text:
Let's be honest. It's not about the junk science. There were some crazy things said last week but they were crazy with a purpose.
Republican Rep. Todd Aikin (who is a policy blood brother to Republican Reps. Paul Ryan and Chris Smith) effectively said a woman's subconscious can determine if she gets pregnant. He said as a result of a rape a women's body can shut down its reproductive mechanisms. Of course this is junk science. And Republicans quickly reacted to the predictable public uproar by castigating Rep. Aikin and seeking his resignation from the race. (Two interesting exceptions to that list were former Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee and current Congressional candidate Rep. Chris Smith. Huckabee by his stout defense and Smith by his silence.)
But this had nothing to do with Republicans' regard for science. In fact science is held in very low regard in the Republican party. This is best exemplified by the fact that the Republicans appointed Rep. Aikin to the Congressional Science Committee.
The real subject of Aikin's discussion was not science but rape. And his real purpose was to delegitimize and trivialize rape. His implication is that, since pregnancies don't really happen by rape, then it can't be a real or serious reason for seeking an abortion. (Stated otherwise, a woman seeking an abortion for rape is probably lying about really being raped.) Further, his more insidious point is that there must be degrees and types of rape. Hence there must be 'legitimate' and illegitimate rapes, etc. Of course this is a merely a logical progression from Rep Chris Smith's proposal to distinguish 'forcible rapes' from, apparently, unforced rapes.
Why is it necessary to distinguish between types of rape? There must be a reason. And the reason is simple. Abortion is a simply defined act. If there are types and degrees of rape then rape is not a simply defined act. Rape is not rape. There must be a relative scale where some rapes are worse and some better than others. Some rapes might be important and legitimate and some illegitimate and unimportant. So if you are raising rape as a reason to do, or not do, something, you must further define and defend that rational by further classifying your rape into those categories. And there can be reasonable differences of opinion where different rapes fall on a relative scale. (Like science!) So, as an example, simple rape alone is not a reason for claiming a simple right to abortion. And once you are on that slippery slope you have lost your moral ground. Rape cannot stand against abortion.
All of this has exactly one purpose- 'personhood'. Todd Akin, Chris Smith, Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney and the Republican Party all support a constitutional amendment on personhood. A personhood amendment says "we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed". It says that 'life' begins, and is sacred and protected, at conception. It requires the logical destruction of abortion. It abides no exceptions. Rape is not an exception, incest is not an exception, a woman's health is not an exception. Consequences be dammed. Only the imminent death of the woman can potentially stand astride this mighty and sacred right. Personhood rights also call into legal question many existing infertility, reproductive, and contraception practices
Of course all of that makes sense if you hold that religious position and are willing to legally impose it on women that do not hold it. 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. The real point of Aikin's discussion was that women have ceretain rights and the Republicans want to take them away
War on!
Brian Froelich, Democratic Candidate for US Congress (NJ, 4th Dist.)
4:34 am on Tuesday, August 28, 2012
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!
Brian Froelich
7:17 am on Tuesday, August 28, 2012
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.)
10:25 am on Tuesday, August 28, 2012
Elizabeth, although I see where you are coming from, I don't believe that this would work. If the woman becomes pregnant but doesn't want the child, I believe the Father has a right to the child. Provided, of course, he's not a rapist, etc. Should I have broken up with a long time girl friend and shortly thereafter discover she was pregnant but choosing abortion, I would likely fight for the right to keep the child. I have little doubt I'd also have a ton of support.
10:26 am on Tuesday, August 28, 2012
Apparently Elizabeth thought better of the idea and deleted her comment.
12:23 pm on Tuesday, August 28, 2012
Mr. Froelich,
You SAY the blog is about Personhood but you the whole piece is about Akin and your attempt to link Smith to what EVERYONE, including Akin, says was a stupid thing to say.
We all know Smith is very pro-life. So what. We also know Roe v. Wade is never going to be reversed. Abortion is here to stay. To suggest we should vote for you because you are pro choice and Smith and Romney will "put women back in chains" [thanks for the loan of a quote, Biden] is such a non issue. Talk about your support of Obama's economic policies. That should play well in the district you want to represent.
10:53 am on Wednesday, August 29, 2012
NJarhead,If the 'father"wants the women to abort the pregnancy and she doesn't,should he also have a say?Should he not be required to pay child support because she decides to carry the pregnancy to term?I have heard more "fathers" tel their girlfriends or former girlfriends to "get rid of it" than those who beg them not to abort.
9:00 am on Tuesday, August 28, 2012
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.
9:22 am on Tuesday, August 28, 2012
With the exception of the abortion issue, I would say you are more in danger of losing your personal freedoms with Democrats in charge than with Republicans. Hence the whole "liberal/conservative" government concepts.
Ann Muller
9:18 am on Tuesday, August 28, 2012
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.
9:39 am on Tuesday, August 28, 2012
Where does this all end? The world is overpopulated, and we are running out of space and resources for our newborns. We don't need more people, and the children we have should be wanted and well taken care of. Just because an object within a woman's body mightl someday be a person, it doesn't mean that it has to be taken to term; the woman's (and mandkind's) future must be taken into account. No one has the right to impose their religious beliefs on other people.
John Jay
9:46 am on Tuesday, August 28, 2012
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."
10:04 am on Tuesday, August 28, 2012
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.
10:43 am on Tuesday, August 28, 2012
mary54 lets go all the way down the slope...Let's leave religion out of it it's the same as playing the race card. Why not force birth control and require permission to have a child? If you can't support a child you can't have one I raised mine why should I pay to raise yours? I am tired of hearing that a woman's body is hers to do as she wants ok but if you need to turn to social services to help raise said child you clearly lack the common sense to raise him/her who is having the child and why should I pay for it...I am also tired of hearing all the woman's rites people screaming the republicans will over turn Roe V's Wade that is stupid there is too much money in abortions for it to ever go away. Figure a way to make birth control something that is also the responsibility of the male. 1 daddy 5 children by different women time to clip my man you can't make enough money to support all of them so again it falls onto me .......
11:13 am on Tuesday, August 28, 2012
Toolman: "too much money in abortions" (?) Looks like you're digging a little deep for arguments.
11:58 am on Tuesday, August 28, 2012
No not really you tell me who pays and who makes money and remember even if a Dr. donates his time to perform them you bet he takes a tax credit for doing so.
11:05 am on Wednesday, August 29, 2012
mary54,Those who say there is too much money spent on abortions also say there is too much money spent onsupporting the children of poor women.
John Hayes
10:06 am on Tuesday, August 28, 2012
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.
Brian Froelich
11:22 am on Tuesday, August 28, 2012
John; First, thanks for your kind words.
Second, you are absolutely correct and as the title of the blog states, my argument is not about science. It is simply about what religious beliefs (e.g. about conception) may be legally imposed on others who don't share those beliefs.
Finally, I didn't say that "Republicans are scientifically ignorant." But I did say (sort of tongue-in-cheek) that they don't seem to regard science highly. That is based on some of their stated values and positions on the environment, climate, etc.
John Jay
10:17 am on Tuesday, August 28, 2012
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
Tony Drywall
1:29 am on Wednesday, August 29, 2012
Hi John Jay:
The fact that Reverend Duche' opened the First Continental Congress in prayer is established. Your $10,000 is safe.
But to conclude from this fact, that our laws are in fact established on and dependent on a Judeo-Christian perspective, is an awfully weak position -- in light of the direct statements from Founding Fathers, quoted above by Will McAvoy (and not denied by you) to the contrary. The language of the First Amendment codifies this crucial position on their behalf. John Adams + Thomas Jefferson beats Jacob Duche' on this point.
What you assert is akin to saying that, because the witnesses swore their oaths to truth on a Bible, the judge presiding over the court case that followed is obliged to consider in his decision "what would Jesus do?"
I like that you are trying to bring civility to this discussion board, but it was a bit of an overreach to state that McAvoy was "defeated from the starting gate." I may not like his name-calling style, but his facts were important and in responding to his personal attack you overlooked them.
Tony D.
Brian Froelich
11:38 am on Tuesday, August 28, 2012
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.
Will McAvoy
11:45 am on Tuesday, August 28, 2012
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.
Mark Wendell
9:51 pm on Thursday, August 30, 2012
@Will mcAvoy, You can tell them the well known fact that the founding fathers were all pretty scared to inject religion into the countries politics but it will not matter. Thomas Jefferson even created the "Jefferson Bible" that was a torn up bible in which he cut out the moral versus he thought would guide people in their lives cutting out most of the hard religion and glued them into a notebook. You can take it out of the Ocean County Library. But they will say something like it was created by the liberal consp............ blah blah blah.
John Jay
12:02 pm on Tuesday, August 28, 2012
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.
John Jay
12:17 pm on Tuesday, August 28, 2012
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?
1:01 pm on Tuesday, August 28, 2012
The first Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The first amendment specifically accounts for the evolution of belief and reason. That is why NO laws should be based upon religious beliefs but by humanistic understanding of what is best for our country. Having congressmen on our science board that have theology degrees and a blatant lack of general science knowledge is disgraceful and dangerous.
Tony Drywall
1:52 am on Wednesday, August 29, 2012
> 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?
It is not obvious why, nor is it uniformly accepted as an appropriate decoration:
"The display of the Ten Commandments as part of courthouse displays was considered in a group of cases decided in summer of 2005, including McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky and Van Orden v. Perry. While parties on both sides hoped for a reformulation or clarification of the Lemon test, the two rulings ended with narrow 5-4 and opposing decisions." [Wikipedia, "Separation of church and state in the US"]
However there is less ambiguity in the opposing decisions than you might think. In Van Orden, the court upheld the legality of a Ten Commandments display at the Texas state capitol only because it was interpreted to have "secular purpose." However, in McCreary County, the Court ruled that the displays were illegal because they were not clearly part of a secular display, and therefore must have only religious significance.
And of course there's Glassroth v. Moore, which led to the removal of the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court for his failure to comply with a federal judge's ruling to remove a monument to the 10 Commandments from the Alabama Judicial Building. The US Supreme Court refused to hear the case and let the lower court ruling stand.
Will McAvoy
12:21 pm on Tuesday, August 28, 2012
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.
John Jay
12:30 pm on Tuesday, August 28, 2012
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.
Will McAvoy
12:49 pm on Tuesday, August 28, 2012
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.
John Jay
12:50 pm on Tuesday, August 28, 2012
Ah, more ignorant personal attacks from Will McAvoy!
John Jay
1:34 pm on Tuesday, August 28, 2012
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.
1:36 pm on Tuesday, August 28, 2012
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.
John Jay
2:05 pm on Tuesday, August 28, 2012
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.
Martin B. Brilliant
2:40 pm on Tuesday, August 28, 2012
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.
Will McAvoy
2:53 pm on Tuesday, August 28, 2012
So - you agree that if scotty could beam a fetus out of the womb and into an incubator for its gestation at the palace of the american taliban fetus incubator funded by the koch brothers that at the moment of conception a fetus is a person?
Martin B. Brilliant
3:35 pm on Tuesday, August 28, 2012
Will McAvoy: I might consider it. My argument from the Thirteenth Amendment is not my only argument. There are many other responsibilities of personhood that a fetus can't fulfill. On the other hand, I can't think of any that a newborn can't fulfill either. So, OK, you show me a working technology to bring a fetus to term outside the womb, and I'd probably have to call it (him/her) a person -- once the fetus has been placed in that incubator. If in any particular case the technology is not available, and the fetus remains dependent on the involuntary servitude of a specific woman, no, it's not a person.
Will McAvoy
2:45 pm on Tuesday, August 28, 2012
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?"
John Jay
3:16 pm on Tuesday, August 28, 2012
Will McAvoy: Your personal attacks prove you are weak and cannot compete against me.
Will McAvoy
3:20 pm on Tuesday, August 28, 2012
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
John Jay
3:36 pm on Tuesday, August 28, 2012
RE-elect Chris Smith because he will help:
* Repeal Obamacare
* Protect the Second Amendmen
* Keep (Socialist) Democrats out of your wallet.
Tony Drywall
2:09 am on Wednesday, August 29, 2012
You may have lots of reasons for wanting to re-elect Chris Smith, but let's be clear on one thing: you don't need him to "protect the Second Amendmen[t]".
The conspiracy theory that "Obama wants to take away yer gunz!" has been soberly evaluated and found to be both baseless and built on significant distortions of his legislative acts (as an Illinois and US Senator) and his public statements.
Mark Wendell
9:59 pm on Thursday, August 30, 2012
@ Tony, Yeah you are pretty correct here. The GOP use's guns and abortion to get dumb southerners to vote for them so they can give millionaires tax breaks. Mr. Obama has not done to much at all to curb guns, a disappointment to me, even as shooting's happen all around us.
Emily Jones
5:40 pm on Tuesday, August 28, 2012
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.
Brian Froelich
5:56 pm on Tuesday, August 28, 2012
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.
9:46 pm on Tuesday, August 28, 2012
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?
11:14 pm on Tuesday, August 28, 2012
Brilliant. Thanks. The anti-choice people have few, if any good arguments for their position. Just tear up a woman's life, and feel proud of themselves because they stuck their nose in and interfered where it was none of their business.
Martin B. Brilliant
9:45 am on Wednesday, August 29, 2012
Thanks, mary54, for putting it so bluntly. Before a fetus can come out into the world, a woman has to put in nine months of carrying it and feeding it from her own blood. Anybody who thinks an embryo is a person from the moment of conception, and anybody who thinks its father has as much say as its mother about the future of that embryo, is not thinking about how much its mother has to give.
John Jay
9:58 am on Wednesday, August 29, 2012
How come no one here can tell me at what point in a pregnancy is it not acceptable to abort an unborn child?
Martin B. Brilliant
10:08 am on Wednesday, August 29, 2012
Hello John? I thought that should be clear from what we already said. OK. It is not acceptable to abort a fetus when it is truly an unborn child, that is, when it is capable of surviving outside its mother's body. If it's still dependent on its mother's body, she should be able to "just say 'no'." The courts have stretched that a little, by ruling that in the third trimester, when the mother has only a little more to give, she can't "just say 'no'." I don't agree with that, but I'll have to live with it.
Emily Jones
11:24 am on Wednesday, August 29, 2012
John Jay, at what point does the wants and needs of the living human come secondary to the needs of the unborn? The government never discusses the trials and tribulations the women have to undergo in order to bring an unwanted child into the world. The fetus has become more important?
10:13 am on Wednesday, August 29, 2012
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.
John Jay
10:23 am on Wednesday, August 29, 2012
Ah, Otter09 ducks the question too: At what point in a pregnancy is it unacceptable to abort an unborn child?
Emily Jones
11:42 am on Wednesday, August 29, 2012
At what point is it a legal/government issue? Will her abortion drastically effect the country at large? A woman can choose at any time to end her pregnancy. It is no ones decision, but hers. It is her body. How does an abortion effect you personally? Because it effect the one having one greatly - physically, emotionally. You are making a private intimate process into a public spectacle.
John Jay
10:26 am on Wednesday, August 29, 2012
Why are the Left Wing people on this site so afraid to answer a simple question?
John Jay
10:34 am on Wednesday, August 29, 2012
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
10:48 am on Wednesday, August 29, 2012
John, I made the claim. I am an entity. I am entitled to express my opinion. You are entitled to refute the claim on its merits. You are not entitled to refute it by belittling me. The prohibition against involuntary servitude means that if I do not want to serve a person nobody can force me to. I claim that if a woman does not want to serve a person (supposing you call the fetus a person) nobody can force her to. Refute that on its merits if you can.
John Jay
10:56 am on Wednesday, August 29, 2012
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.
Martin B. Brilliant
11:09 am on Wednesday, August 29, 2012
John, I think you're claiming that it's refuted simply because nobody ever thought of it before. If nobody ever said it before, then it's a new idea. Is your mind closed to new ideas? Give it a thought, John. If she doesn't want the child, and doesn't want to carry the child, are you going to tell me that legal, historical, medical or legislative entities say she's carrying it voluntarily? She's doing something involuntary, isn't she? Are your entities saying her backache, morning sickness, and continuing responsibility for prenatal care are an unexpected gift that she has to accept? Answer me. Prove that you know what you're talking about.
10:57 am on Wednesday, August 29, 2012
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.
John Jay
10:59 am on Wednesday, August 29, 2012
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.
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.
John Jay
11:31 am on Wednesday, August 29, 2012
Grow up, Elroy Jetson. Your personal attacks have been reported to the monitor.
12:23 pm on Wednesday, August 29, 2012
John jay: The cartoon was hilarious, get a sense of humor. When we discuss topics on the web we form mental pictures of those with whom we exchanging ideas. This one seemed to hit the spot. The person didn't call you a communist or some other ridiculous thing. Let's continue with all the realistic, reasonable things we can bring to bear on the topic. With a few exceptions, this has been a good discussion.
11:49 am on Wednesday, August 29, 2012
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.
John Jay
11:59 am on Wednesday, August 29, 2012
A "Red Herring" ASimon! You can't win the debate so go off on a red herring argument. Typical liberal -- you can't win, so engage in personal attacks and try and change the subject.
Elroy Jetson
11:55 am on Wednesday, August 29, 2012
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.
John Jay
12:04 pm on Wednesday, August 29, 2012
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!
(Scroll down to the following: 790:401:01/American Constitutional Law/MTh3 11:30-12:50/MI-100 CAC/Bert Levine)
John Jay
12:05 pm on Wednesday, August 29, 2012
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?
12:28 pm on Wednesday, August 29, 2012
John Jay: As was previously noted by a commenter, you have been given the answer but you refuse to register it in your mind. Clearly, the decision cannot be made down to the second. It is totally unrealistic to give such a time. The women and doctor discuss it and a decision is made. Simple as that.
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. This would include how to use contraceptives. Many of the people against abortion also oppose this kind of education, only allowing absence of sex to be discussed. We need enlightened, educated children graduating from schools, not dogmatic little things that have not been given practical ways to deal with life's vicissitudes.
Elroy Jetson
12:16 pm on Wednesday, August 29, 2012
John Jay you are really starting to lose your grip on reality and become incoherent I think you may be suffering from dysphoric mania.
John Jay
12:26 pm on Wednesday, August 29, 2012
Elroy Jetson -- your personal attacks clearly show you can't compete against me in this little marketplace of ideas. Are you having fun creating different screen names for yourself?
When you can come up with logical, documented examples that prove me wrong, let me know.
In the meantime, I am sure that I can count on your continued personal attacks.
John Jay
12:21 pm on Wednesday, August 29, 2012
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."
Elroy Jetson
12:26 pm on Wednesday, August 29, 2012
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.
John Jay
12:35 pm on Wednesday, August 29, 2012
Elroy Jetson -- your personal attacks against me prove you cannot defeat my logic and facts.
Martin B. Brilliant
12:36 pm on Wednesday, August 29, 2012
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.
Elroy Jetson
12:47 pm on Wednesday, August 29, 2012
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.
John Jay
1:12 pm on Wednesday, August 29, 2012
Elroy -- aren't you capable of coming up with something original that has merit based in law and history?
John Jay
12:49 pm on Wednesday, August 29, 2012
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."
1:26 pm on Wednesday, August 29, 2012
The New York curriculum looks better than no sex education, or an abstinence-only approach. It seems designed to address issues that the children will probably face, so I'm all for it. The Victorian, tish, tish, let's not talk about anything as dirty as sex, approach is outdated. Thank goodness.
Martin B. Brilliant
1:39 pm on Wednesday, August 29, 2012
Mary, I'll go you one better. Practical training, such as how to buy and use a condom, is better than teaching the biological fundamentals, because it has a more direct influence on behavior. You have to teach young people about condoms before they become sexually active, not after, and age 12 is not too soon.
John Jay
1:03 pm on Wednesday, August 29, 2012
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".
John Jay
1:36 pm on Wednesday, August 29, 2012
Abortion Survivor Speaks Out Against Obama
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."
John Jay
1:40 pm on Wednesday, August 29, 2012
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."
2:09 pm on Wednesday, August 29, 2012
John Jay: You distort and add material to my comments. I didn't say 12 year olds should be shopping for abortion clinics. That kind of comment only comes from someone who has run out of ideas and has lost the argument.
The time for aggressive sex education has come. Don't you think the New York program was designed by professional educators to address real problems faced by their students? I think it was.
Too many young people are getting pregnant with children they do not want and will be saddled with for the rest of their early adult life if they cannot terminate the pregnancy.
First, avoid the pregnancy with education and/or contraceptives. Second, abort if that is the path chosen.
Why ruin (often) two lives. There are too many people in the world already.
Emily Jones
2:24 pm on Wednesday, August 29, 2012
Yes children need to be informed because they are doing it anyway. I was at the gas station the other day and there were 12 year olds barely dressed and talking about their latest sexcapades. They're babies, yet they are still having sex. Whether you teach them about birth control or not. At least if we are informing them, they have less of a chance of, not only getting pregnant, but getting social diseases.
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?
Martin B. Brilliant
3:11 pm on Wednesday, August 29, 2012
Jim, you pretty much answered your question when you asked "what happened to parenting," since you're evidently not happy with what parents do about sex ed. Parents have always been hesitant about telling children about sex. The reason schools should do sex ed is that -- like reading, writing and arithmetic -- it's something everybody should know, for other people's benefit as well as their own, and it's best taught by those who know the subject and know how to teach it.
John Jay
2:19 pm on Wednesday, August 29, 2012
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.
John Jay
2:37 pm on Wednesday, August 29, 2012
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."
Emily Jones
2:49 pm on Wednesday, August 29, 2012
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.
Lafayette Reynolds
2:55 pm on Wednesday, August 29, 2012
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.
John Jay
3:22 pm on Wednesday, August 29, 2012
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.
John Jay
3:23 pm on Wednesday, August 29, 2012
Lafayette Reynolds -- your personal attacks have been noted and duly reported. You are probably the same person using multiple screen names.
John Jay
3:42 pm on Wednesday, August 29, 2012
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?"
5:50 pm on Wednesday, August 29, 2012
Maybe the idea of having parents teach their children about sex is out of date. It sounded good at the time, but having professionals do it in a researched way is better. We could probably greatly lower the number of abortions if all kids were taught sex and techniques of contraception in school at an early stage. This still wouldn't eliminate those few times when women get pregnant, even though presumably protected, or as the result of a great one night stand, but that's the way we should go. At that point, elective abortions should be allowed. It's the only grownup alternative. 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.
Emily Jones
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. People can find a common ground, but everyone is so hard headed these days they are not looking for it.
Grace Cecilia
7:59 pm on Wednesday, August 29, 2012
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.
John Jay
8:58 pm on Wednesday, August 29, 2012
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."
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. Typical conservative approach: create a straw man by putting words into someone's mouth and then righteously attack them.
And, thanks for the PhD. Always wanted to say I had one.
From what I've gathered, parents have not, in general, done a good job teaching the basics of sex (including contraception) to their children. That's one reason we have so many abortions, or young women whose lives are hell because they had an unwanted child (or two.)
I don't think anyone who has participated in this debate will ever be jealous of you. Someone who argues with your style is not to be emulated.
And, I don't smoke.
John Jay
9:00 pm on Wednesday, August 29, 2012
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."
10:19 pm on Wednesday, August 29, 2012
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!!!
Brian Froelich
10:30 pm on Wednesday, August 29, 2012
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.
10:37 pm on Wednesday, August 29, 2012
Okay Debbie whatever you say. Your statement alone is contradictory. You want women to have freedom of choice, but you are critical of peoples religious beliefs. Unreal...just stop you are not making sense.
John Jay
6:48 am on Thursday, August 30, 2012
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.
John Jay
6:49 am on Thursday, August 30, 2012
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!
10:35 am on Thursday, August 30, 2012
John Jay: You are becoming hysterical. Grasp onto reality. You are thrashing around and may hurt yourself.
7:47 am on Thursday, August 30, 2012
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.
John Jay
8:16 am on Thursday, August 30, 2012
Mr. Froelich, is entitled to his opinion -- especially since he's a Congressional candidate.
John Jay
8:45 am on Thursday, August 30, 2012
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.
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.
Brian Froelich
9:25 am on Thursday, August 30, 2012
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.
4:32 pm on Thursday, August 30, 2012
In much the same way reasonable people were shouted down at town meetings about healthcare, we are witnessing on this blog the "online comment" version of drowning out the truth. Though you will be outspent by a longtime incumbent like Chris Smith, please know that there are people out there rooting for you. I wish you luck and I think you can now take that question mark out of the title of your other blog on the Patch called " A Crazy World? "
John Jay
10:40 am on Thursday, August 30, 2012
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..."
11:10 am on Thursday, August 30, 2012
John Jay: From Wikipedia (I know, I know.): "The Woman Rebel. Sanger's activism was influenced by the conditions of her youth—her mother had 18 pregnancies in 22 years, and died at age 50 of tuberculosis and cervical cancer.", and: "The clinic was publicized in the African-American press and African-American churches, and received the approval of W. E. B. Du Bois, founder of the NAACP.[96] Sanger's work with minorities earned praise from Martin Luther King, Jr., in his 1966 acceptance speech for the Margaret Sanger award.[97]" So, it doesn't look like any grudges were held on the topic you alleged. Planned Parenthood is an intelligent organization that does enormous good for its clientele. Mucking around with now out of date comments is a desperate attempt on your part to justify your obsolete outlook on life.
John Jay
11:07 am on Thursday, August 30, 2012
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 Lott
11:15 am on Thursday, August 30, 2012
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?)
John Jay
11:32 am on Thursday, August 30, 2012
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...."
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. It is similar to a discussion I had recently with someone about evolution. The person couldn't support the idea that humans are the result of an evolutionary process that included other (presumably lower) forms of life because (from Wikipedia): "Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels spoke favorably of evolutionary theory, arguing that it mirrored their view of the progress of human society by class struggle and revolutions." Even though Marx and Engels were atheists and thought well of evolution, there is no effect on the fundamental fact that evolution has occurred. Republican bright lights like Palin and Santorum don't support evolution and the party (and conservatives in general) has taken an anti-science position partly because of that. Good ideas are good ideas, even though people you don't like may coincidentally support them.
John Jay
11:48 am on Thursday, August 30, 2012
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"
John Jay
1:29 pm on Thursday, August 30, 2012
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."
Emily Jones
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 Lott
2:11 pm on Thursday, August 30, 2012
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.
John Lott
2:11 pm on Thursday, August 30, 2012
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?
John Jay
2:28 pm on Thursday, August 30, 2012
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 Jay
2:45 pm on Thursday, August 30, 2012
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.
John Lott
3:01 pm on Thursday, August 30, 2012
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.
John Jay
3:17 pm on Thursday, August 30, 2012
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 Lott
3:33 pm on Thursday, August 30, 2012
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.
Emily Jones
3:58 pm on Thursday, August 30, 2012
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.
John Jay
4:36 pm on Thursday, August 30, 2012
Dancer_grl07 -- Just because you are ignorant of history and are brain-washed by the Left Wing doesn't me or anyone in my family is like you or your children.
You have a lot of nerve to pass judgement on me. I am and will continue to exercise my fundamental rights of a parent. It is not only my right, it is my duty to negate the Leftist propaganda and brain-washing our kids are subjected to in school.
Some of the things my kids teachers have said to them:
* "If your parents didn't vote for Obama, they are racist." (For all they know, my spouse was a conservative African-American)
* "Republicans don't support civil rights." (Gee, Lincoln was a Republican and Republicans passed the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. President Woodrow Wilson enacted Jim Crow and supported the KKK).
* "You're not allowed to wear clothing with anything that shows a weapon. (Gee, the "logo" for Manalapan has a cannon. Englishtown has Minute Man holding a musket.)
* "We can't share any files about your children with you." (This was made following a question about standardized tests; etc.)
Let's just say we had a little chat with the Superintendant. The teacher's were ordered to apologize to the kids. The school turned over all papers for review when they learned they would be sued under federal law that grants parents access to ANY file(s) about their kids.
Emily Jones
4:45 pm on Thursday, August 30, 2012
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.
John Lott
4:59 pm on Thursday, August 30, 2012
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?
John Jay
5:51 pm on Thursday, August 30, 2012
Thanks for the personal attack. It certainly makes you look foolish. After you were "schooled" about the FBI incident you just limp away and make continued personal attacks. Very pathetic.
Emily Jones
5:05 pm on Thursday, August 30, 2012
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.
John Jay
6:30 pm on Thursday, August 30, 2012
Dancer_grl07: There was no "fight" with the school The public servants there (teachers) thought they were dealing with someone who did not understand state and federal law regarding how they can conduct themselves with students and about academic information collected and maintained on students.
A teacher has no right, and is subject to disciplinary and legal action if they try to intimidate students because of student's race, religion, or political affilitation for that matter. A simple call from me and then my attorney corrected the matter when a history teacher went on a tyraid about Republicans being racist to the class.
The teacher was forced to apologize to the class and never opened his/her bigoted mouth up again for the rest of the school year.
In an unrelated matter, the school was asked to provide a copy of all files/records relating the children. We were informed that they were "internal files" and were not available for inspection.
The school principal was promptly informed that he and his staff were in violation of Us Code Title 34, Part 99 (Family Education Rights and Privacy). Both the principal and the superintendent claimed to have "not been aware" of Title 34 Part 99 and that they'd have to consult with the Board of Ed's attorney. My attorney gave them 24 hours to confer and stated that he was drafting papers to be filed in the state and federal court at the 25th hour.
Needless to say, the school complied.
John Lott
5:14 pm on Thursday, August 30, 2012
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?
Emily Jones
6:42 pm on Thursday, August 30, 2012
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 Jay
6:42 pm on Thursday, August 30, 2012
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.
John Jay
8:23 pm on Thursday, August 30, 2012
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!
Peter Augustus
8:58 pm on Thursday, August 30, 2012
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.
John Jay
9:08 pm on Thursday, August 30, 2012
What wrong "Peter Augustus" -- you got booted again and have a new name? Stop being a troll and get a job.
Emily Jones
9:21 pm on Thursday, August 30, 2012
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.
Mark Wendell
10:12 pm on Thursday, August 30, 2012
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.
John Jay
11:00 pm on Thursday, August 30, 2012
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...
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!
John Jay
9:39 am on Friday, August 31, 2012
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!"


text:
- Text Size:
- ASmall Text
- AMedium Text
- ALarge Text
Samura hoped his film would make it out of Sierra Leone and force the international community to intervene to end the war.
"I was just hell-bent on actually using my own weapon, which was the camera, to call for help because we were just left by ourselves to die. Nothing was going to stop me," he says.
"For me there was just no choice. I had to go out and film and hopefully stay alive and get the world to see what is happening in my country."
To the untrained eye such tactics may seem reckless. For Samura however, experiencing his subject matter is an essential part of the storytelling process.
He has assiduously applied this concept to all of his documentary film work.
More recent efforts have focused on the topics of hunger in Ethiopia, aids patients in Zambia and the plight of refugees in Sudan.
In each project Samura has immersed himself in the lives of his protagonists in an attempt to comprehend the challenges of their everyday existence.
When he filmed a displaced Sudanese family in his 2004 film, "Living with Refugees," Samura only permitted himself to eat when they ate and drink from the same sources, mostly dried-up rivers, as he followed them across dangerous terrain from Darfur to Chad.
"To understand a man's problem you have got to walk at least a mile in his shoes," Samura says.
"If I really need to tell these people's stories, if I am the driver who will articulate their suffering, then I have to experience it."

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Please remember to follow any specific instructions that were shared with you prior to your appointment.
Remember to allow time for travel and parking to ensure that you arrive 15 minutes early. If you have concerns prior to your appointment, please contact your physicians office.
Services are available at the following locations. All levels of service may not be available at all locations.
Expanding Children's Hearing Opportunities is located directly west of Carle's main campus at 805 W. Park Street, Urbana. When visiting our facility, patient parking is available in the lot directly across from our main entrance on Park Street.
Find local restaurants, lounges, hotels and more using the best local search sites on the web. Click on a logo below to begin your search.
If you have questions about your bill, please review our billing information or call (217) 326-2900 (Carle Foundation Hospital accounts) or (888) 71-CARLE (Carle Physician Group accounts).
Privacy Policy
Carle Foundation Hospital, Carle Foundation Physician Services and Carle Physician Group contract with insurance providers separately and may or may not choose to participate in all of the same insurance plans. Patients are urged to check with their carriers as to whether services are covered for either or both organizations.
611 W. Park Street Urbana, Illinois 61801 (217) 383-3311


text:
2010 Summer
Plastic Folio
Water-resistance: 3 Bar
Ø: 34,00 mm
L: 8,75 mm
H: 39,20 mm
As cool and alluring as a swimming pool, Playa Look (GZ215) has something of the easy, relaxed grace of the new generation of designers out of London, where Cassette Playa makes her popular couture. Coloured in graffiti-like fades of aquamarine, sea green and blue, the watch gives a nostalgic nod to skate culture but also seems to have sprung fully formed from the head of the avant-garde. The hour and minute hands' two sharp yellow triangles accentuate the fields of colour beneath. This irresistible work for Swatch emanates a magnetic, electrical charge, as fresh and gotta-have-it as the latest looks from fashion's cutting edge.
Cassette Playa works under the names Carri Mundane and Cassette Playa, which is also the name of her fashion label. Born in the United Kingdom, she lives and works in London. Her appealing designs combine animalistic, graphic prints with futuristic elements from science fiction and fantasy, and her clothing is found in the trendiest shops in high-fashion cities around the world. Drawing inspiration both from skate culture of the 1980s and 1990s as well as from Aztec art, her perspective is both primal and urban.
see all watches by this artist


text:
Recent Articles
Yara and Piaget
Piaget and their brand ambassador Yara are an idyllic reflection of each other's values; both flaunt immense elegance and grace rounded off with an air of refinement.
Literary prizes
In addition to their prizes, the winners were presented with an elegant Piaget Altiplano watch.
Piaget Mandarin Oriental Hong Kong Flagship Boutique
To mark the opening of its Asia Flagship Boutique in the Mandarin Oriental Hong Kong, the Swiss watchmaker Piaget, held a gala celebration at the legendary hotel.
Piaget Exceptional Pieces
Since 1874, Piaget has been interpreted time through excellence. In almost 140 years, the brand has introduced some legendary creations and has been a pioneer in a number of fields.
Opening win for Pilará Piaget
Pilará Piaget Polo team won the opening match of the 2012 Tortugas Open, Argentina's Triple Crown of polo.
Screening of 'Arbitrage'
The Swiss jeweler and watchmaker Piaget partnered with The Wall Street Journal for a special screening of the intense drama, "Arbitrage", at Lincoln Center's Walter Reade Theater in New York.


text:
UN.GIFT Publications
Summary of Rozrada Publications
Oct 06 2011
Download right click "save as"
All of the materials that were published were based on the experiences of ROZRADA's specialists and information which was gained during scheduled activities (focus-groups, training sessions, master-classes, and supervisions). All of the manuals have a theoretical methodological component, as well as practical recommendations for carrying out certain activities for appropriate target audiences.
- Russian Union of Journalists, OSCE Manual on Reporting on Human Trafficking
- GIFT-Harvard Global gap analysis
- IOM Understanding and Counteracting Trafficking
- LEFO: Qualitätsstandards
- LEFO: Quality Standards
- UNICRI Trafficking of Nigerian Girls in Italy
- UN.GIFT EHTN elearning tool training handbook
- Vienna ForumThe Role of Media
- Vienna Forum Quantifying Human Trafficking
- Vienna Forum Human Trafficking for the Removal of Organs
- Migrant Smuggling by Air
- Organized Crime Involvement in Trafficking in Persons and Smuggling of Migrants


text:
Fashion Lab
vegan leather detail tee (plus)
$14.99 $46.00
The Vegan leather detail tee (plus) features:
- US sizing
- Classic scoop neckline
- Signature vegan leather detail
- True to size fit
Model is wearing size 1X
Tell a Friend
Copy and paste the following address to tell your friends:
Email a Friend
Sign Up!
Sign up for special offers, exclusive sales and discounts!
We recommend
Other customers also liked these...


text:
By Dailo Alli Alonso
BARCELONA, Spain, 11 May 2012 – In an event held yesterday at Camp Nou, the stadium of legendary football team FC Barcelona (FCB), the FC Barcelona Foundation and UNICEF reaffirmed their promise to work together to improve the lives of millions of children through sports and education.
10 May 2012: UNICEF correspondent Priyanka Pruthi reports on Executive Director Anthony Lake announcing new programmes in partnership with FC Barcelona in Brazil, China, Ghana and South Africa that will benefit seven million children. Watch in RealPlayer |
FC Barcelona has partnered with UNICEF since 2006. Since then, the FC Barcelona Foundation has contributed €1.5 million per year to support UNICEF's work on behalf of children around the world.
To celebrate this partnership, UNICEF Executive Director Anthony Lake, FC Barcelona Foundation Vice President Ramon Pont and FC Barcelona player Marc Bartra joined a friendly discussion with students from Pegaso Preschool and Primary School. The conversation was led by the students, who had prepared questions for Mr. Lake, Mr. Pont and Mr. Barta.
The children wanted to know many things. One student asked, "Why does FCB work with UNICEF?"
Mr. Pont explained that UNICEF's work for child development and child rights "fits exactly with what the club pursues through its foundation, and therefore we are aligned."
UNICEF recognizes the critical importance of sport and play, which contribute to children's physical development and teach important values, including leadership, teamwork, fairness and respect for others. UNICEF promotes all children's rights to play and learn, and FC Barcelona supports these efforts.
A world without UNICEF
Mr. Lake was asked how he imagines a world without UNICEF.
© UNICEF Spain/2012/Prat |
FC Barcelona player Marc Bartra, UNICEF Executive Director Anthony Lake and FCB Foundation Vice President Ramon Pont sit with a large group of schoolchildren in the city of Barcelona. |
First of all, Mr. Lake said, it would be terrific news if the world did not need UNICEF – it would mean that the rights of all children had been met.
But, he continued, it would be terrible if UNICEF did not exist in today's world. He said that he has met many children who would not have received medical treatment, children who would not have gone to school, and children who would not have grown up healthy if not for the work of UNICEF.
Another child asked Mr. Bartra, "If you were not a FCB player, would you still support UNICEF?"
Mr. Bartra said that he would support UNICEF even if he was not a famous athlete. But, he said, being in the spotlight allows him to promote UNICEF's work on a larger scale, noting that he believes "UNICEF is proud that a great club like ours carries its logo, and we are proud to wear it as well."
Mr. Lake responded, "All the UNICEF team is delighted with its partnership with FC Barcelona."
Through this alliance, FC Barcelona is supporting UNICEF's efforts to reach millions of children in 16,000 schools in Brazil, China, Ghana and South Africa. This collaboration is expected to train over 5,000 teachers and coaches and to integrate sport and sporting values into education programmes. Schools will also receive sports equipment and improved infrastructure for physical education, sport and play.
Related links
Press Release: FCB and UNICEF strengthen their partnership for children in four countries
UNICEF Goodwill Ambassador David Beckham highlights issues of street children on Philippines visit
On Texas visit, FC Barcelona stars celebrate renewed partnership with UNICEF
International partnerships: FC Barcelona
FC Barcelona funds new early infant diagnosis laboratory in Swaziland
UNICEF and FC Barcelona champion vulnerable children in new photo exhibit


text:
Cheap hotels near Train Station (Centre Ville) in Aix en Provence, France
Check Rates for hotels near Train Station (Centre Ville), Aix en ProvenceChecking Rates for hotels near Train Station (Centre Ville), Aix en ProvenceNo availability
An error has occurred but we're onto it. In the meantime, try a search using other dates.
Address 3/5, rue des Chartreux (Centre Ville)
Situated on a side street in Aix-en-Provence's city center, close to the fountains and cafés of the Cours Mirabeau, the two-star Adagio (formerly Pierre et Vacances) offers apartment-style accommodations.
Address 5 Route de Galice (Near Center)
The three-star Best Western La Galice offers 90 rooms less than a ten-minute walk from the center of Aix en Provence.
Address 1 Rue Jean Andreani (Around Aix en Provence)
The two-star Campanile Aix-en-Provence Sud-La Beauvalle offers well-equipped rooms just two miles south of Aix en Provence's city center and off of La Provencale highway.
Hôtel Artea
starAddress 4 boulevard de la République (Centre Ville)
The Hotel Artea is a two-star property housed in a traditional Aix en Provence mansion and located within easy walking distance of the central train station.
Hôtel de France
starAddress 63 Rue Espariat (Centre Ville)
The two-star Hotel de France offers 27 well-equipped rooms in central Aix en Provence. The hotel is conveniently located near the Fontaine de la Rotonde and numerous shops, sights and markets.
Check Rates for Checking Rates for No availability
xNote: This hotel does not offer online booking through our reservation partners. To see all available hotels in , please search below.


text:
THIS IS A MANUFACTURER DIRECT ITEM. THIS ITEM SHIPS ON OR BEFORE Wednesday, June 26 th
Order as many items as you like with our $5.99 flat rate shipping.
Need it faster?
Keep your 1:24-scale die-cast car safe in the Mounted Memories Dale Earnhardt, Jr. #88 display case. It's engraved with the team-affiliated sponsor, NASCAR driver's number, and "The Dew Crew Rises" text. A built-in pedestal shows your car off to its full potential.
- 1:24-Scale die-cast car display case
- Built-in pedestal
- Car not included
- Engraved with team-affiliated sponsor, NASCAR driver's number, and "The Dew Crew Rises" text
- Interior Dimensions: 9.75" x 5.50" x 5.50"
- Officially licensed
Other Customers also liked:
Have a Suggestion?
Have a Suggestion?
Special event items are produced by manufacturers only after the outcome of a game
or event. These are advanced sale items and will ship immediately after they are
received in our warehouse.
Manufacturer direct items are shipped directly from the manufacturer. These items
are not available for international or expedited shipping.
Customized items can be personalized with options such as your name, your favorite
number, and/or designs. Some options may be limited by league rules.