Ann Romney - The View - Military Service (Video)

Ann Romney appeared on The View this morning.

Needless to say, The View's liberal cabal didn't go easy on Mrs. Romney.

From FOX News:

Whoopi Goldberg barely let Ann Romney settle into her seat on ABC's "The View" before pouncing on the first lady hopeful, asking why Mitt Romney didn't serve in Vietnam and if the couple is prepared to console families of fallen soldiers if voted into the White House.

Unlike a recent joint appearance on the show by President Obama and first lady Michelle Obama during which questioning ranged from how romantic is the president to the couple's anniversary, the show's five hosts skipped the softball questions and got right into red meat — including military service, abortion and the Romneys' Mormon faith.

When the Obamas' appearance aired on Sept. 25, the panel stuck to questions about the First Couple's 20th wedding anniversary and whether or not President Obama is "romantic," though they did query Obama lightly about the murder of U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens, which the president declined to characterize at the time as an act of terrorism.

Romney, 63, clad in a red dress and gold jewelry, was initially scheduled to appear with her husband, who backed out citing a scheduling conflict, according to host Barbara Walters. But his wife deftly deflected her husband's description of the female klatch as "sharp-tongued," saying the candidate called the women "sharp and young." Moments later, Goldberg asked Romney if her husband's Mormon faith precluded him or their five sons from serving in the military and whether the Romneys would be prepared to console relatives of fallen U.S. soldiers. Many Mormons serve in the military and the faith does not bar them from doing so.

“He was serving his mission and my five sons also served [on] missions,” Ann Romney replied. “We find different ways of serving.”

Asked how she would explain to relatives of the fallen soldiers that her sons did not serve in the U.S. military, she continued, "I would say it’s the hardest thing that a president and a first lady can do. We have the most extraordinary fighting men and women and we have to be grateful for them.”

Walters grilled Romney on abortion, and stem cell research, but noted she is not the one running for office.

“I am pro-life and I’m happy to say that,” said Ann Romney when asked by Walters if her thoughts on the issue changed like her husband of 43 years. “When a decision came across his desk to use embryos for experimentation, he could not have, on his conscience, created human life for experimentation.

“The most important thing we can do is have respect for each other in this dialogue. This is a tender, tender issue”

Following Walters’ initial question on abortion, co-host Joy Behar asked Ann Romney about women’s access to contraception, prompting Romney to say: “I would love if you could get my husband on the couch, Joy.”

Romney continued: “What I know is I am here to reflect the character of the person I know. Every decision he will make … [will be based on] is this is the best thing for America to go forward? I think I know where his heart is.”

This really pisses me off.

The Leftists have been bitching about the lack of military service by Mitt Romney and his sons since the 2008 campaign.

Read about Mike Wallace accusing Mitt and sons of being chicken hawks in a 2007 interview on 60 Minutes.

Did Whoopi Goldberg grill Obama the Hawk about his lack of service?

He's the one bragging about killing Osama bin Laden and hunting down terrorists. He's the one shamelessly trying to score political points by constantly referring to greeting the coffins of terrorism victims and our war dead.

Why didn't Obama serve? Why didn't Michelle serve?

Michelle has been yapping incessantly about how much she cares for our military.

Why didn't Michelle enlist? What stopped her?

Did Whoopi ask?

No way.

It's disgraceful.

Ann Romney is so classly and so smart. She can handle the Leftist old bitties on The View. She did handle their swipes beautifully, with dignity and humor and grace.

Just by being herself, Mrs. Romney made Goldberg, Walters, and the others in the cabal look cheap and small and desperate.

Here's video of Goldberg questioning Mrs. Romney.

Hey, Whoopi! How does Obama talk to mothers of the dead without explaining to them that he hasn't served?

More video here.

Heidi Fallone

Here's an e-mail message sent by Tom Barrett's campaign, from Heidi Fallone:

Dear Friend,

When he was just 21 months old, our son Andrew was diagnosed with juvenile diabetes.

I know my son may not have the same life expectancy as other kids, but stem cell research gives our family hope. Hope for a cure.

Unlike Scott Walker, Tom will let our brilliant scientists in Wisconsin continue their pioneering work so that we can one day make diabetes, cancer, Alzheimer's, Lou Gehrig's disease, Parkinson’s, heart disease and spinal cord injuries, problems of the past.

That's why we must spread Tom's message of hope to voters across our state. Please click here to watch our new TV ad on this important life-saving research and donate $5 now to help keep it on the air.

Scott Walker says he would ban critical stem cell research in Wisconsin. That's right - ban it.

Tom won't let that happen. Tom will stand with Wisconsin's scientists and Tom Barrett will stand up for hope.

Please help us expose Scott Walker's radical opposition to the vital embryonic stem cell research that scientists know offers the best potential to cure diseases and improve lives.

Click here to watch our TV ad and share it with your friends.

I believe that stem cell research will someday lead to a cure for my son's diabetes. But, this will only happen if all forms of stem cell research – adult and embryonic – are supported.

That's why we must support leaders like Tom Barrett who stand up for hope.

Sincerely,

Heidi Fallone

P.S. I've attached a letter to the editor on this important, life-saving research. Please read it and distribute it with your friends.

This is straight out of Jim Doyle's playbook from the 2006 campaign. Doyle's lies made me sick then and they're making me just as sick seeing them regurgitated by the shameless Tom Barrett.

Remember Jody and Maddy Montgomery and Doyle's ad, "Six Times"?

Watch "Six Times" here.

It should come as no surprise that Doyle clone Tom Barrett would mirror a 2006 Doyle campaign ad.

FACT: SCOTT WALKER DOES NOT WANT TO BAN STEM CELL RESEARCH.

Saying that he does is a "Pants on Fire" lie.

Here's Barrett's disgusting ad:



SCOTT WALKER IS NOT AGAINST HOPE.

WALKER DOES NOT WANT TO BAN STEM CELL RESEARCH.

Barrett is a liar.

I'm truly sorry that Heidi Fallone's son has diabetes, but that doesn't give her the right to lie about Scott Walker.

This Barrett ad really pisses me off because it's the same old Doyle BS.

This makes me so angry, but thanks for energizing me, Tom. I'll do everything I can to help elect Scott Walker.

You think that Barrett as governor wouldn't mean a third term of the disastrous Doyle for Wisconsin?

It would.

Barrett's campaign ad sure as hell is a Doyle replica.
_______________

UPDATE, October 8, 2010: Tonette Walker responds to Tom Barrett's despicable ad via an e-mail to supporters.

Tonette writes:

Today I was forwarded this disturbing email from Tom Barrett.

We've known Tom a long time, which is why I'm even more disappointed that he continues to lie to you about my husband.

Tom Barrett is using the Jim Doyle playbook by exploiting the plight of those afflicted with diabetes and other diseases in TV ads, falsely telling you that Scott is "against hope" and that he would "ban stem cell research."

Well, I am also a type 1 diabetic, and I CAN PROMISE YOU, my husband is full of hope! Hope for me, hope for our family, and hope for Wisconsin!

Regardless of what Tom Barrett has said, Scott will NOT ban stem cell research. Scott supports adult stem cell research- research which science has shown to have the most promise to cure my disease and which does not destroy innocent human life.

As governor, Scott will work to make Wisconsin a national leader in finding cures for diseases that have robbed many of us of the people we love. As science has shown, we can realize the potential of stem cell research without destroying human embryos or resorting to human cloning. We can both protect the earliest stages of life and find cures.

That's a win-win scenario that we would hope Tom Barrett would embrace.

Sincerely

Tonette Walker

PS – help us fight back against the Jim Doyle-Tom Barrett playbook of lies and attacks with a donation of $5, $15, $20, $50, or more today!

When it comes to the stem cell research issue, I think Barrett's behavior is absolutely disgusting.

He knows damn well that Scott Walker doesn't want to BAN stem cell research.

As a Catholic, Barrett is certainly aware of the moral and ethical concerns regarding EMBRYONIC stem cell research, the destruction of innocent human life. He knows there's a critical difference.

Come on, PolitiFact Wisconsin! Declare Barrett's "Pants on Fire" now!

Tom Barrett and Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Tom Barrett is making EMBRYONIC stem cell research a campaign issue.

From the Chicago Tribune, AP:

Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett says he will back stem cell research just like Gov. Jim Doyle if he's elected governor.

Barrett says it's wrong for opponents of embryonic stem cell research to suggest the work is unethical.

Barrett says he will be a champion for stem cell research being done at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and will stand up to attempts by lawmakers to limit it. He praised Doyle's record in that regard.

...His Republican opponents, Mark Neumann and Scott Walker, oppose embryonic stem cell research but support other forms that do not involve the destruction of human embryos. The facility he toured uses a mix.

This is déjà vu all over again.

It feels like Jim Doyle's 2006 campaign. Barrett is taking up Doyle's EMBYRONIC stem cell mantle.

From 2006:

DPW Misleads Wisconsin Voters

It's Stem Cells, Stupid

Stem Cell Research: Jim Doyle STILL Lying

JIM DOYLE IS PRO-CLONE

Last I heard, Tom Barrett claims to be a practicing Catholic; but obviously he has some major conflicts with the Catholic Church.

Read the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops' statement on EMBRYONIC stem cell research.

Stem cells from adult tissues, umbilical cord blood, and placenta (often loosely called “adult stem cells”) can be obtained without harm to the donor and without any ethical problem, and these have already demonstrated great medical promise. But some scientists are most intrigued by stem cells obtained by destroying an embryonic human being in the first week or so of development. Harvesting these “embryonic stem cells” involves the deliberate killing of innocent human beings, a gravely immoral act.

...The Catholic Church “appreciates and encourages the progress of the biomedical sciences which open up unprecedented therapeutic prospects” (Pope Benedict XVI, Address of January 31, 2008). At the same time, it affirms that true service to humanity begins with respect for each and every human life.

Because life is our first and most basic gift from an infinitely loving God, it deserves our utmost respect and protection. Direct attacks on innocent human life are always gravely wrong. Yet some researchers, ethicists, and policy makers claim that we may directly kill innocent embryonic human beings as if they were mere objects of research—and even that we should make taxpayers complicit in such killing through use of public funds. Thus, while human life is threatened in many ways in our society, the destruction of human embryos for stem cell research confronts us with the issue of respect for life in a stark new way.

If Barrett is going to run on EMBRYONIC stem cell research, and he is, then he has to address the issue of his support of the direct attack on innocent human life, something his Church considers to be gravely wrong.

Tom also strongly supports stem cell research and investing in biotechnology to ensure that Wisconsin remains a world leader in these important fields that save lives, make groundbreaking advances, and create thousands of good-paying jobs in our state.

Scott Walker and Mark Neumann strongly support stem cell research, just not the kind that requires the killing of human life.

Barrett condemns his opponents for pushing an "ideological agenda."

Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett said Monday he fully supports embryonic stem cell research and criticized his Republican opponents in the race for governor for their opposition to the potentially life-saving research.

"My concern is you have candidates for office . . . who want to inject politics into science," Barrett, a Democrat, said after touring the stem cell labs at the University of Wisconsin-Madison's Waisman Center.

"I think it would be a huge mistake to allow an ideological agenda to stop the work that's being done here."

..."You have people who are not world-renowned scientists who are telling world-renowned scientists what they can and can't do," Barrett said of the Republicans' positions. "The work that's being done here is being done in a very ethical fashion, and to somehow imply that it's not being done in an ethical fashion is simply dead wrong."

No, Tom, you are dead wrong.

Steven Crowder: "Embryonic Stem Cell FUN!"

Bill Maher and Jay Leno, May 20

Soon Jay Leno's time as host of the Tonight Show will be over. He's been having some of his regulars on as guests for his final shows.

On Wednesday, it was Bill Maher's turn.

It was his 50th appearance on the show.

This is sort of strange with Leno moving to prime time. His stint as host of the Tonight Show is ending, but he's not leaving NBC. He'll still be on five nights a week, just a little earlier.

It's a goodbye, but it's not. Weird. NBC certainly isn't hyping Leno's final shows. The end of his Tonight Show is almost a nonevent.

Back to Maher....

During Leno's monologue, he referred to Maher in one of his "bad economy" jokes. He said that the economy is so bad Bill Maher is going to church just for the free bread and wine.

Not particularly funny, in my opinion.

Nonetheless, that joke did give Maher the opportunity to bash religion as soon as his segment began.

Maher said, "People know that I hate religion." Yes, we do.

After some in the audience cheered in agreement with Maher's disdain for religion, he said that it used to be unacceptable to trash people of faith.

"It used to be the love that dare not speak its name, and now people are smarter than that."

Is that entertainment, bashing believers in God? I don't think so.

To honor Leno as his show winds down, Maher said, "You are truly the Bob Hope of our generation."

Leno was grateful for the kind remark, but then Maher explained, "When I say that mean an elderly gentleman who our fathers laughed at."

Leno turned to one of his favorite topics: Audiences are unreceptive to Obama jokes.

I don't think it's that the audiences aren't ready to laugh at Obama. It's that Leno's jokes suck.

Maher said that when he does Obama jokes his audience boos him, but he feels it's his job to hold Obama's feet to the fire.

He dissed his audience saying that he doesn't think they really follow politics that much.

"All they know is Obama - good, Bush - bad."

"Obama is not some infallible chocolate Jesus," Maher went on. "That's Kanye West you're thinking of."

Giving an example of an Obama joke that didn't go over well, on a recent Friday the 13th, Maher said, "There's a black cat in the White House."

People found that offensive. He said that people need to get used to that fact that when he makes a joke about Obama, he's not making a joke about all black people.

"The same way as when I made a joke about Bush it was not a swipe at all retarded people."

(Note: The word "retarded" is silenced. Not bleeped, just not heard.)

Disgusting, in my opinion. Nonetheless, the audience cheered wildly. I'm reminded of the Special Olympics joke that Obama made when he was Leno's guest. Leno and the audience liked that one, too.

The mentally challenged seem to be considered fodder for humor on the Tonight Show. I think it's inappropriate.

Then they discussed conservatives and liberals and their willingness to laugh at their own.

Maher said he does a lot of charity events. Liberals don't want to laugh at themselves.

"I hate charity, Jay," Maher stated.

He explained that he doesn't hate charity. He hates charity events because of the people who attend. He complained about the rudeness of limousine liberals. It was a little odd for Maher to whine about limousine liberals when so many are his buddies.

When Leno asked Maher his opinion of how Obama is doing so far, Maher expressed some dissatisfaction. Maher criticized Obama for not being the "change guy" he promised to be.

Maher said, "At the end of the day the president is, above all, a television character. And for eight years, the channel was stuck on Hee Haw.

Lame.

Maher commented on what a young energetic guy Obama is. He got up and hopped around a bit. Then, he demonstrated how John McCain moves. Maher hunched over and pretended to be using a walker.

Again, lame.

Leno and Maher talking health care was a joke.

On health care, Maher complained about a for profit system.

Maher declared, "Most civilized countries do not have a for profit health care system. We're the only one that does."

That may be so, but no civilized country has made the medical advances and contributed more to improving the health and quality of life of human beings as much as our country has.

When discussing the closing of Gitmo, Maher said that everything Obama did by executive order was terrific.

He didn't complain about abuse of power or Obama being an imperial president.

No. Maher said, "As soon as he got into office, he got a big can of Bush-B-Gone, and sprayed the whole country."

Maher mocked President Bush on embryonic stem cell research. In the process, he made a fool of himself. Maher complained, "For eight year, President 'Jesus Loves Me' wouldn't allow any stem cell research, until they sat him down and explained about stem cell research. They said to him, 'Mr. President, when a daddy loves a mommy very much.'"

More lies.

He talked as if he were an expert on the subject. That, of course, was ridiculous.

He asked Leno if he knows what an embryonic stem cell is. Leno kind of stuttered. Then Maher began his BS lecture.

He called the stem cell "a little specklet of goo" without mentioning that to get that goo an embryo is destroyed.

He didn't mention that an embryo is a genetically complete human being. There's a lot of value in that "goo."

Maher said an embryonic stem cell is "a two-day old dividing cell, or as conservatives call it: a baby."

Lie.

He called the embryos used in stem cell research "leftovers" at fertility clinics.

"Somebody doesn't finish their eggs, and the busboy, instead of clearing... That's where they get stem cells."

About the research, he said, "This is something that can help people who are really alive."

At no point did Leno question Maher's claims or note that adult stem cells have been used to successfully treat and cure disease. Embryonic stem cells have not.

In fact, Leno said he agreed with Maher.

Together, like good propagandists, Leno and Maher perpetuated the myths.

Leno ended the interview by saying he's always been proud to have Maher on the show, even when he wasn't popular and even though he started as a little speck of goo.

Unfortunately, Leno plans to have Maher appear on his prime time show.

Obama and Notre Dame

UPDATE, March 29, 2009: Archbishop Timothy Dolan, successor to Cardinal Edward Egan and the next leader of the Archdiocese of New York, comments on the Notre Dame controversy.
______________

The controversy over Notre Dame awarding Barack Obama with an honorary degree and having him give an address during commencement exercises isn't cooling off. It's heating up.

Obama Notre Dame invite stirs Catholic debate

In American Catholicism, it doesn't get much bigger than Notre Dame. So when the university known for its golden dome, "Touchdown Jesus" mural and rigorous academics invited President Barack Obama to speak at its commencement and receive an honorary degree in May, it stoked both pride and anger on campus and nationwide.

I object to the wording of that first sentence by AP Religion Writer Eric Gorski.

When I think of "American Catholicism," Notre Dame does not come to mind. No school does.

However, when it comes to Catholic universities, Notre Dame does have a very, very high profile.

By giving a platform to a politician whose record on abortion and stem cell research clashes with core church teachings about human life, the private Catholic school on the plains of northern Indiana renewed an impassioned debate about what it means to be Catholic.

The Notre Dame administration knew it was entering a political minefield. But the intensity of the reaction in the week since Obama accepted demonstrates the depths to which Catholics are divided about how Catholic individuals and institutions should engage politics in a pluralistic society.

Adding to the rancor, the Obama invite comes after an election that frustrated the Catholic right and featured prominent Catholic voices making a case for Obama. Early moves by the Obama White House—such as lifting restrictions on overseas family planning groups that perform abortions and on stem cell research that destroys embryos—have prompted some U.S. bishops to challenge the new administration.

"This has sparked something beyond the usual right-left controversy," said David Gibson, a Catholic author of books on Pope Benedict XVI and the U.S. church. "Whether you're for or against the decision to invite him is morphing into kind of an X-ray of where everybody stands in the Catholic church."

On one hand, Notre Dame's overture to Obama is in keeping with the university's record of seeking newly elected presidents from both political parties as commencement speakers. Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush have spoken to Notre Dame graduates months after taking office.

Yet with Obama the outcry was swift and fierce. Protests were launched by the Pro-Life Action League and the Cardinal Newman Society, a conservative Catholic group that monitors Catholic universities and colleges for adherence to orthodoxy on abortion, especially. Some Catholics think that view is too narrow.

I think the reason the outcry was "swift and fierce" is because Obama is the most radical anti-life president ever to occupy the Oval Office. His assault on the unborn began within days after beginning his presidency. And it's not just that he's pro-abortion, like Catholic Joe Biden. It's the shocking nature of his extremism when it comes to embracing the Culture of Death.

Obama is vehemently opposed to Pro-Life measures. He is hostile to the Culture of Life agenda.

Some related posts:

Barack Obama, Abortion, and Infanticide

Barack Obama: Of Babies and Punishment

Obama and the Freedom of Choice Act

Obama Assault on Human Life Begins

Obama Orders Tax Dollars to Fund Abortions

Obama and Embryonic Stem Cell Research

The Notre Dame president, the Rev. John Jenkins, has said Obama will be honored as an "inspiring leader" facing challenges from the economy, two wars, health care, and immigration and health care reform.

Jenkins also singled out Obama, the first African-American president, as a healer of racial wounds. That is of special significance at Notre Dame because retired university president the Rev. Theodore Hesburgh, 91, linked arms with Martin Luther King Jr. and served on the first U.S. Civil Rights Commission.

Is Obama really a healer of racial wounds?

That has yet to be seen.

We do know that he played the race card repeatedly during the primaries and after he was the Democrat nominee. Rather than a healer, Obama has shown a disturbing tendency to keep racial wounds festering when it serves him politically.

That's no healer in my eyes.

The Obama invitation, Jenkins has emphasized, does not condone or endorse Obama's positions on stem cells or abortion but the visit is "a basis for further positive engagement."

..."Commencement is not an occasion for debate," said Catholic theologian George Weigel, a Pope John Paul II biographer. "Commencement is not an opportunity to set the foundations for a dialogue. Commencement and the award of an honorary degree is a statement on the part of the university this is a life worth emulating."

I agree with Weigel. Commencement is not an occasion for debate or to be used as "a basis for further positive engagement."

If that is the case, perhaps Notre Dame should invite someone like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Jeremiah Wright, or Bill Ayers next year.

Nonetheless, I think Notre Dame has given the American Catholic community a great gift with the Obama invitation.

This controversy has brought Obama's extremist anti-life agenda to the forefront. It has shed some light on the depth of his darkness when it comes to failing to protect the weak, the innocent, and the unborn.

That's a very positive thing.

As a Catholic, I'm troubled that Notre Dame would bestow an honorary degree on Obama, someone who promises to expand and uphold the slaughter of innocent human life by doing everything in his power to prevent any roadblocks to get in the way of the killing.

I don't have a problem with Notre Dame inviting him to speak. It's the honor of awarding him a degree that I find so very offensive.

How can Notre Dame reconcile or ignore Obama's extremism when it comes to the fundamental issue of the right to life, God's most precious gift?

It's impossible.

I don't financially support Notre Dame. It's not my alma mater. It's not as if this really has an impact on me personally from that standpoint. If I were a graduate of the university, I would express my views opposing the honorary degree to Obama and I would probably cut off or dramatically reduce my financial gifts for the year.

I'm not in that position so I can assess the controversy with the comfort of detachment.

Notre Dame will not rescind its invitation to Obama nor do I think it should.

Whatever Obama says during his address will be dwarfed in comparison to the discussion that his invitation to Notre Dame has sparked.

In the long run, I think that discussion will be productive for American Catholics and for those of us working to promote the sanctity of human life.

To Notre Dame's 2009 graduates and its alumni upset by your university's choice to have Obama speak at commencement--

Take your outrage and let that energy propel you to work for justice for the weak, the innocent, and the unborn.
_______________

Here is a news release from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, January 19, 2009:

Bishops Urge New President to Keep Laws on Conscience Rights, Foreign Aid for Abortion, Embryonic Stem Cell Research

WASHINGTON—The U.S. bishops urged President-elect Barack Obama not to rescind current policies that protect conscience rights of health care workers, prevent foreign aid to organizations promoting abortion, and ban funding of stem cell research that encourages destruction of human embryos.

They made the request in a January 16 letter from Cardinal Francis George, President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, shortly before President-elect Obama's inauguration. The letter followed by less than a week a previous letter outlining the bishops' broad policy agenda as the new Administration and Congress begin their work.

Cardinal George said some would expect the new president "to take executive action soon to reverse current policies" that uphold people's rights to follow their consciences and that respect innocent human life. Giving in to these expectations, he said, could be "a terrible mistake -- morally, politically, and in terms of advancing the solidarity and well-being of our nation's people."

Cardinal George hailed the recently issued regulation to protect conscience rights in health care as "a long-overdue measure for implementing three statutes enacted by Congress over the last 35 years." He said this is a "common-sense regulation, which explicitly protects the right of health professionals who favor or oppose abortion to serve the basic health needs of their communities."

Cardinal George also cited the Mexico City Policy, established in 1984, that has ensured that family planning funds are not diverted to organizations dedicated to performing and promoting abortions instead of reducing them. He warned: "A shift toward promoting abortion in developing nations would also increase distrust of the United States in these nations, whose values and culture often reject abortion, at a time when we need their trust and respect."

He said that the current embryonic stem cell policy sought "to ensure that Americans are not forced to use their tax dollars to encourage expanded destruction of embryonic human beings for their stem cells." He noted that "basic research in the capabilities of embryonic stem cells can be and is being pursued using the currently eligible cell lines as well as the hundreds of lines produced with nonfederal funds since 2001." He added that "recent startling advances in reprogramming adult cells into embryonic-like stem cells – hailed by the journal Science as the scientific breakthrough of the year – are said by many scientists to be making embryonic stem cells irrelevant to medical progress." He noted also that "adult and cord blood stem cells are now known to have great versatility, and are increasingly being used to reverse serious illnesses and even help rebuild damaged organs."

"To divert scarce funds away from these promising avenues for research and treatment, toward the avenue that is most morally controversial as well as most medically speculative, would be a sad victory of politics over science," he added.

The complete letter follows:

Dear Mr. President-elect:

I recently wrote to assure you of the prayers of the Catholic bishops of the United States for your service to our nation, and to outline issues of special concern to us as we seek to work with your Administration and the new Congress to serve the common good.

I am writing today on a matter that could introduce significant negative and divisive factors into our national life, at a time when we need to come together to address the serious challenges facing our people. I expect that some want you to take executive action soon to reverse current policies against government-sponsored destruction of unborn human life. I urge you to consider that this could be a terrible mistake -- morally, politically, and in terms of advancing the solidarity and well-being of our nation's people.

During the campaign, you promised as President to represent all the people and respect everyone's moral and religious viewpoints. You also made several statements about abortion. On one occasion, when asked at what point a baby has human rights, you answered in effect that you do not have a definite answer. And you spoke often about a need to reduce abortions.

The Catholic Church teaches that each human being, at every moment of biological development from conception to natural death, has an inherent and fundamental right to life. We are committed not only to reducing abortion, but to making it unthinkable as an answer to unintended pregnancy. At the same time, I think your remarks provide a basis for common ground. Uncertainty as to when human rights begin provides no basis for compelling others to violate their conviction that these rights exist from the beginning. After all, those people may be right. And if the goal is to reduce abortions, that will not be achieved by involving the government in expanding and promoting abortions.

The regulation to protect conscience rights in health care issued last month by the Bush administration is the subject of false and misleading criticisms. It does not reach out to expand the rights of pro-life health professionals, but is a long-overdue measure for implementing three statutes enacted by Congress over the last 35 years. Many criticizing the new rule have done so without being aware of this legal foundation – but widespread ignorance of a longstanding federal law protecting basic civil rights is among the good reasons for more visibly implementing it. An Administration committed to faithfully implementing and enforcing the laws of the United States will want to retain this common-sense regulation, which explicitly protects the right of health professionals who favor or oppose abortion to serve the basic health needs of their communities. Suggestions that government involvement in health care will be aimed at denying conscience, or excluding Catholic and other health care providers from participation in serving the public good, could threaten much-needed health care reform at the outset.

The Mexico City Policy, first established in 1984, has wrongly been attacked as a restriction on foreign aid for family planning. In fact, it has not reduced such aid at all, but has ensured that family planning funds are not diverted to organizations dedicated to performing and promoting abortions instead of reducing them. Once the clear line between family planning and abortion is erased, the idea of using family planning to reduce abortions becomes meaningless, and abortion tends to replace contraception as the means for reducing family size. A shift toward promoting abortion in developing nations would also increase distrust of the United States in these nations, whose values and culture often reject abortion, at a time when we need their trust and respect.

The embryonic stem cell policy initiated by President Bush has at times been criticized from both ends of the pro-life debate, but some criticisms are based on false premises. The policy did not ban embryonic stem cell research, or funding of such research. By restricting federally funded research to cell lines in existence at the time he issued his policy, he was trying to ensure that Americans are not forced to use their tax dollars to encourage expanded destruction of embryonic human beings for their stem cells. Such destruction is especially pointless at the present time, for several reasons. First, basic research in the capabilities of embryonic stem cells can be and is being pursued using the currently eligible cell lines as well as the hundreds of lines produced with nonfederal funds since 2001. Second, recent startling advances in reprogramming adult cells into embryonic-like stem cells – hailed by the journal Science as the scientific breakthrough of the year – are said by many scientists to be making embryonic stem cells irrelevant to medical progress. Third, adult and cord blood stem cells are now known to have great versatility, and are increasingly being used to reverse serious illnesses and even help rebuild damaged organs. To divert scarce funds away from these promising avenues for research and treatment toward the avenue that is most morally controversial as well as most medically speculative would be a sad victory of politics over science.

I hope you will consider these comments in the spirit in which they are intended, as an invitation to set aside political pressures and ideologies and focus on the priorities and challenges that will unite us as a nation. Again I want to express our hopes for your Administration, and our offer to cooperate in advancing the common good and protecting the poor and vulnerable in these challenging times.

As we approach the first days of your new responsibilities as President of the United States, I will offer my prayers for you and for your family. May God bless your efforts in fostering justice and peace for all, Mr. President, as you begin your term.

JS Editorial: Obama, Stem Cell Research, and the False Choice

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Editorial Board is regurgitating the same lib drivel heard from Democrats and the national media on Barack Obama's executive order to use more taxpayer dollars for EMBRYONIC stem cell research.

The Board calls it a "step forward."

The debate long has been emotionally charged, but Obama said Monday that the Bush administration had forced a false choice on the country between science and faith: "As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for each other and work to ease human suffering."

Obama's decision could boost stem cell research in Wisconsin, where limitations on federal funding have made it harder for the state to compete with California, which has poured billions of dollars of unrestricted state money into research.

In signing the order, Obama has taken an important step to allow science to proceed - and to insulate it from politics.

This is ridiculous.

Supposedly, the Bush administration "forced a false choice on the country between science and faith."

Apparently, the Board believes that Obama, a self-proclaimed "person of faith," is not forcing a false choice. Why should Obama's belief on the morality of destroying human life for research be considered divine revelation?

Obama's faith-filled decision is being forced on the country just as surely as Bush's was. What's the difference?

It's wrong to say that President Bush didn't allow science to proceed. He fully supported pursuing stem cell research and dramatic progress in the field was made during his administration.

What the Board and others fail to note is that there were no government restrictions on any sort of stem cell research. This has always been about the amount of FEDERAL FUNDING for embryonic stem cell research. There was no ban on the research. The private sector has always been free to fund it.

Talk about falsehoods!

Science doesn't need government to proceed.

It's BS to say that Obama's executive order now insulates science from politics. Obama's move was just as political as anything President Bush did in regard to embryonic stem cell research.

The difference between the two is that President Bush's politics prevented the increase of federal funds used to destroy human life for scientific experimentation whereas Obama's politics provides tax dollars to fund the destruction of human life in scientific research that takes place in a moral vacuum.

Obama and Clones

I didn't need a photo to know that the trusty teleprompter was there. Left, right, left, right, left, right... Video here.
When Barack Obama lifted President Bush's ban on expanding the use of federal funds to destroy human embryos, he spoke of scientific freedom.

"Promoting science isn't just about providing resources, it is also about protecting free and open inquiry," Obama said. "It is about letting scientists like those here today do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion, and listening to what they tell us, even when it's inconvenient especially when it's inconvenient. It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology."

That's weird. Obama doesn't want total scientific freedom.

When signing the executive order to treat human life as raw material, Obama put up a wall to "free and open inquiry."

From the New York Times:

In making his announcement, Mr. Obama drew a strict line against human cloning, an issue that over the years has become entangled with the debate over human embryonic stem cell research.

He said that he would ensure that his administration “never opens the door” to cloning for human reproduction, adding, “It is dangerous, profoundly wrong and has no place in our society or any society.”

Get that scientists?

"Free and open inquiry" does not include free and open inquiry into cloning for human reproduction.

That's dangerous and profoundly wrong, according to Obama.

Really?

That's profoundly wrong but destroying human embryos, genetically complete human beings, is not wrong. Bring on the taxpayers' dollars!

Obama is against reproductive cloning, embryos cloned to be brought to full term and born. What about therapeutic cloning, embryos cloned for research? Reading off his teleprompter, Obama made a clear distinction. Reproductive cloning is wrong, not therapeutic cloning.

He considers some cloning of human life to be acceptable while other cloning is "profoundly wrong and has no place in our society or any society."

Obama's principles are murky to the say the least.

So today Obama held a ceremony in the East Room of the White House to mark his war on human life.

Pledging that his administration will “make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology,” President Obama on Monday lifted the Bush administration’s strict limits on human embryonic stem cell research.

At a ceremony in the East Room of the White House, before an audience that included lawmakers, scientists and patients, several of them in wheelchairs, Mr. Obama announced that he was issuing an executive order intended to advance the research. He said he hoped Congress would follow with bipartisan legislation that would ease the existing restrictions even more.

Contrast that with the gathering that took place in the same room, the East Room, on May 24, 2005.
In the East Room of the White House, President Bush made remarks on bioethics, specifically addressing stem cell research. He spoke to families that had either "adopted or given up for adoption frozen embryos that remained after fertility treatments."

The President said:

I believe America must pursue the tremendous possibilities of science, and I believe we can do so while still fostering and encouraging respect for human life in all its stages. In the complex debate over embryonic stem cell research, we must remember that real human lives are involved --both the lives of those with diseases that might find cures from this research, and the lives of the embryos that will be destroyed in the process. The children here today are reminders that every human life is a precious gift of matchless value.

...The rapid advance of science presents us with the hope of eventual cures for terrible diseases, and with profound moral and ethical dilemmas. The decisions we make today will have far-reaching consequences. So we must aggressively move forward with medical research, while also maintaining the highest ethical standards.

...Even now researchers are exploring alternative sources of stem cells, such as adult bone marrow and umbilical cord blood, as well as different ethical ways of getting the same kind of cells now taken from embryos without violating human life or dignity. With the right policies and the right techniques, we can pursue scientific progress while still fulfilling our moral duties.

After explaining the need to proceed with research in a manner that does not make ethical compromises, President Bush acknowledged the work of Nightlight Christian Adoptions, a group that has "matched over 200 biological parents with about 140 adoptive families, resulting in the birth of 81 children so far, with more on the way."

With the cries and giggles of little ones in the background, President Bush pointed out:

The children here today remind us that there is no such thing as a spare embryo. Every embryo is unique and genetically complete, like every other human being. And each of us started out our life this way. These lives are not raw material to be exploited, but gifts. And I commend each of the families here today for accepting the gift of these children and offering them the gift of your love.

Not all change is good.

Obama and Embryonic Stem Cell Research

UPDATE: Wisconsin Right to Life news release condemning Obama's executive order
_______________

Barack Obama is making good on his promise to allow the federal funding of scientific experimentation that involves the destruction of human life.

From Politico:

President Barack Obama will issue a broad declaration Monday that science should be walled off from political interference in his administration, officials said Sunday.

In another break from his predecessor, Obama will also lift restrictions on federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research and direct the National Institutes of Health to set new research guidelines within 120 days, the officials told reporters in a conference call detailing the forthcoming executive order on stem cell research and presidential memorandum on science.

...The long-awaited move on embryonic stem cells makes good on a campaign promise, but it is also certain to draw criticism from anti-abortion and religious groups that question the science and ethics behind the research.

Rep. Eric Cantor, the No. 2 Republican in the House, said the focus on stem cell research was a distraction from the economy.

"Frankly, federal funding of embryonic stem cell research can bring on embryo harvesting, perhaps even human cloning that occurs," he said Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union." "We don't want that. ... And certainly that is something that we ought to be talking about, but let's take care of business first. People are out of jobs."

Obama was a frequent critic of former President George W. Bush’s 2001 executive order, which said federal dollars could be spent for research only on stem cell lines created before Aug. 9, 2001. On the campaign trail, Obama accused the Bush administration of allowing political ideology to interfere with scientific decisions.

Here's the next in what's sure to be other executive orders from Obama disregarding the sanctity of human life.

Just days after his inauguration, Obama reversed the Mexico City Policy.

President Barack Obama has signed an executive order ending the ban on federal funds for international groups that perform abortions or provide information on the option.

...Obama signed it quietly, without coverage by the media, late on Friday afternoon, a contrast to the midday signings with fanfare of executive orders on other subjects earlier in the week.

When Obama lifted the ban on federal funds used to perform and promote abortions abroad, he signaled that he was not going to protect and defend the weakest and most vulnerable in society.

That, of course, was just the beginning of his assault on human life.

Obama's executive order that federal funds be provided to pay for research that uses embryos, genetically complete human beings, as raw material is yet another indication that he intends to pursue his culture of death agenda.

Because of Obama's extremism, it's possible that taxpayer dollars will be applied to the "science" of human cloning.

Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle actually vetoed a ban on human cloning. Doyle doesn't have a problem with human clones being created in labs for the sole purpose of doing experimentation that demands their destruction.

In March 1997, Bill Clinton called human cloning a "troubling prospect."

"Any discovery that touches upon human creation is not simply a matter of scientific inquiry," the president said Tuesday at a White House news conference to announce his decision. "It is matter of morality and spirituality as well."

Clinton also called on privately funded researchers to voluntarily implement a temporary moratorium on human cloning research "until our bioethics advisory committee and our entire nation has had time to... debate the ethical implications."

The success of Scottish scientists in cloning a sheep from an adult sheep -- and the subsequent announcement that Oregon scientists had successfully cloned monkeys from embryos -- prompted Clinton's decision.

No federal funds are currently being put toward human cloning experiments, but the president said he wanted to close possible loopholes in the present law by explicitly banning such funding.

..."There is much about cloning that we still do not know," he said.

The president said that he personally hoped the country would "respect this profound gift (life) and resist the temptation to replicate ourselves."

What restrictions on human cloning and experimentation, if any, does Obama plan on putting in place?

When he issues the declaration that science will be "walled off from political interference in his administration," what exactly does he mean?

Will the purposeful creation and subsequent destruction of human life be allowed in the name of science?

It's disingenuous for him to suggest that "political interference" is equivalent to ethical boundaries.

Does Obama plan on declaring that science will be walled off from moral considerations?

Science doesn't occur in a moral vacuum.

These new research guidelines that Obama is directing the National Institutes of Health to set will certainly be a break from the Bush administration's standards of respect for life.

Obama doesn't have a moral problem with labeling human embryos as raw material for research. He doesn't have ethical concerns about destroying human life and exploiting it for experimentation.

He calls that science.

And change.

Obama's Stem Cell Research Lies

Barack Obama is lying.

If you're in Wisconsin and have listened to radio, you've probably heard Obama's lies over and over again.

In a flat-out lying shameless Obama attack ad against John McCain's position on stem cell research, Jody Montgomery and her daughter, Maddy, return.

Yes, little Maddy is being trotted out again.

Remember when Gov. Jim Doyle pulled the same lies in his campaign against Mark Green in 2006?

Read more about Doyle's lies here and here.

Here's the press release about the ad, "Six Times," from Doyle's 2006 campaign:

The ad, a 30-second spot entitled “Six Times,” features Jody Montgomery of Verona, and her four-year-old daughter Maddy, who has juvenile diabetes.

“Governor Jim Doyle understands the vast promise of stem cell research to cure terrible diseases and change lives, and so does Jody Montgomery,” said Anson Kaye, Communications Director for the Doyle campaign. “But Mark Green wants to shut it down. Governor Doyle will never turn his back on people like Jody and Maddy, but Mark Green already has.”

In the ad, Jody talks about the night that she learned that Maddy had juvenile diabetes, and the heartbreaking regimen she has been on ever since – testing Maddy’s blood sugar six times a day.

Noting that it’s stem cell researchers in Wisconsin who are leading the way on stem cell research, Jody says: “So when a Washington politician like Mark Green says he’s going to outlaw stem cell research, I say, tell it to my daughter.” (A complete frame by frame of the ad is attached to this release.)

“Mark Green attempts to obscure his staunch opposition of stem cell research through verbal sleight of hand and distortion, but his record is clear – he wants to slam the door on stem cell research, and if he had his way, he’d shut it down,” Kaye said.

That ad stated that Green was standing in the way of helping cute, little Maddy be healthy.

LIE.

Watch Doyle's ad.

Now, Obama is using the same sleazy techniques.

From the New York Times:

Two weeks ago, Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign gleefully publicized a spate of news reports about misleading and untruthful statements in the advertisements of his rival, Senator John McCain. Asked by a voter in New Hampshire if he would respond in kind, Mr. Obama said, “I just have a different philosophy, I’m going to respond with the truth,” adding, “I’m not going to start making up lies about John McCain.”

LIE.

Obama is making up lies about McCain.

A radio advertisement running in Wisconsin and other contested states misleadingly reports that Mr. McCain “has stood in the way of” federal financing for stem cell research; Mr. McCain did once oppose such federally supported research but broke with President Bush to consistently support it starting in 2001 (his running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska, does not support it).

Obama is lying.

Here's the script of Obama's ad that lies about McCain and stem cell research:

TITLE: "Understands."

LENGTH: One minute.

AIRING: On radio stations in Madison, Wis.; the Obama campaign said it is running in other markets across Wisconsin but would not identify them; the McCain campaign says it also is running in the Philadelphia suburbs.

SCRIPT: Jody Montgomery: My name is Jody Montgomery and my daughter Maddy was diagnosed with Type I Juvenile Diabetes at age 3. Six times a day, I take her blood. Six times a day, I pray for a cure. Researchers are working hard to do just that. Our best hope is stem cell research, and that's why we support Barack Obama.

Announcer: Stem cell research could unlock cures for diabetes, cancer and Alzheimer's too. But John McCain has stood in the way...he's opposed stem cell research. Picked a running mate who's against it...And he's running on a platform even more extreme than George Bush's on this vital research. John McCain doesn't understand that medical research benefiting millions shouldn't be held hostage by the political views of a few.

Jody Montgomery: For Maddy and millions of others, stem cell research can unlock cures. Barack Obama understands that. But John McCain just doesn't.

ANALYSIS: Obama's campaign misleadingly paints McCain as an opponent of embryonic stem cell research to score points with independent and female voters in Wisconsin, the birthplace of the field.

...In fact, McCain voted in 2006 and 2007 for bills that would increase federal funding for the research and lift President Bush's restrictions on the work. His stance has angered many social conservatives in his own party but won him praise from advocates for the research.

What Obama "understands" is how to lie about stem cell research to score political points.

In addition to lying about McCain's position on stem cell research, Obama's ad lies about stem cell research and Alzheimer's Disease.

The radio ad the Barack Obama campaign is running that falsely accuses John McCain of opposing stem cell research and misleads listeners on the best hope for diabetes patients has another problem. The ad promises cures for Alzheimer’s even though leading scientists say the disease likely won't benefit.

"Stem cell research could unlock cures for diabetes, cancer and Alzheimer’s, too. But John McCain has stood in the way ... he's opposed stem cell research," the ad claims.

However, leading scientists say that embryonic stem cell research will likely never yield a cure for Alzheimer's.

More lies.

And then we have this:

The Barack Obama campaign is asking Missouri law enforcement to target anyone who lies or runs a misleading TV ad during the presidential campaign.

The operative term is "TV."

Obama apparently has no problem running radio ads packed with lies.

This is Obama's America.

Obama believes he's entitled to run radio ads about John McCain that contain lies.

Obama believes he's entitled to censor his critics.

Charlie Gibson and Sarah Palin and Lies

The interview goes on.

The ABC News website has this BREAKING NEWS banner:

GOV. SARAH PALIN TELLS ABC NEWS' CHARLIE GIBSON THAT SHE THINKS BARACK OBAMA REGRETS NOT CHOOSING HILLARY CLINTON AS HIS VICE PRESIDENTIAL RUNNING MATE

Why is that breaking news?

Joe Biden thinks Barack Obama should have picked Hillary Clinton to be his running mate. What's the big deal?

PALIN: I think he's regretting not picking her now, I do. What, what determination, and grit, and even grace through some tough shots that were fired her way -- she handled those well.

That's nice of Palin to be so gracious in her praise for Hillary.

What's the problem? I don't see one.


Again, I'm troubled by the choppy editing of the interview. It's really driving me nuts. I want to hear the entire thing, the uncut version.

Gibson hasn't altered his form. He still interrupts. He's still rude. In sum, he's still an ass.

Gibson challenged Palin on Roe v. Wade. She thinks it should be overturned and the states should decide the issue.

She said she respects the opinions of others and hopes to work with those with views different from hers, and find common ground. That's very reasonable.

Gibson said that John McCain is against abortion except in the cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother.

Palin is against abortion in all cases except when the life of the mother is in danger. She didn't back off her personal opinion.

On embryonic stem cell research, Gibson says McCain supports it. That's far too simplistic. In fact, it's another Gibson lie.

McCain on embryonic stem cell research:

John McCain opposes the intentional creation of human embryos for research purposes. To that end, Senator McCain voted to ban the practice of "fetal farming," making it a federal crime for researchers to use cells or fetal tissue from an embryo created for research purposes. Furthermore, he voted to ban attempts to use or obtain human cells gestated in animals. Finally, John McCain strongly opposes human cloning and voted to ban the practice, and any related experimentation, under federal law.

As president, John McCain will strongly support funding for promising research programs, including amniotic fluid and adult stem cell research and other types of scientific study that do not involve the use of human embryos.

Where federal funds are used for stem cell research, Senator McCain believes clear lines should be drawn that reflect a refusal to sacrifice moral values and ethical principles for the sake of scientific progress, and that any such research should be subject to strict federal guidelines.

Gibson has his facts screwed up. McCain doesn't support embryonic stem cell research.

Palin explained why she is against the use embryos in research, talking about the Culture of Life. She also noted that advances in science are making the debate less relevant because the use of adult stem cells and new technologies are showing so, SO much promise.

Imagine. Palin believes in a Culture of Life. Isn't that extremist? Isn't that radical?

I don't know. She sounds like the Pope to me.

I loved how Palin handled those questions. She didn't pander. She's not conforming. She's not flip flopping on her beliefs. She's not backing down or away from her personal beliefs.

Fantastic!

GIBSON: Homosexuality: Genetic or learned?

PALIN: Oh, I don't know... I'm not going to judge them.

What a dumb question! What a good answer!

Gibson wanted to know if it is sexist to ask how someone can handle a family of seven and be the vice president?

Palin replied that, of course, it's possible to raise a family and work.

She said she's had to make choices over the past 19 years and she understands the issues women face when it comes to balancing family and career.

More of the interview is on 20/20 tonight and Nightline.

Why can't they just run the thing and quit this drip, drip, drip stuff?

Packer Fan Joe Biden in Green Bay

Joe Biden reporting for duty in Green Bay... God's truth.

Joe Biden has a bad habit.

JOE BIDEN: For real, this is God's truth...

Whenever a politician uses a line like that, it sends up a red flag. It makes me think that he's about to tell a lie or that his other statements have been untrue.

Anyway, Joe Biden held a town hall meeting in Green Bay this morning. He used that line.

From the Green Bay Press-Gazette:

Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden this morning promised that an Obama-Biden administration will restore the middle class by keeping jobs in the country and cutting taxes.

Touching on the news that workers at the Kimberly NewPage paper mill will work their final shift today, Biden said the government should help those who lose their jobs to "get up but not get in the way."

He criticized Republican candidates John McCain and running mate Sarah Palin for calling the economy "fundamentally strong."

Investing in infrastructure and keeping jobs in the country are priorities, Biden said. After his short speech at the KI Convention Center in downtown Green Bay - running about 15 minutes - Biden took questions from the audience that included the topics of social security, education and veteran benefits.

From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin gave a good convention speech last week but has "fairly extreme views" that she'll have to defend in the coming weeks, Democratic counterpart Joe Biden said here today.

Palin's reported stance on global warming - that she's skeptical about man-made causes - is "pretty far out there," if the early reports on her are accurate, Biden said at a town hall meeting at Green Bay's KI Convention Center.

In other remarks during a wide-ranging, 50-minute session, Biden said the assertion by Palin and Republican presidential candidate John McCain that they would bring about change in policy from President Bush's administration was incorrect.

"Name me a single issue that affects your life - jobs, health care, education, energy - where McCain and Palin disagree with the president," Biden told a crowd of about 700. "If you liked the last eight years, you'll like the next four years of a McCain-Palin administration, because there is no fundamental change."

I think Biden has to tone down his "no change" rhetoric and be specific on the change that a Barack Obama administration would offer.

Biden also needs to specify how the change he's promising will be funded. What good are promises that will be broken?

Another bit of advice for Biden: He needs to stay on the same page as Barack Obama and not act like he's the presidential nominee.

So Biden wants someone to name a single issue that affects people's lives where McCain and Palin disagree with Bush.

OK.

Spending.

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. -- Barack Obama isn't John McCain's only opponent. Sometimes McCain sounds like he's running almost as hard against President Bush and the Republican Party as he is against Obama, his Democratic rival for the White House.

The GOP is guilty of indulging in a spending spree of taxpayers' money, McCain laments. They haven't solved huge problems such as the looming insolvency of Social Security and Medicare, passing on huge IOUs and perplexing issues to future generations instead of fixing them as they had promised. He doesn't name Bush but the implication is clear: It happened on his watch and he signed bills that made the deficit soar.

Obama and Biden talk change but their actions belie their words.

An example-- Lobbyists and campaign contributions.

Obama and Biden's claims that they aren't accepting money from lobbyists isn't true.

More from Biden's town hall meeting:

A woman in the crowd of about 1,000 people urged Biden not to "be afraid to debate her." Biden said he would debate Palin just as he does his female colleagues in the U.S. Senate.

(Note: I've seen crowd estimates for the event as low as 400 and as high as 1,000. Officials from the Barack Obama campaign put the KI crowd estimate at 800.)

"The idea that somehow, there's a woman, 'oh my God, I don't know how to deal with this,' I think guys who think that way have never been around strong women," Biden said.

Biden also pledged help for laid-off paper workers, courted Catholic voters and claimed to be a longtime Green Bay Packers fan.

...Biden played up his own Catholic faith, suggesting an awareness of area's demographics. The Diocese of Green Bay counts 350,000 Catholics as members, or about 40 percent of the population in the 16 northeast counties it encompasses.

It's tough for Biden to play up his Catholic faith when he votes in favor of killing the unborn.

As a Catholic, that bothers me. I don't think he should use his religion to court voters when he isn't following the teaching of the faith.

If Biden believes life begins at conception and abortion is murder, then how can he, in good conscience, be part of promoting the slaughter?

Biden also made reference to more stem cell research being a change he and Obama would usher in. He was talking about embryonic stem cell research, yet he's playing up his Catholic faith. That's a problem.

Biden said the priests at his Catholic school taught him to be a fan of the Green Bay Packers because of their ties to northeast Wisconsin, joking they were "prepared to canonize" coach Vince Lombardi.

On Mondays, he said: "If the Green Bay Packers won, we got out early. If the Green Bay Packers lost, we got more homework. So I'm a Green Bay Packers guy from high school!"

Sure.

Do you believe Biden's story about the priests teaching him to be a Packer fan?

Do you believe the line that he got more homework on Monday if the Packers lost on Sunday and got out early if they won?

I find that hard to believe, partly because he qualified the story by saying it was true.

Biden graduated from Archmere Academy in Claymont, Delaware in 1961.

Here's the Green Bay Packers' record during Biden's high school years:

1957 3-9
1958 1-10-1
1959 7-5
1960 8-4

He must have hated Mondays, especially as a freshman and sophomore.

After the town hall meeting, Biden went to Kroll's.

Kroll's stop: Biden didn’t eat during his half-hour visit to Kroll’s West, but he did shake a lot of hands.

The vice presidential candidate stopped by on his way to Austin Straubel International Airport and hit the restaurant at lunchtime on game day. The restaurant was packed with Packers and Vikings fans alike.

Biden stopped at about 10 tables, shaking hands and visiting with customers. He also stopped back in the kitchen.

Why didn't he eat anything?

How could he resist Kroll's food?

Are blue-collar Joe's tastes more sophisticated than that?
______________

Audio of the event, from 620 WTMJ

Biden the Catholic

Joe Biden is Catholic.

Is he anti-abortion?

Biden says life begins at conception. Apparently, he doesn't consider it above his pay grade to make that determination. Obama, of course, refused to say when a baby gets human rights.



Is Catholic Biden going to speak out against Obama's extremism on abortion and condemn him for supporting infanticide?

Catholic Biden supports federal funding to expand embryonic stem cell research. Didn't he say that life begins at conception?

That's inconsistent. Catholic Biden supports using human life as raw material for research and destroying human life for experimentation.

I don't see how Biden's religion will sway Catholics to vote for the Dem ticket, given the fact that Biden hasn't used his seat in the Senate to promote a Culture of Life.

John Kerry's Catholicism didn't help him in 2004. Kerry lost the Catholic vote to Bush by 5 percentage points.

Biden is Catholic. So what?

And another thing--

The Dems and their mouthpieces in the lib media are repeating the mantra, "Joe Biden is a blue-collar guy."

He is?

Do blue-collar guys get hair plugs?

Seriously.

Rick Majerus' Marquette Education

The Rick Majerus controversy rolls on....

Majerus Is Criticized for Pro-Choice Stance

A Roman Catholic archbishop said Tuesday that he would ask officials of St. Louis University to take “appropriate action” against its basketball coach, who said in a television interview that he supports abortion rights.

Rick Majerus, one of the game’s winningest coaches, made the comment at a weekend rally for the Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton.

St. Louis Archbishop Raymond Burke declined to say what the action against Majerus should be, saying it was a decision for officials at St. Louis, a Jesuit university.

“I’m concerned that a leader at a Catholic university made these comments,” Burke said by telephone as he attended March for Life anti-abortion events in Washington. “It can lead Catholics astray. I just believe that it’s of the essence for people to understand as a Catholic you just cannot hold these beliefs.”

In an interview with KMOV-TV at Saturday’s Clinton rally in suburban St. Louis, Majerus identified himself as a Catholic and called himself pro-choice. The St. Louis University spokesman Clayton Berry said Majerus was at the rally as an individual, not as a representative of the college.

I would bet that St. Louis Archbishop Raymond Burke could have a full-time job trying to police all the Catholic staff and faculty at St. Louis University uttering views that run counter to Catholic teaching.

It's a Jesuit university. It would be shocking to learn that Catholic faculty and staff weren't challenging the Church's teaching.

I think it is important to note that Rick Majerus is a basketball coach. He's not teaching theology. Furthermore, Majerus was not speaking on behalf of St. Louis University. He wasn't speaking on behalf of Catholics. When he voiced his pro-choice stance, he was speaking for no one but himself.

In an interview with the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Majerus spoke out for the first time since all the uproar.

Surprised by the reaction to his pro-choice, pro-embryonic stem cell research comments made Saturday night at a Hillary Clinton political rally, St. Louis University basketball coach Rick Majerus spent part of Wednesday morning on the phone, trying to calm his elderly mother.

"She was upset, thinking I was going to be excommunicated from the Catholic Church, and that I would be denied Communion during Mass," Majerus said Wednesday night, in his first public comments over a controversy that included a strong rebuke from St. Louis Archbishop Raymond Burke. "But she told me to keep doing what I thought was right, just as my parents taught me."

I feel sorry for Majerus' mother.

It's often forgotten that these public controversies involving public figures touch private people, too, impacting them personally.

...[I]f Burke is expecting an apology or silence from Majerus, it won't happen. If Burke hopes Majerus will fall in line with the Roman Catholic church's official positions on these two issues, it won't happen.

During an exclusive 90-minute conversation Wednesday, Majerus was civil and respectful in his comments made about Burke. But make no mistake: Majerus is unyielding, and defiant.

"I'm very respectful to the archbishop," Majerus said. "But I rely on my value judgments, thanks to my education at Marquette, which is a Jesuit institution, just like St. Louis. And that Jesuit education led me to believe that I can make a value judgment. And my value judgment happens to differ from the archbishop's.

That sounds like a Marquette education.

I don't know if Majerus did Marquette any favors by stating, in effect, that "Marquette made him to do it."

"I do not speak for the university or the Catholic Church. These are my personal views. And I'm not letting him change my mind. I think religion should be inclusive. I would hope that all people would feel welcome inside a church, and that the church would serve to bring people together, even if they happen to disagree on certain things."

...Majerus said he has not heard from Burke, or the SLU president, the Rev. Lawrence Biondi. But Majerus is confident that Biondi supports his right to express personal views. Attempts to reach Biondi on Wednesday were unsuccessful.

Majerus said he would welcome a visit, or a conversation, with Burke.

"But in the end, it wouldn't make a difference," he said. "Because the archbishop would still believe in what he believes, and I would still stick with my beliefs."

I can't imagine these comments going over very well with Archbishop Burke.

The fact is Majerus' beliefs regarding abortion and embryonic stem cell research are not consistent with the stance of the Catholic Church.

Nonetheless, I'm sure Fr. Biondi will support Majerus' right to speak freely, in the Jesuit tradition.

And I don't think the university will reprimand him in any way.

It's up to Majerus to reconcile his identity as a Catholic and his beliefs that are not in line with the Catholic Church.

I think Majerus should meet with the Archbishop and discuss the matter privately rather than via the press. This war of words is a bit unseemly.

In the end, both Archbishop Burke and Majerus have to answer to God.

Embryos Survive Stem Cells' Creation?

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel is trumpeting another stem cell research breakthrough.

The problem is the article on the latest technique is somewhat sloppy and misleading.

It begins with the claim that stem cells were created from embryos without destroying them.

In the latest feat of stem cell wizardry, researchers have been able to create viable new lines of embryonic stem cells from human embryos that were not destroyed in the process.

The accomplishment is the newest wrinkle in a rapidly evolving effort to find ways to develop prized human embryonic stem cells without the ethical baggage that has plagued the field since its inception nearly a decade ago. Already, the new method is generating controversy.

The five new lines of human embryonic stem cells that were created using the process are genetically normal and have the ability to become any of the more than 220 cell types in the body, said Robert Lanza, senior author of the paper published online Thursday in the journal Cell Stem Cell.

"We could send these cells out (to researchers) tomorrow," said Lanza, chief science officer at Advanced Cell Technology in Worcester, Mass. "If the White House approves this methodology, researchers could effectively double or triple the number of stem cell lines available within a few months."

...But it appears that the federal government is not likely to approve funding for stem cells obtained using the method, at least not anytime soon.

That's because under an executive order by President Bush last year it must be proved that embryos not only were not destroyed, but also were not harmed in the process of obtaining stem cells.

The process used by Lanza and his co-authors involves extracting one or two cells from surplus embryos, a technique that is similar to a relatively common practice used to test for genetic abnormalities in couples undergoing in vitro fertilization. But an earlier study suggests that when genetic testing is done, the rates of pregnancies and live births are reduced somewhat.

In order to prove that no harm was done to embryos, doctors would have to implant them into the wombs of women and babies would have to be born.

"I don't think that is a reasonable experiment," said Story Landis, who leads the stem cell task force of the National Institutes of Health.

But she added, "I can't think of a feasible study to prove embryos aren't harmed."

In other words, there's reason to believe that the embryos may be harmed in this new process.

Researchers can't be sure that stem cells are, in fact, obtained without damage to the embryos. Terms need to be defined here. For instance, when does damage become destruction?

This technique is still dragging around "ethical baggage."

It's false to suggest otherwise.

...[T]he new method is a highly efficient way to obtain stem cells, similar to rates found with conventional techniques, Lanza said.

"The approach utilized by the authors definitely does make the case that lines of human embryonic stem cells can be isolated without having to destroy embryos," said John Lough, a stem cell researcher at the Medical College of Wisconsin.

But Lough said that while new cell lines created by the process would help bolster the dwindling supply of stem cell lines used in basic research, the process would not be feasible for stem cells that someday might be implanted in patients.

For clinical use in patients, doctors will need stem cells that are genetically matched to the patient, he said.

So, this process would be completely useless in the actual treatment of patients.

These stem cells could help in "basic research," but not in clinical use.

That's very different from the breakthrough reported last year, genetically engineering skin cells to behave like embryonic stem cells, which would have the potential for implantation in patients without being rejected.

Rather than clearly reporting on the new process, the article emphasizes the politics of the "ethical baggage."

Landis said Lanza and his co-authors should submit a request for funding to NIH "and see what happens."

Short of that, they could wait for the next president to rescind Bush's order, she said.

Bush is standing in the way of scientific progress again -- typical Journal Sentinel spin.

I don't think orders to protect life are obstacles or inconvenient "ethical baggage." Defending the sanctity of life is a moral obligation and a cornerstone of a civilized society.


"[T]here is no such thing as a spare embryo. Every embryo is unique and genetically complete, like every other human being. And each of us started out our life this way. These lives are not raw material to be exploited, but gifts."

--George W. Bush














Long live embryos!

Moral Stem Cell Research Breakthrough

An instance of "learning how to turn lead into gold"--

Here's yet another stem cell breakthrough that doesn't destroy embryos:

By genetically manipulating human skin cells, scientists at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and a separate team in Japan were able to reprogram those cells to act like embryonic stem cells without the need of using human embryos.

If these new cells truly do have all the beneficial qualities of embryonic stem cells without hidden hazards, it could pave the way to therapies that do not raise the moral concerns associated with destroying embryos or therapeutic cloning. At the same time, the new approach could avoid problems of immune rejection because the cells could be matched to the DNA of the patient.

"This is truly the Holy Grail - to be able to take a few cells from a patient - say a cheek swab or few skin cells - and turn them into stem cells in the laboratory," said Robert Lanza, chief scientific officer with Advanced Cell Technology in Worcester, Mass. "It's a bit like learning how to turn lead into gold.

"If perfected, there will no longer be any need for human eggs, or any of the controversy associated with destroying embryos."

This sounds extremely promising.

I trust that phrases like, "turn lead into gold" and "truly the Holy Grail" aren't bandied about recklessly.

Of course, EMBRYONIC stem cell proponents have tossed the obligatory wet blanket tossed on the breakthrough.

But Lanza and other scientists not associated with research said there are major caveats that must be addressed. And there was a danger that scientists might abandon the contentious field of embryonic stem cell research, wiping out work on promising therapies, he said.

As with many new findings, there are caveats that need attention.

The part about the DANGER of scientists abandoning the "contentious field of embryonic stem cell research" seems very political.

Why would scientists continue to destroy embryos for therapies if it would be totally unnecessary, if there would be a way to avoid the destruction of life?

These scientists remind me of pro-abortion supporters, the ones clinging to partial birth abortion as a supposedly necessary procedure.

Some of the article reads like propaganda for EMBRYONIC stem cell research.

...So far, no one has treated using embryonic stem cells. Part of that may be due to federal restrictions for funding involving embryonic stem cells that has limited research in the field.

Indeed, Thomson and other have complained that the ethical debate surrounding the use of embryos had limited research in the field.

"The political controversy set the field back four or five years," Thomson said.

The stigma surrounding the use of embryos caused many young scientists to shy away from the field, he said.

What's the point?

Ethics shouldn't be considered?

This isn't Nazi Germany. There are ethical limits to medical experimentation.

Still, even the lib media can't deny the positive nature of the study's findings.

...The new genetically modified cells had many of the features of embryonic stem cells, including pluripotency, or the ability to become any of the 220 cell types in the human body.

"These induced cells do all the things embryonic stem cells do," said UW Thomson, senior author of the paper. "It is something that can proliferate forever and form every cell in the body. The big question will be, are they normal cells or funny mutations?"

At this point, however, "These really do appear to be the cells that give rise to everything."

In addition to eventually being able to use the cells as replacement cells, Thomson said researchers might be able to figure out ways to use similar processes to induce damaged or diseased cells in the body to repair themselves.

...Thomson said much more research needs to be done using this approach, and it could take a couple years before it is certain that the new cells work the same way as embryonic stem cells. He said it is premature for scientists to step away from ongoing embryonic stem cell research.

Still, he added, "I believe this is the beginning of a great change. This changes things in a big way. We started a field (in 1998). Now we might have come up with the best thing to go on to. It creates a nice book end to 10 years of controversy."

UW's findings are published in the journal Science.

The Japanese researchers published their findings in the journal Cell.

Stem Cell Research: Bush Vetoes Culture of Death Legislation

Conservative critics of President Bush for his weak and wobbly stance on ILLEGAL immigration can pause from their outrage over that for a moment.

They can praise the President for making good on his steadfast pledge to defend the sanctity of life.

WASHINGTON -- Pushing back against the Democratic-led Congress, President Bush vetoed a bill Wednesday that would have eased restraints on federally funded embryonic stem cell research.

Democrats, who had made the stem cell legislation a top priority when they took control of the House and Senate in January, were quick to denounce the president's decision.

"This is just one example of how the president puts ideology before science, politics before the needs of our families, just one more example of how out of touch with reality he and his party have become," Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., told the Take Back America conference of liberal activists Wednesday.

I can't stand it when libs like Hillary Clinton twist the principled position of Culture of Life proponents.

Bush didn't put ideology before science. He didn't veto science.

He prevented additional federal dollars from being used to clone human life and destroy it.

He vetoed unethical science.

Apparently, Hillary's reality includes cloning human life and using it as raw material for research and experimentation. That's her vision for America.

It's not mine.
____________________

Fact Sheet: Advancing Stem Cell Research While Respecting Moral Boundaries