My prayer as more videos come to light is young women will pay attention and realize NOW and their ilk are false prophets of equality. A group so willing to destroy a female in the womb as a means to uphold supposed female empowerment is seriously warped. It doesn't get any more obvious than in these videos. I believe in equality of the sexes but not the nonsense which has become the mainstay of the feminist movement. The more young women remove themselves from feminist indoctrination, the better hope of restoring this country to some form of sanity. I am still a big believer in "The hand that rocks the cradle, rocks the world."

My aunt's sister was engaged to Audie Murphy. She ended the engagement because she struggled to handle Murphy's PTSD which was apparently severe. My father was talking with Audie about the situation in which Audie heroically fought off the Germans. My father was amused by Audie's humble but emphatic response about why he took the actions he did on the battlefield, "They (the Germans) made me mad."

I have wondered about the same thing. What happens if a "gay gene" is found? Will NOW back up the gay community when the gay community decries the number of "gay" babies being aborted? If not, will the gay community then look to the pro life contingent, which is conservative and often Christian, to back it up? This would be ironic considering how much the gay community has sought to ostracize the Christian community. In regard to the gay community's push to have society believe "we are born this way," it reminds me of the old saying, "Be careful what you wish for because you might get it." One thing of which you are correct, if "gay" babies are aborted, the gay community will certainly call attention to the abortion industry.

I wish I could remember the exact quote, but Sandra Day O'Connor commented that abortion and science were on a collision course. As technology and methods have sought to save babies inside the womb and premature babies, it is hard to reconcile such efforts with partial birth abortion. The zealotry which with some have protected partial birth abortion has caused many to rethink their position. The rhetoric has changed. Even some who claim to be "pro choice" will qualify that they are not "pro abortion." They believe the government should not make the decision. This is a change which is still "evolving."

While Alger's article is well meaning, there are some facts of which she appears ignorant. Alger mentions alternatives such as charters and homeschooling, but I doubt military homeschooling families would be allowed to receive a voucher to offset the costs of the materials they purchase. Also, Alger's doesn't appear to understand why many military families have opted to homeschool. While many schools are failing, even successful schools can be problematic for military children. The reason is pacing. A child may be on track in one state, move, and be behind or ahead in another state. Homeschooling allows parents to maintain a consistent pacing no matter where the family moves including overseas.

The one concern which seems to be getting little attention is why on earth the teachers in attendance did not direct their student to walk out? I ask this as a former public school teacher. As such, I had to sign a contract which included a minimum code of conduct. There is an expectation that while students are under the supervision of a teacher whether on campus or off at a supervised event, the code of conduct will be followed. I wonder if there are any reprocussions coming down the pike for the teachers who allowed students to sit through what was obviously an inappropriate presentation? If not, there should be.

Call me confused because I find myself perplexed by this article. My first question is, What is the point of the article? To what purpose was it written? Secondly, I graduated from a Southern Baptist College. While most commencement speakers were Christian not all of them would have necessarily fit the conservative Christian title. I did not take offense because the commencement was a speech not a sermon. There is and should be a difference between the two. If a Mormon or a Christian of the liberal persuasion had spoken in chapel, then I would have balked. If the commencement at Liberty University is normally a sermon presented by a pastor, I can see the objection. If it is a general commencement speech than I am not sure I...

A lot of teachers are not lazy and/or pedophiles. I am a conservative female who spent sixteen years in the public school system. I spent most of my career in alternative education trying to help students who were struggling to acheive academic success. There is a significant population of conservative teachers in public education. They are there because they want to make a difference. Additionally, not all homosexuals who become teachers are pedophiles. I have worked with two exceptional teachers who also happend to be gay. Their orientation was never an issue in the school setting. Does the public school system have problems? You Bet! Please do not paint "a lot of teachers" with such a negative brush.

I quit reading Dowd a long time ago. The reason why is if one takes out the hyperbole and snarky adjectives, there isn't much left to read. I don't mind reading opinion pieces by those on the left, but I prefer reading opinion pieces which actually have something worthy to say even if I don't agree with the substance.

As others have noted Fluke's math make no sense, so Limbaugh should have focused on that instead of name calling. Additionally, Fluke knew she was attending a Jesuit School. She stated she wanted to attend a law school with prestige. There are several, so why pick the one in which she would not agree with rules governing contraception if it was an issue of such importance? I attended a Southern Baptist college. I remember some students complaining about the rules. I always asked these students, "Did anyone hold a gun to your head to attend here?" When the answer was obviously, "no," I responded, "Then quit complaining."