Okay, so, we are now supposed to believe that this President, who seems to foster an almost unprecedented and blind loyalty also happens to be the most uninformed and administratively detached President in history with no idea what happening in any of the Cabinet level agencies over which he presides. Nah. Too much of a stretch. The man is lying, manipulative, and powerful - bending these agencies to his vision of America. Get him out of there!!!

I must admit I have a hard time reading your cold comments without commenting upon them. Sounds to me like you have a conservative nature but hate this particular subject because you are unwilling to face your own past abortions. Do a little house cleaning, Wendy. Past mistakes can be forgiven. Using them to justify an untenable intellectual position only makes it worse.

What makes you think this guy was any kind of "last resort?" It was a licensed clinic, not a back alley illegal abortion kitchen. You, Natalia, are a vicious and resentful nut who can't understand a simple news report.

What an irony, that you accuse the writer of the "straw man" fallacy while building a straw man argument of your own!

There's no "straw man" here. The columnist is not making a case to deny any woman reproductive freedom and makes no assertion, by any stretch here, that Gosnell is typical. He's making a case about the bigotry of the news media toward white crime and violence. That you completely and utterly missed the point is a clear indication of the same tendency in you.

The Zundel False News Trial in Canada found Zundel guilty TWICE. The final review on appeal had the following statement from a Justice for the majority opinion: Zundel "misrepresented the work of historians, misquoted witnesses, fabricated evidence, and cited non-existent authorities." That's about Zundel, the holocaust denier, NOT about recanting witness of an alleged holocaust. So, your source is BALONY. Your one of the type that would turn a blind eye to any modern holocaust so long as it was not your group of people.

Seems to me entirely possible the teacher may have given that provocative instruction to challenge those kids and facilitate self-examination and a discussion about character and consequence. What an opportunity to discuss the differences between those willing to risk prison by refusing and those complacently writing away to protect themselves. All of this condemnation in the absence of further clarification is nothing but overwrought PC posturing and exaggerated incense. Maybe the teacher was merely anti-Semitic and seeking to indoctrinate. But I highly doubt that. Before you all flame me - I'm Jewish by birth and have an absolute disdain for anti-Semitism the recent rise in anti-Israeli rhetoric.

Katie - someday soon you will be as hated and reviled as Ann Coulter. I say, "Bring on the pies!"

The Jewish roots of Islam do not exist. Ideas and histories were lifted from Jewish scripture to show legitimacy to the Jews to whom Mohammed first brought his "revelation." They didn't buy it, and neither did the Christians. His revised strategy remains to this day.

For your information, Winkmeister, the "eye for an eye" you quote is a misapplication of the Judaic prohibition of punishment outweighing the crime - the first real application of what was to become the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. THAT is Torah. Your ignorance is further demonstrated by your misapplication of "Turn the Other Cheek" which was Jesus' admonition to endure insult without reprisal. Human nature promotes reprisal and revenge. Both Judaism and Christianity attempt to temper that nature. You seem to think only Christianity does - missing, as so very many do, the Jewish root and soil of that faith.