Cooling. No wait, warming. No wait, Climate Change. That's it!

Whenever I find myself subjected to listening to an "environmentalist" I frequently find my mind drifting to a memory of a cartoon. You know the one I'm talking about I'm sure. It's typically got a man standing on a street corner dressed in a white gown with a long beard holding a sign that says "The End of the World is Nigh!". Why would I compare them to this cartoon? For the simple reason that I think that "environmentalists" are the modern day equivalent to the doomsayers of the past. They are akin to the priests during the middle ages that would insist the plague that had beset a community was a sign of God's judgment for their wickedness. The community would drop to their knees and pray to God asking for his forgiveness. They would promise to erect new churches to worship in, promise to change their ways, and of course root out the Devil from their community. Meanwhile, the people who could have actually helped prevent the spread of the plague, people of science, are either run out of town, tortured till the "confess" their allegiance with the Devil, or they join the mob hoping to blend in and survive the madness. That is what is happening today. Except that today the priests have been replaced with "Environmentalist", "Climatologists" and their acolytes. They claim to have science on their side yet refuse to open their science up to debate. This "science" then becomes more like a organized religion than actual science.

The science of climatology is not science fact. There are plenty of theories and very little fact. This is because, as is the case many times, politicians have picked up theories and tried to make use of them to get elected. In doing this, most times, complicated science gets boiled down to 2 sentence sound bites that are easily digested by the masses. When there is an up swing in hurricane activity, or a heat wave, or some other natural disaster politicians take advantage of others suffering by making vague and sometimes false references to one platform or another that they've been championing for decades. Of course, when we see these sudden changes in our environment we immediately see logic in what the politician is claiming. We hear things like the hottest day on record, or worst drought in decades, or worst flooding in 100 years and we accept it as fact. Which it might be. So we think the politician was correct about the stand he/she took for the last 10 years about Global Cooling/Warming or Climate Change with these few examples of natural disaster. Then we listen more intently to them and when they know we are FINALLY paying attention they tell us how to "fix" the problem we've made for ourselves. Does this sound familiar? Let's put it in another way.......

Al Gore says, man made pollution will result in incredibly destructive natural disasters and climate change. No one listens and everyone goes about their business "sinning" in the eyes of Gore. Then a natural disaster happens. Everyone is shocked by the damage that Mother Nature can bring to us. We all drop to our knees and plead (pray) to the Great Gore to lead us from the temptations of the Great Devil Oil. We promise to change our dependent ways and erect huge solar farms in honor of the Great Gore. Woe be to all those that oppose the ideals of the Great Gore!

OK, OK....maybe that's a little tongue in cheek but it's not FAR from the truth. Today we are making decisions about the future without having science to back it up. The hypocrisy of some of these decisions would be great material for a Monty Python skit if they were still doing comedy. Take for example the bill the GW Bush signed that was pushed through Congress and hailed as a great step for the environmental cause. The Energy Bill that was signed by GW back in December 2007. The part of that bill I'm referring to basically bans the sale of incandescent light bulbs. Well it "phases" them out over time by requiring light bulb efficiency standards. This is GREAT, right? I mean in the future everyone will be using Compact Fluorescent Lights (CFL). Those are the neat, little fluorescent light bulbs that are suppose to significantly reduce our electric bills if you use them. Wow, are we green now! Think of how much energy our country will save when everyone is obliged to buy CFL's! OK so now lets talk reality. You know how the eco-friendly crowd is always crying foul about big business preventing real change.....well it was big business that wrote this bill. The brag about it. I never heard the likes of Al Gore or any other eco-friendly mouth piece speak up about this. I get it....if the business is doing something eco-friendly it's great! Even when they are only pretending to be eco-friendly and are really just using their influence to make our elected officials pass laws that make them money. WHAT!? Think about it like this. Lets say GE makes an incandescent bulb that costs them $0.50. They put, I don't know, 10% on the cost for their profit and sell the bulbs for $0.55. So GE is making $0.05 per bulb. GE, Philips and other electronics companies lobbied for the laws to phase out the incandescent bulbs because the bulbs cost them more to make thus increasing their profit margin. SOOOO....GE makes a CFL and it costs them lets say $4.00 they put 10% on the cost and sell the CFL for $4.40. So now GE is making $0.40 per bulb instead of $0.05. Now consider this, GLOBALLY right here and now there are only about 3 manufacturers that can make bulbs that match the efficiency standards now required by law. Eventually, you won't have an alternative to buy incandescent bulbs and you'll only have 3 company's to pick from. What do you think will happen to the prices of CFL's then? Now think about how much energy is going to be saved thus reducing the pollution. Well, these new CFL's will not be manufactured in the USA like most incandescent bulbs are. They will be produced in China. We all know how environmentally friendly China is. So now we have a situation in which our light bulbs which are suppose to help clean up the environment are being manufactured in a horribly polluted and inefficient country. Then on top of that how much additional pollution and energy will be needed just to ship them to the USA? What about the jobs that are going to be lost in the USA? I have no idea if it's a lot of jobs but I know that some people are employed to make incandescent light bulbs in the USA today. Those factories will have to be shut down. What about the mercury in the CFL's? The traditional incandescent bulbs could be simply thrown away if they broke. Not CFL's. If they break the mercury they have inside them could spill out. Yes it's very little, about 4-5mg, but the EPA has special instructions on how to clean up a broken CFL....click here and read them for a good laugh. Aren't they ridiculous!? All that if you break a light bulb!? Really!? Well if you value your health the answer is YES. Plus, you can't just throw them in the trash. They are classified as hazardous waste. This is the kind of "science" that environmentalist brandish. They don't want to debate the logic of it.

Environmentalist have changed their tale more times than you can count. The Catholics use to excommunicate people for saying the Earth was not at the center of the solar system. Environmentalist do similar deeds. They don't want to debate their "science fact". In fact, if you question them you could loose your job, receive threats against your life. There are a large number of scientists that are reasonably sceptical of the "science" behind man made climate change. No one debates that the climate changes but the wacko's and politicians would have you believe that it's predominately man made. Which is truly bizarre when you consider all the factors that go into just one single days worth of global weather. All the CO2 we've humans have put into the air over the last 150ish years doesn't amount to a hill of beans compared to a volcanic eruption. Consider the Maunder Minimum which ushered in the the Little Ice Age that spanned 400 years. We are less than a flea on a dogs butt when you consider the impact the sun has on our climate. When investigating even further, it may turn out, that we aren't even a single celled organism when considering the impact the Universe has on our climate. I know that might seem like science fiction, admittedly it is, but shouldn't it be open for debate?

Lastly, let's consider that there is BIG money in environmentalism. Thousands of jobs are dedicated to convincing us that the environmentalists have it right. They'd like you to hate the Big Oil Demons and their Big Profits while ignoring the Big Profits they are making off your fear of man made global warming. How much money does Al Gore get to go "speak" at climate change conferences? They've even gone as far as faking their data to fool you into believing their lies. Getting back to the title of this post though, I'd like to remind everyone that the same people that are fear mongering are the same people in the 70's that claimed the Earth was cooling, in the 80's that claimed the Earth was warming up, and now when they've been proven wrong twice choose to call it Climate Change. I'm not saying that there isn't global cooling or warming or "change". I'm saying that it shouldn't become science fact just because there is some sort of loose consensus. That's not really any different than the Pope and the Cardinals coming to a consensus about their faith. In the case of the Pope, that's OK, because it's a faith and people don't need facts to have faith. In the case of science it's not OK to make decisions about our future on scientific consensus. If it can be proven then and only then should it be called scientific fact. Which we can then apply in intelligent, logical applications. Remember folks, no matter what you're told by the wacko's, there is no such thing as "emission's free". I'm not in favor of continuing as we have been. I like the idea of working towards cleaner energy. I like the idea of reducing emissions and pollution. Let's please do it with a little logic and some thought and absolutely with science fact to back up our decisions. One last example I leave you all with to think on. If we make it more and more difficult to produce products in the USA, and more and more difficult to produce energy (Carbon Tax, Emission Standards), we will out source the jobs, production, and energy creation to foreign lands. We will be trading one dependence (Oil) for another and in the meantime actually increase pollution as it's likely those foreign manufacturers won't have to live up to the same standards as our local ones will. Does this seem like a logical path to follow to REDUCE man made global warming?

Fascism, Racism, Slavery and Lies

Try as I might I can't quite grasp why Republicans and conservatives have this label of being racists, bigots, and fascists. IF you know your history (big "if" because most don't) you already know what I'm referring to. How is it the party and ideals that elected Lincoln to the presidency, fought a war to free slaves, created the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the US Constitution (if you don't know what they are go look them up here) today is labeled racist and bigoted? The comic tragedy of all this is that we are labeled such by the members of a party that's very roots and founding ideals come from protecting and preserving slavery, racism, and bigotry.

Lincoln was a conservative and elected to the presidency as a Republican. The Republican party was determined to end slavery in the USA. Nearly all the Northern political offices were held by Republicans or conservatives. Contrast this to the Southern states where the opposite was true in that virtually all the political offices were held by Democrats. Prior to Lincoln even being elected the Democrats (you're taught in school the South but this is a LIE) threatened to succeed from the union if he won. The Democrats new that with the House of Representatives and the White House being held by Republicans the end of the "southern way of life" would be close at hand.

Another lie you've been taught by public education and the chattering talking heads is that the South succeeded from the union primarily because of political and economic reasons. That the Civil War wasn't about slavery. This is a thin lie that can not stand against logic. What political and economic reasons caused the South to succeed? The political reasons were that the Republicans/Conservatives were going to continue to pass legislation restricting slavery, continue to push for the ending of slavery, and block newly created states from becoming slave states. This leads into the economic reasons. Economically the southern slave owners would be devastated if they had to pay the people that were currently working for free. This is a reality that can not be denied. The succession of the South and the Civil War were specifically and undeniably driven by the desire of the Right/Republicans/Conservatives to end slavery and the desire of the Left/Democrats/Liberals to protect slavery.

At the end of the Civil War slavery was ended and Reconstruction was begun. While I will admit that during Reconstruction had some questionable constitutional aspects (denial of voting rights and denying political offices to specific people that had been in key leadership positions of the Confederacy for example). However, in general it promoted equality and worked to protect freed blacks in the South. During Reconstruction the Republicans ran the South and forced through the US Congress the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the US Constitution. These amendments ended slavery, guaranteed citizenship rights to people born on US soil (meaning slaves born in the US as well as their children were now citizens and entitled to equal rights), and guaranteed your right to vote couldn't be restricted by race, color or previous condition to servitude. This is the legacy of the Republican party. This is what Democrats fought against.

Eventually, the ex-slave owners got back into positions of political power in the South. One specific tool they used was the threat that the south would rise again. The Democrats threatened a new civil war after the presidential election of 1876. The Republican candidate, Rutherford B. Hayes, had won by 1 electoral vote while the Democrat candidate, Samuel J. Tilden had won the popular vote by about 250,000 votes. To his credit Samuel Tilden was an anti-slavery (and please note) conservative Democrat. An unwritten deal was struck between Democrats and Republicans called the Compromise of 1876 in which the Democrats would withdraw their contest of the election allowing Hayes to take office if the Republicans would remove the Union Army troops from all former Confederate states, appoint at least 1 southern Democrat to Hayes' cabinet, construct an new transcontinental railroad, and create legislation to industrialize the south. The results of this compromise destroyed the progress the Republicans had made in the areas of equal rights in the southern states. Under Reconstruction, blacks held political offices, ran business, voted, and found some protection in an otherwise hostile environment.

During Reconstruction, paramilitary terrorist organizations that had political ties to the Democratic party engaged in voter intimidation, assignations, and massacres all with the goal of reducing Republican votes in an effort to get Democrats elected to office. I'm willing to bet you've never heard about this portion of our American history. Have you ever heard of the "White League", "Redeemers" or the "Redshirts"? In 1868 over several days in Louisiana, these paramilitary, groups killed 200 freedmen in St. Landry parish. From April to October of that same year these groups carried out 1081 political assignations most of which were freedmen. Do you know about the Colfax massacre? A white militia, and a military arm of the Democrat party, slaughter 150 black republicans who'd taken up the defense of the court house in Colfax, Louisiana for fear of the Democrat militia throwing out the Republican judges? Most of the blacks were killed AFTER they had surrendered to the white DEMOCRAT militia. Some were even killed a day after the last shots were fired as prisoners. Did you know that the KKK was organized by Democrats? Do you know what the Knights of the White Camelia were? Do you know about the Coushatta massacre? The White League, a paramilitary organization made up of white southern DEMOCRATS, gathered up 6 white Republican office holders in Louisiana and 20 freedmen and made them sign a document stating they withdrew from their offices and would immediately leave the state. Before they were allowed to leave though they were assassinated by these white southern DEMOCRATS. How about the White Leagues insurrection of New Orleans? The White League attempted to throw out of office the Republican Governor and almost had if not for the arrival of Federal troops. Thousands were killed during the White Leagues insurrection of New Orleans.

Enough of that though, after all these are events that took place almost 150 years ago. The Democrat Party of today is leading the charge for equality. Right? I mean, the first black President comes from the Democrat party so they must be reformed. Well, be that as it may, as recently as 50 years ago the Democrats were fighting the Republicans again over equal rights. It was Republican President, Eisenhower, that ended segregation in the military, assigned anti-segregationist judges (opening the way for lawsuits to be brought against segregation), summoned the National Guard troops to Little Rock, Arkansas to protect the black students that were FINALLY allowed to attend a "white" school. It was Eisenhower that proposed and championed the first civil rights bills in decades. A black man, for the first time ever, held a cabinet position in Eisenhower's administration. What were the Democrats doing you ask? Ah well, Southern Democrats filibustered these civil right bills. Presidents Kennedy and Johnson appointed PRO-segregationist judges to the benches. Yes Johnson and Kennedy might have spoken in grand speeches about equality, they may have signed bills, and I'm not questioning their convictions towards promoting equality. I'm merely stating facts that they put segregationists in judgeship's. A significant portion of the Democratic Party was actively opposed to ending segregation. Democrats like Senator Robert Byrd, currently the senior Senator of WV and once was a leader of a chapter of the KKK in WV, filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964, opposed the only two blacks to be nominated to the the US Supreme Court. He even went so far as to order J. Edgar Hoover to use the FBI to investigate (harass) one of these nominees, Thurgood Marshall, because Byrd believed he was either a communist or had a potential communist past. On top of all of this now today Byrd sits on the Senate subcommittee for Housing and Urban Development and has received a 100 percent rating from the NAACP (I'll get to this corrupt organization later) and best of all is THIRD in line to become President if Obama, Biden, and Pellossi die. Byrd is "HONESTLY" sorry for his mistakes in his past and hopes to redeem (where have we heard that term before I wonder?) himself. Why only just 8 years ago during an interview with Tony Snow on Fox News he said:

"They're much, much better than they've ever been in my lifetime... I think we talk about race too much. I think those problems are largely behind us... I just think we talk so much about it that we help to create somewhat of an illusion. I think we try to have good will. My old mom told me, 'Robert, you can't go to heaven if you hate anybody.' We practice that. There are white niggers. I've seen a lot of white niggers in my time, if you want to use that word. We just need to work together to make our country a better country, and I'd just as soon quit talking about it so much."

Look at how reformed he is. Racism is a thing of the past. Of course it is. Sure. He's not racist because he used the N-word in combination with the word white. So of course he's not racist.

Then there is Democrat J. William Fulbright. Another segregationist. You might have heard of a Fulbright scholar? These are students that receive financial assistance to study abroad. They are the cream of the crop. Bill Clinton always spoke highly of Senator Fulbright, even called him his mentor and friend. This was a "gentleman" who filibustered against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, helped create "The Southern Manifesto", was a a segregationist, an anti-Semite and was always very vocal regarding his attitudes about blacks.

Now lets discuss fascism. This is a label that those on the left gleefully place on those of the right. Why? The only explanation I can come up with is because they are either ignorant or the left has done a very good job with once again distorting history. Now, we all know that evil will use whatever tool is at it's disposal to commit horrible acts. One example of that in the 20th century was the rise of fascism. Fascism in Italy under Mussolini, in Germany under Hitler, in Spain under Franco, and in Japan under Hirohito, have all been put in the RIGHT WING category. Yet if one scratches the surface of these "right wing dictators" we find something shocking evidence that they had an awful lot in common with the left. In fact, I purpose that all dictatorships are truly examples of the rule from the left rather than the right. We all understand the basics of the left vs. the right when it come to economics, right? Well, to put it very simply, the left is in favor of nationalizing industry while the right is in favor of privatizing industry. So now considering that lets look at dictatorships. Do they privatize or nationalize industry? Hmmmm......I challenge any of you reading this to provide examples where government and industry are separate entities in a country run by a dictatorship. It doesn't exist. Modern examples would be Chavez taking control of the oil industry. Socialists and Communist swear by the nationalization of all or most industry. I think it's safe to say that at least from an economic point dictators and those on the left have common goals. Now lets look at some of the more famous fascists. Did you know that prior to creating and running the Italian Fascist party Mussolini was a Socialist? He broke with the Socialists only after they in his opinion were not bold enough to take the steps needed to liberate Italy from the current elite. Would it shock you to know that Mussolini, prior to creating the Fascists, was the editor of a large Socialist newspaper called the Avanti! and that he was well known by the police as an anarchist agitator? He was even an anti-war activist protesting against the "imperialist war in Lybia". During Mussolini's rule he made grand speeches about eliminating classes all the while living like a king. He created and organized huge social efforts. Then we look at Hitler. Hitler also was a Socialist. He was the head of the Nazi party which is only the common name for the National Socialist German Workers Party. Yes he was an anti-Semite. Yes he was a dictator. And yes he was from the LEFT not the RIGHT. Essentially what we see developing here is that Fascism is a form of Nationalize Socialism but it IS Socialism (from the LEFT). So I would say that Socialist, Fascist and DEMOCRATS have far more in common than do Republicans.

Now I'm not trying to suggest in this long post that the Democrat party is on par with the likes of Stalin (Communist, Left) who sent over 20 million people to death camps, or Hitler, or Mussolini. Nor am I suggesting that Democrats have a monopoly on racism or bigotry. What I would like to point out though is that the Republican party and Conservatism has a long history of promoting equality. That Republicans and Conservatives ended slavery. That we have little in common with the epitaphs that those on the left think fit us. Yet, after all the truth matters little when the likes of Janeane Garofalo (ultra-lefty and radio show host on the left radio channel Air America) are given air time to spew lies as she did recently on the Countdown show on MSNBC. She said:

"...Michael Steele, who’s the black guy in the Republican party who suffers from Stockholm Syndrome, which means you try and curry favor with the oppressor."

Ah yes, I see her logic now, the party that fought a war to free slaves is the oppressor of Mr. Steel. OK, I think I understand it all now, thanks for the history lesson Janeane. She is either ignorant or just stupid. Why does she have a radio show? Why is she invited onto TV? There must be someone above her that KNOWS she's lying and yet lets it go on. The true tragedy of this is that when you allow these types of lies to go on eventually they become the "KNOWN TRUTH" rather than the lies they are. How about the NAACP Chairman Julian Bond stating:

"The Republican Party would have the American flag and the swastika flying side by side."

He also called Condaleezza Rice and Colin Powell "tokens" and said that the judges which Bush had appointed were little better than the Taliban in Afghanistan. How does the NAACP still have it's not for profit status with clearly politically diverse speeches such as this one? Not to mention that here we have an organization that by it's very name is suppose to be for the ADVANCEMENT of COLORED PEOPLE (large print because that's partially what the acronym stands for) has a Chairman that for some unknown reason (probably to peddle influence) has decided that it is best to tear down the party that has struggled for the liberation and equality of his race from it's very beginning.

I am thoroughly confused. When did it become socially acceptable to whitewash the Democrat Party's past in slavery, bigotry, Communism, Socialism (therefore closely linked to Fascism) and pin it all on the party that has fought against all of this? I think it's high time the pendulum began it's swing the other way. This period of lies must come to an end. I am not pretending that the Republican Party is saintly. But lets give credit where credit is due. The biggest concern I have with all these lies can best be summed up by this blogs namesake:

"...a long habit of not thinking a thing WRONG, gives it a superficial appearance of being RIGHT, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason." from Common Sense by Thomas Paine

In our case this quote can be applied in the following sense: if a lie is left alone and undisputed it will with time replace the truth. What say you?

Liar Liar Earmarks On Fire

I know I said this was going to be a once a week thing but I am certain I wasn't going to be able to wait another week to bring this up.

So Obama spoke at Congress about the state of the economy about 3 weeks ago. During that speech he said "I am proud that we passed a recovery plan free of earmarks and I want to pass a budget next year that ensures that each dollar we spend reflects only our most important national priorities..."

Yesterday, behind closed doors, as if in shame Obama signed a budget for this year with nearly 9000 earmarks. I don't really think it's necessary for me to provide a link to this fact. You'd have to be living under a rock not to know this. The question I ask is how is this year less important than next year? This year we are struggling economically. This year people are loosing their homes. This year people are loosing their jobs. This year banks are sending our tax dollars given to them to bail them out over seas. This year I think it is far more important to pass a budget without earmarks. Nearly 8 billion dollars is going to almost 9000 projects like studying pig odor, catfish genetics, and astronomy. How are any of these earmarks going to make our lives better? They certainly aren't going to fix the economy. They are just more debt our government creating that we will have to pay back for generations. So returning to the question.....how is this year's budget less important than next years. In Obama's defense he didn't promise in his speech not to sign a budget without earmarks he only promised to cut spending next year. It's almost as if he's saying I know you elected me to bring change to Washington and I will bring change first thing next year. It reminds me of an alcoholic promising that this next drink will be his last, or a smoker saying I'm going to quit smoking tomorrow. We all know what happens....the alcoholic has another drink and tomorrow is always tomorrow for the smoker. Some of you who read this might know where the phrase "I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today." That's Popeye's old pal Wimpy. So Obama has told Congress I'll gladly sign a bill today full of earmarks for an earmark free bill next year. Do you really think that will happen? Do you really believe that Congress and Obama aren't going to come to the well again? Well SURPRISE.....Congressmen and woman are already beginning to talk about stimulus bill number 4 for this year. Some day change will come to Congress but it won't be done by an empty suit like Obama. Some might say he's picking his fights carefully. That's a tough claim to make when he hasn't fought yet nor stuck to his promises that got him elected. I'm having a tough time believing that Obama is actually running the White House when he signs bills like this. OR he is running the White House, accomplishing everything he wants to accomplish and lying to us through his teeth. Some of you may have received my email's prior to the election pointing out some troubling facts about Obama. I believe we are witnessing exactly what I was trying to show you all. Obama has lied from the very beginning about who he is and what his politics are because the truth of it is if he spoke from his heart he never would've have won the election. If he stood up for what he believes in McCain would've won by a landslide. Obama in my opinion, based on what I've seen him do so far, is telling us what we want to hear and then going about business in exactly the opposite manner. You can't stand before the world crowing about the wastefulness of Washington and then sign a bill into law that in debts our children and expect the world not to suggest you're a hypocrite.

Why not a Mini-Me?

So this morning while drinking my coffee I was catching up on the news. Last week I was on the road for work so I really didn't have much time to follow current events. Anyways, I was sipping my coffee and eating a pastry from the bread store across the street watching Special Report with Bret Baier on Fox when I heard about the latest policy change made by the Obama administration. Apparently, Obama is removing the ban of federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. I am a little bit confused by this policy change by Obama. Wasn't it Obama that said:

"One thing that I’m absolutely convinced of is that there is a moral and ethical element to this issue. And so I think anybody who tries to deny the moral difficulties and gravity of the abortion issue, I think, is not paying attention. So that would be point number one."

and:

"And, so for me, the goal right now should be — and this is where I think we can find common ground — and by the way, I’ve now inserted this into the Democratic Party platform — is: how do we reduce the number of abortions?"

Those quotes were a part of Obama's response to Rick Warren's Saddleback Forum question "At what point is a baby entitled to human rights?". When asked the question "Would you favor or oppose the federal funding of embryonic stem cell research?" by Rick Warren at the Saddleback Forum Obama responded with:

"I think that that is a legitimate, moral approach to take. If we’re going to discard those embryos and we know that there’s potential research that could lead to curing debilitating diseases — Alzheimer’s, Lou Gehrig’s disease — you know, if that possibility presents itself, then I think that we should, in a careful way, go ahead and pursue that research.

Now, if in fact, adult stem cell lines are working just as well, then, of course, we should try to avoid any kind of moral arguments that may be in place."

and:

"I think what they say is: we would not tolerate a situation in which, you know, we’re encouraging human cloning or in some ways diminishing the sacredness of human life and what it means to be human. But that in narrow circumstances, you know, there is nothing inappropriate with us pursuing scientific research that could lead to cures so long as, you know, we’re not designing embryos for that purpose."

(Click here for full transcript.)

Let's compare Obama's response to questions posed to him at the Saddleback Forum with the lifting of the ban on embryonic stem cell research.

From 1970 to 2005 over 37 million abortions have legally been preformed in the USA. Taking into consideration that in nearly every case, I would imagine, the decision to have an abortion was not easily made and agonized over. That said, how difficult will it be for scientists to destroy fetus' that are a handful of cells that they have no connection to? In my opinion many millions more fetus' will be destroyed in the name of science over the next four years. In Obama's defense I suppose he did say he wants to reduce abortions and didn't say he wanted to reduce the number of fetus' that were destroyed. At the end of the day he's advocating the slaughtering of fetus' which is de facto abortions.

Now let's also consider his strong opposition to cloning. As the title of this post states: Why not a Mini-Me? I don't see how one can be open to abortion but opposed to cloning. What can and can not be done with embryonic stem cells is still, mostly, science fiction and not science fact. So, sticking with fiction, let's for arguments sake say that a brainless clone could be made in a lab made from your very own cells. You potentially would never run out of organ replacements that would be an exact match genetically to your own organs. This would essentially be immortality. As you age and your heart gets weak you can just head over to the clone bank and get yourself a new one. How are brain pithed clones any different than destroyed fetus'? You're harvesting parts from both. You're creating and manipulating human "life" for the sole purpose of prolonging another's life. To be opposed to one and not the other doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

In addition, if you're only making a copy of yourself to be used solely to prolong your own life where's the harm? I mean it's essentially the same argument that abortion rights activists make on a regular basis....the right to choose what I do with my own body.....a clone is really just an extension of your body. To my knowledge the number one cause of death in America is death. No that's not a typo. Embryonic stem cell advocates want you to believe that their salvation can be found in the destruction of fetus'. So why not support cloning as a means to avoid death? At least with my method you're not destroying life. Also, where are they going to get the fetus' from? Fertility clinics? OK but eventually the demand for these stem cells will be so great that the clinics won't be able to deliver to meet demand. So what then? Pay people to donate their eggs and sperm? So now we create an entire industry around destroying fetus'? I think brain pithed cloned humans are a far more ethical way to curing diseases.

OK so clearly I don't support either cloning nor embryonic stem cell research. The last two paragraphs were my attempt at sarcasm. I think though that there is not a great leap between destroying embryos and clones for destruction. Especially, if those clones never attain consciousness.

The one question we should all be asking ourselves is if embryonic stem cells were so important why haven't there been any huge advancements in this field? What do you think, that just because the US isn't funding something it won't get done? It was private industry that decoded our DNA in significantly less time than it took the government. Why would we assume that embryonic stem cells are any different?

Bush's ban on embryonic stem cell research didn't mean that private and state money couldn't be spent to do the research. It meant that US federal money couldn't be spent on it. California passed a $3 billion bill to fund embryonic stem cell research. Other nations have spent a lot of money on studies involving embryonic stem cells. One should ask the question if there was so much potential to be had with embryonic stem cells why hasn't the private industry taken the ball and run with it like they have with both adult and cord blood stem cells? Maybe it's because there have been some very disturbing findings regarding embryonic stem cells. There are cases where embryonic stem cells have created tumors. In one case instead of a cure the patient now has a brain tumor . In one study, 20% of mice which were treated with embryonic stem cells to cure their Parkinson's developed brain tumors. It's also been discovered that embryonic stem cells develop chromosomal anomalies which cause cancer if they are stored for too long. If this is true more often than not that really blows up one of the biggest benefits to using embryonic stem cells. That is that supposedly they can be stored for long durations. There are lots of cons rather than pros to using adult, cord, and embryonic stem cells. I think though that most of the recent evidence from around the world is starting to call into question the validity of embryonic stem cells usefulness.

Lastly, take look at his response. Did he not say that if adult stem cell lines are working that we should avoid using embryonic stem cell line? Yes he did and yes they are. In fact, there have been incredible advances in both cord blood and adult stem cells. Adult stem cells have been improving lives of people that have fought everything from Leukemia to Parkinson's. They're even being applied to people that have been paralyzed. It seems to me like an odd time to be lifting the ban when so many advances are being made without embryonic cells. I believe Obama has lifted this ban purely for political reasons. He has done this to appease his base as he has not yet delivered on a single one of his promises. I think he will be shamed by this and it might even cost him a re-election. I believe he has underestimated the ramifications of this act and underestimated the silent majority.

Anyway, that's my 2 cents for the day. It's time to get back to work and the real world.

Welcome To Common Sense

After much thought, and some Common Sense, I decided it good sense to set up a blog. From time to time, I've emailed friends and family with my thoughts on recent events. I got to thinking, that by emailing you I was pushing my opinions on you rather than inviting you to a discussion about recent events. So here is a forum where I can put on "paper" my thoughts and invite you, if you CHOOSE, to take part in a discussion. I ask of those that come to post thoughts on this blog to: 1) use logic and facts and when possible provide a link to the source of where that logic or fact flows from; 2) keep it clean (you know what I mean); 3) emotional posts without substance and only meant to inflame others will not be allowed. If you can follow these rules then I invite you to either poke holes in my "logic" or give your support to my postings. I promise to keep an open mind and not reject someones post out of hand just because they make an opposing point. Only by respectful debate will we ever bring our "opponent" to see our point or, I suppose, be brought to see our "opponents' point.

I have borrowed Thomas Paine's title to his pamphlet for good reasons. When I was around 17 my father, gave me a lecture after I'd done something stupid. Although, after many years, I can't recall either the stupid thing nor the lecture but I do recall the "punishment". After the lecture, as "punishment" he handed me a copy of Thomas Paine's "Common Sense". While I had heard about both the author and the pamphlet I had never read it. My father insisted that I read it as my "punishment". Being a GOOD son, I was determined NOT to read it. Knowing I'd be questioned about its contents I thought it best to maybe read the opening and maybe the ending and maybe a bit of the middle just so I could give some sort of response to any questioning. However, after reading the opening I found that Common Sense conveyed a truth that no fictional book or account of history had ever done. This pamphlet was not someones memory nor someones interpretation of a memory. It was written by someone living in the event that they were describing. Yet it was more than that. Common Sense isn't like picking up a newspaper and reading an article by a journalist. In that moment in time it brought focus to an event that was occurring by means of laying out logical, unquestionable, undeniable truth put in a pamphlet for all to read. There I was reading something written over 200 years earlier and those same truths in that paper still held true. In the here and now, we face a great turning point in history that has many similarities to that time and place that Mr. Paine came from. Many people today would very much like us to see today's events in the light of the time of the Great Depression. I see it, however, as a time in history where our society is being challenged by our government much the like the colonial society was being challenged by the British government. Mr. Paine's paper Common Sense was an attempt to speak to those that sought both to end the tyrannical rule of the British monarchy over America and at the same time remain loyal to Brittan. As Mr. Paine saw it, and attempted to describe in Common Sense, one could not remain loyal to the master and seek liberty at the same time. I believe that we have similar issues at hand whereas our society's morals are in jeopardy of being overwhelmed by our government. So with that in mind, my desire is to bring people together from all parts of the political spectrum to discuss the course of the Nation. Not so that we can spend time venting tripe but so that we might through thoughtful debate make a stronger future and give the next generations all the opportunities we were afforded. I don't mean to place my blog on the same level as Mr. Paine's Common Sense. Instead, I'll let Mr. Paine's words describe my reasoning for creating and desired goal of this blog.

"In the following sheets, the author hath studiously avoided every thing which is personal among ourselves. Compliments as well as censure to individuals make no part thereof. The wise, and the worthy, need not the triumph of a pamphlet; and those whose sentiments are injudicious, or unfriendly, will cease of themselves unless too much pains are bestowed upon their conversion. The cause of America is in a great measure the cause of all mankind. Many circumstances hath, and will arise, which are not local, but universal, and through which the principles of all Lovers of Mankind are affected, and in the Event of which, their Affections are interested. The laying a Country desolate with Fire and Sword, declaring War against the natural rights of all Mankind, and extirpating the Defenders thereof from the Face of the Earth, is the Concern of every Man to whom Nature hath given the Power of feeling; of which Class, regardless of Party Censure, is the AUTHOR."

My plan is to have 1 topic per week. I hope you all come by once a week to have a view and either just read or post a comment. So with that in mind, welcome to Common Sense.