One Man's Terrorist Is Another Man's Majority

It's hard to forget the Obama administration's 9-page report identifying the real American Terrorists as, among others, "Military Vets, Americans who are Pro-Life, Conservatives and Tea Party participants" -- bizarrely equating people who've served in the U.S. armed forces, practice free speech and want to stop partial birth abortions with the butchers who beheaded Nick Berg.

But what will this administration do now that the people they identify as radical enemies of the state are in reality plurality? According to last week's Gallop Poll, most Americans now identify themselves as pro-life. Looks like Obama's tagged radical fringe has become the moderate majority. And while the main stream media is covering this latest poll with the same vigor that Perez Hilton would cover a willing coed, the political implications are hard to miss. And no matter where you fall within the abortion debate, the ideological sanctity of life is making a comeback.

The Church Was Right About Obama

The Catholic Church tried to warn us that Barack Obama wasn't just a "pro-choice" politician, but a radical pro-abortion activist with little regard for the sanctity of life. They told us that his speech in front of Planned Parenthood where he promised to make the "Freedom of Choice Act" a presidential priority (thus granting Federal funding for abortion, waving parental consent for minors and changing the practice for partial-birth abortions) wasn't just a campaign speech but was a core belief. They told us that his active defense of infanticide in the practice of killing babies who survived abortions was a reflection of his world view. The Church raised a red-crossed flag when Obama said that when he supported abortion it was because if his two daughters "make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby," that he honestly saw unplanned conception as a simple mistake and a baby as the unacceptable punishment. They warned us.


Only a few days into his presidency Barack Hussein Obama has begun his assault on the sanctity of life. In every poll I've ever seen most Americans agree that women should have the right to choose when it comes to abortions, but when you dig deeper and ask Americans how they feel about paying for other people to have abortions, partial birth abortions or killing abortion-surviving babies they emphatically shout "NO," leaving those sickening positions to the radicals who believe that abortion is more than a right, it is a political statement of power at any cost. And the new President is quickly identifying himself as the most radical baby-life-snuffer ever to wield the executive pen.

On Friday, under the cover of date night, Barack Obama used his newly found presidential power to repealed a ban on federal funding for international groups that promote or perform abortions. Our taxes will now go to work paying for other peoples "mistakes" and "punishments."

But the Chosen One's inkwell indictment of life didn't stop there. Obama has also move to reverse Bush's tight-fisted treatment of embryonic stem cell research. As I pointed out in previous posts, embryonic stem cell research is not science, but a social agenda. It has yet to produce a single cure while adult stem cell research has provided many. Beyond that, the primary reason proponents claim that we need embryonic stem cells has been discredited, as we now know that the much sought pluripotent cells can be harvested elsewhere. Yet still they persist, leading us with only one conclusion, this is not about cures but about a cause. And Barack Obama is now leading that cause.

The cause is not that of pro-choice, but pro-abortion. Not of cures, but of conquest. Not of life, but of power.

Michigan's Prop 2: Is Embryonic Stem-cell Research Science Or Social Agenda

In November Michigan voters will be casting the yea or nay on Proposal 2, which would amend the state constitution to expand embryonic stem-cell research and open the door for additional funding at the tax payer's expense.

Now listen, I cried like the rest of you when Superman rolled out in his wheelchair to laud embryonic stem-cell research. And I was shaky after Michael J. Fox's plea for additional funding. But strumming the heart strings will only go so far when you notice that the actual scientific advancement of this particular research doesn't match the promise promised by its proponents.

Those in favor of embryonic stem-cell research rightly claim that the cells harvested are "pluripotent," meaning they can form (or be formed) into any of over 200 hundred cell types found in the human body. Adult stem cells, on the other hand, are "multipotent," meaning that they are only partially differentiated and can form a fairly limited number of other tissues. So, the argument goes, why not perform your research in the area with the greatest potential?

The primary problem with this logic, of course, is that a human embryo has to be destroyed to get those pesky stem cells. On top of that, embryonic stem cells have lacked stability and thus resulted in little or no actual success stories, while adult stem-cell treatments have been successfully used in cases like paralysis and blood diseases in children. Finally, there are a growing number of alternatives for finding pluripotent stem cells without upsetting grandma by donating the future apple of her eye to science.

How about umbilical cord stem cells? While there is a lower frequency of stem cells in the cord, there is evidence that both multipotent and pluripotent cells are there. And after baby arrives and daddy snips that nasty piece of slimy flesh, everybody this side of Scientology is going to toss it into the trash bin anyway (the cord, not the baby). No controversy (if it's the cord, not the baby).

But even more interesting are new research results brought to my attention by my ol' friend Dr. Rapp (who is a doctor of philosophy, but has credentials at least equal to Dustin Hoffman on this subject). Apparently, "researchers have found a way to take any kind of human cell, a skin cell for example, and change it into a pluripotent stem cell. The field is rapidly advancing. "

With this being the case, why do so many on the left want to push for embryo smack downs when there are alternatives that have proven more successful, now have the same potential, and are obviously less controversial when it comes to questions about the sanctity of life? Could it be that there is a social agenda behind their science?

Read more about Dr. Rapp's take here: Michigan's Ballot Proposal No. 2

And if you're a Michiganian, Michigander, Yooper or Troll:

Vote NO on Proposal 2.

Born Alive

While Barack Obama has disputed this ad . . . facts is facts (and now they even have him on that cursed tape defending the position he took . . . when he didn't vote "present.")



The problem isn't that Obama is pro-choice, a position I sympathize with, it's that he makes China's old Tibetan policy seem salon-friendly.

Drop That Cup, Sebelius!

I spent some time watching the Pope's visit to the States and found two storylines fun and fascinating. First, there was the way that Mother Theresa's "Missionaries of Charity" jumped up and down like pre-teens at a Hannah Montana concert as the German Papa passed their way. Praise God for Tivo and the chance to play that image over and over. Second was the Vegas feel to the pundits discussing which pro-choice politicians would step forward to take communion. (I won $50 bucks when Giuliani rushed the alter to beat the spread.) And while the Missionaries of Charity have gone back to help the needy, the abortion-kind Catholic politicians are facing revived demands from the church to either drop their pro-choice stance or drop that communion cup.

As reported in the fluffy but colorful USA Today, Catholic Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City has drawn Christ's blood in the battle with a request that Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius back off from the Eucharist.

The archbishop said Sebelius should not take Communion until she has "acknowledged the error of her past positions, made a worthy sacramental confession and taken the necessary steps for amendment of her life," including "a public repudiation of her ... support of laws and policies sanctioning abortion."

Now, I have to confess that the abortion issue is not a deal-breaker for me. I understand that there are those who believe that abortion is the murder of an innocent life. I also know that there are those who are not sure when life begins and decide to err on the side of the woman's rights. Like many Americans, I hate the fact that current laws seem to consider abortion an "oops, I forgot my condom" fix, but I'm not ready to march in front of a clinic and harass young women who are making the most difficult decision of their lives. The Archbishop, however, has to answer to an even higher authority.

"The spiritually lethal message, communicated by our governor, as well as many other high profile Catholics in public life, has been in effect: 'The church's teaching on abortion is optional!'" Naumann writes.

In other words, abortion is not an issue you can ignore as a cafeteria Catholic. It revolves around the church's teachings on conception and its fundamental moral objectives concerning the sanctity of life. If you cannot accept this element of Catholicism, how can you in good conscience accept the church's offering of transformed wine that signifies life itself?