life begins is a scientific question (one you've dodged). The point at which a person begins is not. And by the same token, criticizing one's position on the question of personhood has nothing to do with science. Therefore, your attack is invalid insofar as it is not science-based.

You appeal to our inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, the first of which is life. But you have not defended your own position as to when life begins. Those who believe life begins at conception (I'll leave my personal view aside for the moment) are logically more consistent than you. So your argument is not about science at all, is it?

Todd Akin is just another scientifically ignorant politician. Both sides should denounce his stupidity. But if your campaign is to gain any credibility, I would suggest you avoid taking on a subject you yourself appear to know little about.

TO: Brian Froelich - If you want to question religious beliefs in United States law, then you may as well challenge the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution itself. Like it or not, the United States law was based upon Judeo-Christian beliefs and morality -- period.

I am not stating an opinion, I am stating a documented fact. Since you are running for Congress Mr. Froelich, I would like to call to your attention the first official act of the Continental Congress on Tuesday, September 6, 1774: It was a call to prayer by Reverend Jacob Duché.

It was said that Duché's words literally moved the delegates to weep as he closed. His closing words were: ""Be Thou present, O God of wisdom, and direct the councils of this honorable assembly; enable them to settle things on the best and surest foundation. That the scene of blood may be speedily closed; that order, harmony and peace may be effectually restored, and truth and justice, religion and piety, prevail and flourish amongst The people. Preserve the health of their bodies and vigor of their minds; shower down on them and the millions they here represent, such temporal blessings as Thou seest expedient for them in this world and crown them with everlasting glory in the world to come. All this we ask In the name and through the merits of Jesus Christ, Thy Son and our Savior."

RE: "It is about what religious beliefs you want to legally impose on others that don't share those beliefs." -- Brian Froelich

John Jay; I don’t want to change the Declaration or the Constitution- the Republicans do! Those documents were drawn and signed by men of various faith and beliefs who were inspired by various honorable motives (much like today). And I have no doubt, and I am personally thankful, that the wisdom and hand of God played an important role.
But they did not create a theocracy. They created a nation, much like the original creation, where men are sometimes free to choose between their understanding of right and wrong. And for that I believe we are all grateful.

I think this guy froelich is a dime a dozen jabroni but john jay is just as ignorant and a member of the american taliban. Learn your history - the fathers wanted everyone free to practice any religion but they knew it had no place in government.

John Adams - Treaty of Tripoli - 1797 - "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.."

Thomas Jefferson 1779 "Our civil rights have no dependence upon our religious opinions.."

First Amendment of the US Constitution "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,.."

as the earlier poster suggested, I think in jest, you have to admit, forced sterilization until you earn a license to procreate would definitely solve these problems.

Hey Will McAvoy -- I defy you to prove my statement about Reverend Jacob Duché leading the First Continental Congress in prayer is wrong.

Your personal attack is uncalled for ":jay is just as ignorant and a member of the american taliban." I'll stand toe-to-toe against you any day on this subject. Consider yourself defeated from the starting gate.

I'll pay you $10,000 if you prove my statement about Reverend Jacob Duché leading the first official act of Congress is untrue.

Brian Froelich -- I didn't say the United States was a theocracy. I said the very basis of our nation's laws are can be attributed to Judeo-Christian beliefs -- namely the 10 Commandments.

My point is that if you are trying to state that religion played or plays no part in our laws is 100% wrong.

By the way, the doors leading to the United States Supreme Court have the 10 Commandments engraved in them. Moses is also depicted holding the tablets in the Supreme Court.

Why do you think that was done?

john "mullah omar" jay - I never commented on the veracity of your statement with respect to duche or whether or not the founders may have been profoundly religious individuals moved by the words of the man in the sky – I am sure they were similarly moved when they heard an amazing composition or saw the work of master sculptor. Whether your statement about duche is true or not is not relevant. Ike called billy graham to his death bed but it doesnt mean he was going to impose sharia law.

Will McAvoy -- You still engage in personal attacks? I won't tolerate that and have sent your personal attacks to the moderator.

By the way, the sure sign of a weak intellect is to engage in ad hominem attacks. It shows you lack the intelligence and knowledge to debate me based on the facts.

As I said, you were defeated when you left the gate. I laugh at you and your weak intellect.

John Jay - you should have your mommy re-read you that basic philosophy text. There was no ad hominem attack. I was purely stating facts, You on the other hand are like a bull in a china shop looking for a fight. I would not debate a jabroni that actually believes that the man in the sky gave mark bellison the 10 commandments on a pizza box no sooner than I would debate one that believes moses yanked them out of the burning bush, I think you should go back to booking your cruise to the garden of edon on noah's ark with evan baxter.

Ah, more ignorant personal attacks from Will McAvoy!

Ah more of the SSDD from john jay.

McAvoy, your comment "john "mullah omar" jay" is an ignorant, ad hominem attack.

Ad hominem attacks can come in different forms: abusive, circumstantial, ad feminam/ad homines, tu quoque; etc.

Yours was an "abusive" ad hominem where you attempted to invalidate my claim by
belittling or insulting me.

You can't refute the claim, so you attack the me. You engaged in a classic logical fallacy.

I laugh at people like you...and I am sure it infuriates you that you cannot defeat me.

Mr. Froelich, you can see you have your work cut out for you.

The choice for me in this election for Congress is between a successful businessman like Mr. Froelich who will not spend his time in Congress sponsoring legislation that attempts to legislate morality for NJ and the entire country, and a career politician like Chris Smith who has been attempting to impose his views about abortion on the entire country since he was first elected on the coattails of the Reagan landslide in 1981. Smith was one of the architects of language like "forced rape" which is not "stock" language, but rather an attempt to distort the meaning of the word and end a woman's right to control her own body.

Every Republican I have seen interviewed about the abortion issue this week has repeated the mantra, "No one is that concerned with abortion, it's the economy stupid". But the impact the economy has on individuals and families is very much linked to a person's ability to control their own reproductive rights. I simply don't see how the quality of life has improved over the 30 years Chris Smith has been in Congress. Of course none of this can be laid at the feet of one Congressman, but I think Mr. Froelich has shown himself to be a reasonable man who is focused on the things a Congressman should be focused on. I prefer to leave the moralizing to my pastor, not my elected representatives.

Well, A. Simon, If this were 1960, Mr. Froelich would have received my vote. JFK, after all, was anti-Communist, pro-military, and anti-Federal Reserve.

This is 2012, however. I can't support a man who's national party that:

* Allows a never-ending flood of millions of illegal immigrants to stream across my borders and drain BILLIONS of dollars from our economy;
* Works non-stop to curtail, with the intentions of ending my Second Amendment rights;
* Permits TSA workers, who aren't even federal law enforcement agents, to grope me at airports -- something no police or federal agent of any kind can do without probable cause or warrant;
* Endorses a policy of labeling American veterans and Constitutional-minded people as possible domestic terrorists;
* Supports a First Amendment-killing laws that segregate and isolate citizens from protesting within ear or eye distance of elected representatives;
* Masterminds health care schemes that invade my privacy will force me to buy something I don't want or need under threat of armed agents by the IRS.....and the list goes on and on.

This campaign isn't about some dopey statement made by candidate for Senate.

This campaign is about LIBERTY!

...and believe me, if Romney does not remove these terrible things I have mentioned, he will be voted out in 2016.

The Thirteenth Amendment abolished involuntary servitude. A fetus cannot sustain life unless a woman carries it within her body. If the woman carrying it doesn't want to, she is being held in involuntary servitude to the fetus. Is the fetus a person? Is it entitled to the rights of personhood if it can't discharge the simple responsibility of staying alive without holding some other person in involuntary servitude? I say no, a fetus is not a person, because it does not have an independent existence as a person. The Supreme Court got it right: it's a person only when and if it is capable of independent existence -- that is, although it (he/she) will still need help to survive, any willing person can provide that help.

Jay - you clearly are insane therefore you have no 2nd amendment rights - leave the firearms to those of us in the 1%. You made no claim that needs to be refuted, please do and I will easily refute it. If you call that a personal attack you better pull up your panties and go home to your momma. To quote the great will hunting, "do you find it hard to hide the fact that you're gay?"

Will McAvoy: Your personal attacks prove you are weak and cannot compete against me.

John Jay did your mommy tell you that if you say something over and over it will come true? Come up with something new. At least your absurd ranting amuses me, now you are just plain boring

RE-ELECT CHRIS SMITH

RE-elect Chris Smith because he will help:

* Repeal Obamacare
* Protect the Second Amendmen
* Keep (Socialist) Democrats out of your wallet.

The concept of legitimate rape vs. illegitimate rape is completely bogus.There is no scientific evidence, maybe all these lovely gentlemen need to be put back into high school biology. A little refresher on the anatomy of a woman's body never hurt anyone. At the end of the day, why are a bunch of old men deciding what a woman can and cannot in the most private moments in their lives? We need congressman that are not stuck in 1973, and are ready to debate more pressing issues.The war in Afghanistan is still going on; the economy is still in a downward spiral, the middle class is struggling; yet social issues are still taking prominence in this election.

Lauren, I agree entirely. You may want to see my first blog post at http://howell.patch.com/blog_posts/a-crazy-world or my froelich4congress.com website.

How would any male be able to prove paternity before the child is born? Any blood test, amniocenticis, CVS sampling would have to be approved by the mother and in itself would pose a risk of miscarriage. It is highly doubtful you could find an ethical physician who would perform such a procedure without informed consent from the mother.
Are some of you gentlemen actually suggesting that such procedures be forced upon
a woman in order to prove your paternity BEFORE birth? Is that the vision of freedom espoused by the "Re-elect Chris Smith" crowd on this page?

How come no one here can tell me at what point in a pregnancy is it not acceptable to abort an unborn child?

John, every situation is different and the answer will only be achieved by the discussions the woman, her doctor, and the father if he's involved, have. There will never be a stock answer for that. No one wants women to abort, we all want pregnancies to be planned, healthy and for childbirth to be a celebrated experience not a regretted one. Now please, stop concerning yourself with a choice you will never have to make. Leave that to women and medical professionals.

Ah, Otter09 ducks the question too: At what point in a pregnancy is it unacceptable to abort an unborn child?

Why are the Left Wing people on this site so afraid to answer a simple question?

Martin B. Brilliant made the most Constitutionally IGNORANT claim ever by stating pregnant woman carrying a fetus is "involuntary servitude".

This ignorant claim has no basis in in any medial, legislative, or legal entity in the history of the United States.

Martin B. Brilliant -- it's refuted. There is no legal, legislative, or historical evidence whatsoever that classifies a female citizen of the United States as being placed in "involuntary servitude," "indentured servitude," or "slavery" because she got pregnant during the course of her normal life.

Your claim is simply ignorant. You have no idea what you're talking about.

John Jay, the point at which it is unacceptable to abort is when the woman and the doctor make an educated decision that it is not the best path to take. There is no magic number. Be responsible and don't get anyone pregnant and you won't need to worry about it.

I didn't engage in "belittling" you either, Martin B. Brilliant. I called you "ignorant" -- as in ignorant of U.S. history and U.S. constitutional law.

Here's the definition of ignorant, in case you need it:

ig·no·rant   [ig-ner-uhnt] adjective
1. lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned: an ignorant man.
2. lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact: ignorant of quantum physics.
3. uninformed; unaware.
4. due to or showing lack of knowledge or training: an ignorant statement.

john jay at home posting on patch

https://encrypted-tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQqKjoVAnIOOCa34w5dE6M2IfJjfQABYeFm9SNCjZ3yMYhlYSf8dQ

Grow up, Elroy Jetson. Your personal attacks have been reported to the monitor.

There are many who have commented here who "John Jay" dismisses as "100%" wrong. What is so supremely laughable is that this individual who sings the praises of Chris Smith with citations of language from the founding fathers, does not mention that the real "John Jay", a founding father of the US, thought civil rights should not be extended to Roman Catholics. By the thoughts and words of the founding father who "John Jay" adopts as his role model, Chris Smith would not even have the right to hold political office!

It is precisely because of the inroads made by the so-called "patriots" of the Tea Party that I believe it is more important than ever to elect reasonable, educated men and women to public office. There may have been a time where Chris Smith's views on women's rights could be tolerated because they were deemed too extreme to succeed, but that is no longer the case.

Grow up, Elroy Jetson. Your personal attacks have been reported to the monitor. wah wah wah. I am telling my mommy on you! I bet john jay wishes they had the anti-bullying rules when he was in school. I would bet that he used to get beat up regularly.

Martin B. Brilliant -- you are ignorant of United States Constitutional Law and United States history. Your self-professed claim to brilliance by stating "...John, I think you're claiming that it's refuted simply because nobody ever thought of it before" is laughable.

I really suggest you take a U.S. Constitutional Law 101 class.

Let me give you the text of the 13th Amendment as I show you the door, plebe:

"13th Amendment: Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

Here's the link to the fall course listings at Rutgers. If you hurry, you might be able to get into a class!

http://polisci.rutgers.edu/component/content/article/93-fall-2012-undergraduate-course-offerings/627-fall-2012-undergraduate-course-offerings

(Scroll down to the following: 790:401:01/American Constitutional Law/MTh3 11:30-12:50/MI-100 CAC/Bert Levine)

Once again, the LEFT WING cannot tell me; "On what day in a normal pregnancy is it acceptable to terminate and unborn child's life?"

Why are you people so afraid of me?

John Jay you are really starting to lose your grip on reality and become incoherent I think you may be suffering from dysphoric mania.

Martin B. Brilliant -- I cannot sit back and let you make a claim that is so rediculously ignorant of the U.S. Constitution.

I am not trying to be mean, either. Frankly, I think I am doing you a favor by pointing out your logical and legal fallacy.

Martin B. Brilliant 12:02 pm on Wednesday, August 29, 2012 "John, I don't give a [deleted] what your definition of "ignorant" is, it's still belittling."

It is acceptable on any day. It is more humane to kill an unwanted unborn child than to let it suffer a pathetic life - you are clearly proof of that.

Elroy Jetson -- your personal attacks against me prove you cannot defeat my logic and facts.

Looking over the entire history of comments on this article, I can't find a single substantive comment from "John Jay." The closest he came was in response to the author's appeal to consider which religious principle to hold with respect to women's rights, he pointed out that the founders of this country relied on Judeo-Christian principles. True, but irrelevant. All his other remarks are less relevant, some bordering on downright offensive. I suggest that henceforth we all ignore him.

I agree completely - every time this obese pornoholic is proved wrong he claims that it is a personal attack! I think he is really is really paul krugman or mo down from the times.

Mary54 -- Teaching the biological fundamentals the human reproductive system is fine. New York City Schools thinks otherwise -- they think its acceptable to show 6th and 7th graders how to buy condoms; perform oral and anal sex; and how to find a clinic that performs abortions.

So -- you what do you want 12-year-old kids to learn? The biological aspect or the New York City way?

mary54 12:39 pm on Wednesday, August 29, 2012 "Further, one of the best ways to avoid an abortion decision is to do some family planning, starting with sex education for children in school."

Martin B. Brilliant -- Try making a valid claim involving the U.S. Constitution and maybe you'll be able to handle the response.

Your claim about "pregnancy = involuntary servitude is based on the U.S. Constitution" is like stating "2+2=5 is based on math science".

Abortion Survivor Speaks Out Against Obama

http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/08/sba-list-to-launch-missouri-ads-against-obama-on-abortion-133435.html

Partial Text from ad: “Many children, more than you might think, actually survive failed abortions and are born alive. I know because I’m one of them,” Ohden says in the SBA List ad. “When he was in the Illinois state Senate, Barack Obama voted to deny basic constitutional protections for babies born alive from an abortion – not once, but four times."

So, mary54 thinks it's OK to send 12-year-olds out to shopping for condoms, abortion clinics, and how to perform sex acts.

mary54 -- you are one sick person.

"mary54 1:26 pm on Wednesday, August 29, 2012 The New York curriculum looks better than no sex education, or an abstinence-only approach."

mary54: YOU chose the New York City model of sex education for 12-year-olds, not me.

I specifically wrote that New York City schools are teaching 12-year-olds about oral sex, shopping for condoms; etc.

I then posed the question if you prefered sex education based on biological functions vs. the New York City way (oral sex, condoms, abortion clinics; etc.).

YOU chose the New York City way, not me.

Children are "doing it anyway"? What age range are you talking? 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15? What areas are you talking about? Manalapan? Freehold? Howell? Englishtown? Monroe?

What authority does a public school have to usurp my rights as a parent to explain to my children the difference between right and wrong?

"Dancer_grl07 2:24 pm on Wednesday, August 29, 2012 Yes children need to be informed because they are doing it anyway."

Have you been to a public school recently? Yes from as young as age 11 children are Having sex and their parents are not talking to them about it. And if there parents are generally they're teaching abstince only. At the end of the day kids are going to have sex whether you teach them
About it or not.

why is john jay so worried about children and women having abortions? he is clearly a homosexual and thankfully will not be passing on his mutated dna to the next generation.

Speak for your own kids, Dancer_grl07, not mine. I know what my kids do and they know the difference between right and wrong.

The big part of the blame lies falls on the parent. My wife and I walk in the mall with our kids and we are shocked. We see middle school boys dressed like hoods from a prison (baggy pants with their underwear hanging out). Skinny little pasty white boys pretending to be "gangstas" from Newark...it's pathetic.

We see middle school girls dressed like prostitutes wearing designer clothing with name brands like Fendi, RayBanand "Juicy". My kids point them out and tell us how several of the girls got belly button rings at 13 -- with their parents consent! WHAAT???

My kids can't stand these kids because they say such kids are mean, stuck up, mock people who don't wear designer clothes.

Such kids are the by-products of absentee parents with too much disposable income. My wife and I make a good living, but we don't raise kids to be obsessed with sex, TV culture, and status bling-bling.

Lafayette Reynolds -- your personal attacks have been noted and duly reported. You are probably the same person using multiple screen names.

To: Jim -- You hit the nail on the head -- and that is where i was taking this. Just because a bunch of absentee parents abdicated their responsibilites does not mean my wife and I did the same.

Raising kids is TOUGH -- and my wife and I are in charge of the kids. Too many parents let their kids control them. Not in my house.

...and the same goes with the schools. I've had these little twerps from the the public school try to BS us in the past -- we shut them up and shut them down.

How do you do it? You get in their face, you show them the state and federal laws that show what they can and cannot do. When they overstep their scope, you send them a little letter from your attorney "reminding" them who's boss.

It's amazing what a letter from a law firm and a phone call from a member of the assembly and senate will do.

They might be able to BS parents in places like New York City, but it won't happen here.

"Jim 2:38 pm on Wednesday, August 29, 2012 I got into this late, but shouldn't it be the parents' decision/responsibility to teach their kids about sex....or life in general? What happened to parenting?"

However, this is exactly one of the things Brian Froelich talks about in his campaign -- an unwillingness to compromise. Why is it necessary? Sure we shouldn't be teaching kids about abortion clinics and oral sex. But telling them, if they are going to have sex, to do it safely. People can find a common ground, but everyone is so hard headed these days they are not looking for it.

Mr. Froelich,
I cannot agree more strongly with your statement, “ So, in the end, it is not about junk science it is about religious and personal freedom. Republicans Chris Smith and Todd Aikin believe that women have the legal right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness- unless they are pregnant. Based on these Republican religious beliefs, at conception women forfeit their legal rights to someone else.”
For those that hold religious views, views that dictate whether one does not support abortion and pro-choice efforts, should never be imposed on others who do not claim the same belief. Essentially, anti-abortion sentiments derived from religious views, if forced on others via legislation banning all abortions, is just the same as forcing one’s religious views on another. That being said, it is akin to telling someone that their moral system is incorrect or wrong simply because they are pro-choice. It is ethnocentric. The right a woman has regarding her own body is a personal freedom and decision and thus should not be regulated by any government, politician, or pro-life supporter. In the abortion debate, there should be respect for others’ religious or non-religious beliefs; simply because one—namely a woman in this instance--does not hold this particular religious position should not eliminate her rights; nor should she be forced to sacrifice her rights to others.

What's wrong mary54? Are you jealous of a strong husband and wife raising equally strong children? I can tell by mary54's sarcasm that she can't appreciate good morals or good faith.

I don't know about you, mary54 -- but I don't need some pencil necked geek with a PhD to tell me what's right and what's wrong or how to raise my kids.

So you are cordially invited to take your ideas that "professionals do it in a researched way is better", roll it up, and smoke it.

12-year-old girls having sex isn't just wrong, it's sick and twisted. I didn't raise my kids to be so desperate for attention that they'd destroy their lives.

If you think I'm being short, you're right. I can't believe people like you would abdicate your parental rights to some "professional". Unreal. 100% unreal.

"mary54 5:50 pm on Wednesday, August 29, 2012 Congratulations on being such a sterling parent, but many in the rest of the world will not be able to follow in your hallowed footsteps."

Dancer_grl07 -- Compromise? Teaching a 12-year-old how to be a whore isn't compromise -- it's DEMENTED.

RE: "Dancer_grl07 5:22 pm on Wednesday, August 29, 2012 However, this is exactly one of the things Brian Froelich talks about in his campaign -- an unwillingness to compromise. Why is it necessary? Sure we shouldn't be teaching kids about abortion clinics and oral sex. But telling them, if they are going to have sex, to do it safely."

Froelich should sell used cars. He is not giving the carfacts. Typical liberal BS. Lets link Aiken to Romney in the first statement. Maybe he should change his name to Debbie Wasserman Shultz. Pathetic!!!

MS2012, Here are the hard facts- like them or not. "Republicans Chris Smith.... believe(s) that women have the legal right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness- unless they are pregnant. Based on these Republican religious beliefs, at conception women forfeit their legal rights to someone else." Women have certain rights and the Republicans want to take them away.

Democrats support Obamacare's enforcement with ARMED THREATS by IRS AGENTS WITH GUND to enforce it -- but they say that there is no law that can protect the life of an unborn child. This is insane folks.

Democrats support Obamacare's enforcement with ARMED THREATS by IRS AGENTS WITH GUNS CARRYING .40 CALIBER HOLLOWPOINT BULLETS to enforce it -- but they say that there is no law that can protect the life of an unborn child. This is insane folks!

Mr. Froelich,
You are not a doctor, cleric or a woman. You are supposed to be a successful businessman. Talk about what you know from first hand experience. Tell how Obama's economic policies are good for businesses. Tell us how Obama's policies have and will continue to create real jobs. Not made up jobs paid by tax dollars. Private sector jobs that will grow our economy.

Mr. Froelich, is entitled to his opinion -- especially since he's a Congressional candidate.

Planned Parenthood", and birth control in general, had its roots in the eugenics movement the United States. Margaret Sanger, the activist and "creator" of Planned Parenthood was also a member of the Socialist Party.

I think the people who support "Planned Parenthood" should do a little research into this group.

Jerseyswamps, I can do better than tell you how Obama’s policies create real jobs I can give you the real facts. First, in the month that Obama took over the nation lost 800,000 jobs. In the face of that biggest recession since the depression, Obama’s policies stopped the job hemorrhaging started in the Bush era. Then his policies started over 40 straight months of job growth. And in that number is a net decline in public sector jobs and a net growth in private sector jobs.
FYI, this is not unusual. The average Democratic President has created 2 million jobs and the average Republican President has created 1 million jobs. The reason is simple, Republican believe in trickle down and Democrats believe in building from the bottom up. Democrats give us roads, airports, and a business infrastructure that help the entire economy grow and Republicans give the wealthy tax breaks and hope they hire someone.

mary54 - You don't like the way I debate because I know facts that are oblivious to you.

- I don't want my kids getting PROPAGANDA from Planned Parenthood -- the organization that was founded by the Socialist-racist-eugenicist Margaret Sanger.

- That's just what I want my kids to support -- an organization whose founder said African-Americans were "weeds". She created this racist eugenics movement with her equally racist colleague, Dr. Clarence J. Gamble.

Gamble drafted a memo to Sanger in November 1939 entitled "Suggestion for Negro Project" where Sanger and the rest of the pre-Planned Parenthood group would be able to control the "weeds". Sanger told her leadership: "We do not want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten that idea out if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."

Thanks to Sanger, it's estimated that 13 MILLION abortions have been performed since 1973 on African-American women over the past several decades. 60 Million died in WWII. Feel proud about those numbers? I don't.

RE: "mary54 9:30 pm on Wednesday, August 29, 2012 Now , now John Jay, nobody said 12 year old girls should have sex. I think we've just said that they should get some sex education so they can keep themselves out of trouble..."

mary54: I don't support PLANNED PARENTHOOD'S method of "family planning" and propaganda. I don't support them because of their racist roots and ties to the eugenics movement. If you did a little research into the subject instead engaging in name-calling against me, maybe you'd change your mind.

The only positive thing that cam out of Sanger's actions was the elimination of "Comstock Law" provisions regarding the distribution of information regarding "...devices could legally be promoted for the cure and prevention of disease". Regulating the distribution of medical information was insane and unconstitutional -- and rightly so.

Giving Planned Parenthood free access to public schools WITHOUT the ability to be monitored and/or be counter-balanced with factual information is wrong. No public funding for Planned Parenthood should be given. Period.

"mary54 10:26 am on Thursday, August 30, 2012 John Jay: You don't support intelligent family planning? We are supposed to act on our impulses and let the chips lie where they fall? Your comment smacks of McCarthyism...."

john jay is an idiot and a hypocrite - not a personal attack just simple facts. he doesn’t want the government to tell him how to raise his kids but he is worried about the 13 million abortions others have had. who cares if the number was 200 million? why do you care what others do? just worry about your family. you want to protect the second amendment but you are worried about irs agents carrying pistols with .40 caliber hollow points. (clearly a red herring - what difference does it make if they are 9mm, .380 or .40 caliber?)

As for your preposterous McCarthyism claim. Please, enlighten me as to how I barring public funding of Planned Parenthood equals McCarthyism?

RE: "mary54 10:26 Your comment smacks of McCarthyism...."

I don't like the idea that Planned Parenthood started out as a racist eugenics organization that encouraged African Americans to abort their unborn children. Truth hurts, doesn't it?

As for the .40-cal. hollowpoint comment. In case you didn't notice, the Department of Homeland Security recently secured orders for 1.4 BILLION rounds of .40-cal hollowpoint. Multiple federal-level departments are now clamoring for the guns and ammunition.

Preceeding that was the federal report that stated to enforce Obamacare, the IRS will have to hire ~16,000 IRS agents. Hundreds of IRS agents presently carry sidearms today -- why? I have no idea.

What I do know is that there will now be thousands of agents armed with weapons that are BANNED by the Geneva accords.

That's right, hollowpoint bullets are banned from the battlefield? Why is it acceptable to use such bullets against American citizens but not against our enemies on the battlefield?

What's it like to be so ignorant, John Lott? (Your screen name is idiotic, by the way. Lott is a respected author and authority on the Second Amendment.)

"John Lott 11:15 am on Thursday, August 30, 2012 john jay is an idiot and a hypocrite"

mary54: I included the Socialist reference as background -- but that really had little to do with my opinion of Sanger.

Your quoting of information from Wikipedia as an attempt to lessen the eugenics and racist roots behind Sanger's organization doesn't do much to impress me, either.

If Wikipedia is the best you can do, then look up "Eugenics in the United States" and the related links. You will find out about:

- Eugenics "courts" where teen aged girls who got grades lower than a "B" were sterilized by court order.
- People with IQs lower than 70 were sterilized
- African-Americans were infected with syphilis on purpose and without their knowledge or consent!

This goes on and on...and it's all tied to the people who started and supported Planned Parenthood.

RE: "mary54 12:17 pm on Thursday, August 30, 2012 John Jay: Because you claimed that Sanger was a Socialist, and, because of that, her ideas on family planning have become suspect to you."

Because of parents like John Jay that teach abstinence and pose such a heinous view on teenage sex, Planned Parenthood is a necessity to prevent unwanted pregnancy. The teenagers and young adults in our society are so afraid to talk to their parents, that this is their only option. We need to stop looking at the past and looking at the outlet Planned Parenthood gives women today.

The truth doesn’t hurt at all. It is a noble cause to eliminate unwanted children rather than watch them suffer in the ghetto. Clearly any woman impregnated by you if this is at all possible would chose an abortion rather than to let that poor child suffer your inferior mutated dna.

As usual john jay continues to run his mouth and never addresses even one point that was made by anyone ever.

It is truly pathetic that you are such an ignorant fool and a wanna be NRA member. You are giving the rest of them a bad name.

In war the goal is to maim not kill and get the person off the battlefield so they can live and go home to their families and be taken care of under obama care.

The police shoot to kill. Much like planned parenthood, the .40 caliber round (actually the 10MM but S&W refined it and produced the .40) and the JHP were developed to keep the population down in the ghetto. (can you hear the elvis song playing in the background?)

After 8 FBI agents were decimated (2 fatally) by 2 ghetto boys with semi automatic assault rifles and a ton of ammo that were cranked up on crank and kept firing after being shot dozens of times by silly little 9MM FMJ rounds that went in and out the FBI decided they needed a more effective weapon.

Now the police can score fully fatal vital organ failure when that .40 caliber JHP spirals into your torso and leaves a 10 inch hole when it comes out instead of waiting for you to bleed out with a dozen little holes in you.

Why are you so paranoid anyway JJ?

The IRS deals with some serious characters. Do you think the drug dealers that live in your neighborhood, the eastern euro trash mob or even the good ole mafia (al capone) happily pay taxes? Why does it scare you so much? You waiting in your basement for the tri-lateral commissions invasion you paranoid loon?

Gee, John Lott (I guess you were banned under another name?)...I'm not scared of the government or little people like you. Chances are, you are probably PAID by the Democrats to write your garbage on this site.

The Obama Justice Department set up "Fast and Furious" -- an ILLEGAL gun-runnig program that was designed to put guns in the hands of criminals in order to make law-abiding 2nd Amendment supporting citizens look bad.

This is the classic "false flag" terror operation run by Obama's minions. It's no different than "Operation Northwoods" -- the false-flag terror operation that Joint Chiefs of Staff Chair, General Lyman Lemnitzer proposed to President John Kennedy to blow up airplanes with civilians on it to blame Russia or Cuba as a pretext to invade Cuba. (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf)

So, when Obama gives the go-ahead for the Department of Homeland Security to arm itself with 1.4 BILLION rounds of handgun ammo -- that's FOUR TO FIVE BULLETS FOR EVERY MAN WOMAN AND CHILD in the U.S. -- what are we to believe? That DHS plans to give us flowers?

No, it's going to be used to intimidate citizens into compliance. Make sure you report my post to the Democrats, or DHS, or your mother for all I care. I'm informed and I laugh at people like you.

John Lott -- the FBI doesn't report to the Department of Homeland Security. Ammunition purchased by DHS doesn't get distributed to DoJ (Department of Justice).

Don't try and act like you know what you're talking about -- you don't know me and you don't know what I know -- and you are ignorant about the purchase and distribution of arms among federal agencies.

You're also very IGNORANT of the the 1986 Miami Dade shootout also. The bank robbers involved in this weren't from "the ghetto" -- they were white men named Michael Lee Platt and William Russell Matix. They were two loser Army veterans who turned to a life of crime.

It's a terrible "lessons learned" defensive combat classes for police, military and civilians. The FBI agents outnumbered the bank robbers 4 to 1--but the FBI did not bring effective weapons, even though they were available -- and they did not secure the scene in an effective manner to execute an arrest against known, armed bank robbers.

The only part you got right was the fact the FBI changed its standard sidearms.

You lose. When you try to engage in a battle of wits, make sure you come better prepared next time.

Wow you are so all powerful with your use of wikipedia you hilarious tool. Those boys were from the ghetto. Unlike you I am not an ignorant racist and I know that there are white boys in the ghetto. The people that live in the ghetto are people like you that have no desire to better themselves and are happy to live in their own filth. I have forgot more in the past 10 minutes than you will ever know in your lifetime tool. The democratic party and homeland security are watching you – you better reinforce the tinfoil around your house to keep out the NSA and keep having your mommy read catcher in the rye to you.

Dancer_grl07 -- you're so ignorant of history it's laughable. Your hostility towards my family and/or kids indicate you come from a broken home and/or didn't accomplish much in life. Examine your faults first.

Define "heinous view on teenage sex" for me. Does "heinous" mean my kids wear nice clothes that don't make them look like prostitutes and "gangsta" wannabes?

Does "heinous" mean kids that grow up in a loving home, play sports, consistently remain on the honor roll and don't watch moronic shows like "Jersey Shore"? There's a great show! It tells them it's OK to be drunks, dopes, and get knocked up!

Does "heinous" mean my kids will go college, make honor roll and start a good career instead of getting STDs or pregnant before they even get a high school diploma?

Some pencil-necked geek from a government agency, or Socialist- / Communist-indoctrinated member of the Democratic party working in the public schools won't undermine my God-given right to raise a family as I see fit -- NOT THEM -- and certainly not YOU.

RE: "Dancer_grl07 2:03 pm on Thursday, August 30, 2012 Because of parents like John Jay that teach abstinence and pose such a heinous view on teenage sex, Planned Parenthood is a necessity to prevent unwanted pregnancy. The teenagers and young adults in our society are so afraid to talk to their parents, that this is their only option. We need to stop looking at the past and looking at the outlet Planned Parenthood gives women today."

John Jay - dancer girl has shown no hostility toward your family or kids. Probably since she knows you are just some tool in a mental institution that has never even had a girlfriend much less procreated. And even if she was hostile towards you that would indicate that she "come from a broken home and/or didn't accomplish much in life." once again you are such a pathetic ignorant little tool.

John Jay you fail to be realistic about the society you are raising your kids in, if you even have them. You're "perfect" fictional children are doing all of the "bad" things in society as well. It is a part of growing up. The system does not need to undermine your parenting; your children will do that all on your own. And in order to keep daddy completely oblivious, the way he likes it, she's going to head off to the nearest planne parenthood to get her birth control pills. She will not be 16 and pregnant thanks to planned parenthood. No he bubble parent father.

So now we are discussing school policies and your never ending vendetta against the school in which your children attend? With each passing comment you get further and further away from the article at hand.

He ran out of lithium about 50 posts ago. Luckily this guy is all bark and no bite and living in a fantasy land and not sitting at home coloring his hair red and ordering .40 cal jhp online. Could you imagine if he really has kids and is like this the life that those kids will have to lead with no friends and all school personnel hating them,

Are you really a dancer?

I just do not understand, he's mention his fight with the school in many of his posts. In reality, if it was so horrible, send them to a different school. Sooner or later his children will rebel simply to get him to leave them alone.

Yes I am a dancer.

I do not think that he really even has a friend much less a family. Or if he does all of the things he claims happen are all happening in his fantasy land and he pretends to be normal around people.

Where do you dance?

Sounds like you were fighting a battle with the school district on many different counts to me. All history teacher teach with a complete bias. Sounds as If someone cannot handle the opinions of others, but that's obvious based on the comments that are going on here. As I said earlier, you are continuously straying for the actual topics. You are bringing your personal life into an argument (making it open for interpretation) and then going off on a tangent whenever anyone choices to use it as an example. I could careless about your on going battles with the school district. God forbid teachers place learning and critical thinking over test scores. But again I digress from the original topic. We are choosing to not focus on the fact that our current congressman is choosing to take part in this "science." let's stray back to the original topic of the blatant disregard for womens right, which is going on with the republicans in congress right now.

John Lott (and the countless other names you assumed): If you want to let your kids dress like prostitutes and thugs, engage in sex, drink, smoke; etc. that's your business and I really don't care.

If you expect me to let a public school impose the views and opinions of Left Wing teachers and/or abortion clinics without my consent and or input, you've got another thing coming.

Your personal attacks indicate I've hit a raw nerve in your personal life -- oh well, buster -- again, that's your problem not mine.

So please, have a ball. The only people laughing will be me and the wife. Our kids will graduate with high honors and get a great life. Who know about yours or Dancer -- your ignorance will only hurt your kids.

The Left Wing Democrats STRIVE to brainwash children and teens. The WANT them to become wards of the state through drugs, sex, crime, and ignorance.

With dumbed-down masses, the The Left Wing Democrats can seize more power and control over the lives of others because of the social problems THEY CREATED!

I am sure some special ed kid (with parents that are democrats) is already teaching your kids all they need to know about the facts of like just like the union mailman with that govt pension gives your wife a lesson everyday when the ups guy isnt there.

What wrong "Peter Augustus" -- you got booted again and have a new name? Stop being a troll and get a job.

John Jay, I swear you come up with some of the most ludicrous ideas. Now you have been unable to face the subject of women's right. And the bogus comments about illegitimate and legitimate rape, created by the republican party (talk about brainwashing, they're pulling their "scientific facts" from thin air). You would rather make outlandish comments about brain washing. Clearly you have no faith in the society you live in, if everyone is so easily brain washed. And why may I ask have you not falling victim? Because your superior intelligence is clearly not the answer.

John Jay says he doesn't support PPH because of Sagers racist roots so I guess he doesn't buy Ford, Semans, IBM, Coke,...etc....etc, pass the Mason Dixon line or even like America. That has to be the weakest argument around.

Dancer_grl07 -- You need to re-read my posts.

- Did I ever say that a woman should not be denied the ability to seek an abortion?
- Did I ever say I supported Mr. Akin's "view" on abortion?

What I did say was:

* I don't support Planned Parenthood because of its racist and eugenics roots.

* I don't support state-mandated sexual education that's taught by teachers with a Left Wing political agenda that are more interested in usurping the rights of a father and mother to be keeper of their children's innocence.

* I don't support a Left Wing public school system that seeks to replace the inherent, God-given right to guide the lives of my children without their interference -- or tries to play me for a fool when I made simple requests for records about my kids.

* I don't support a Left Wing political party that seeks to categorize good Americans who served their country in the armed forces and believe in the Constitution to be labeled potential terrorists. Meanwhile, that Left Wing political party was in charge of the BATFE that ran illegal guns into Mexico and tried to blame it on an American's inherent right to keep and bear arms.

I have faith in society -- I just don't have faith in the Left Wing monsters running our government right now...

The whole problem with your argument is that you claim "god" given rights and god, santa and the tooth fairy do not exist!

TO: Mark Bellison - So you're saying I have no rights to speech, arms, assembly, religion; etc.?

"RE: Mark Bellison 7:38 am on Friday, August 31, 2012 The whole problem with your argument is that you claim "god" given rights and god, santa and the tooth fairy do not exist!"