Harsh Times

Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe that we owe it to the American public to explore the potential of stem cells to treat the millions of people suffering from debilitating and life-threatening diseases. Obama is a co-sponsor of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007, which would allow research of human embryonic stem cells derived from embryos donated (with consent) from in vitro fertilization clinics. These embryos must be deemed in excess and created based solely for the purpose of fertility treatment.

        So these clinics are originally set up for people who are having trouble making a baby.  They get the egg, get the sperm, mix it up in a medium, allow the sperm to get up in there, and then put it back in the mom’s whatever (uterus). 

        In effect, what exceedingly generous people want is for people to line up to do this without the intention of staying pregnant.  They want the egg and sperm to develop into an embryo, take it out of the mom (and correct me if I’m wrong on this sequence of events, but to the best of my knowledge, you can’t get an embryo without natural incubation in the mom), and suck stem cells out of the embryo…

NOTE:  An embryo is a person during the second period of prenatal development.  A person is characterized as an embryo 2 weeks after conception and lasts in this characterization until about week 9.

…thereby terminating the pregnancy.  Sounds like another form of abortion to me.

        Anyway, Obama’s website has a vague and peculiar way (like the rest of the short paragraphs on all of the issues) of attempting to justify the action.  It says that the embryos ‘must be deemed in excess’.  What exactly does that mean? 

        “You know, we really don’t need all these eggs and sperm,” says mom and dad. 

        Secondly, who would deem them so?  Also, wouldn’t this create a new greed-influenced market where possible [monetary] incentives would conveniently increase the quantity of those ‘deemed’ embryos? Wouldn’t the firms that extract and research those stem cells be partial to slipping the ‘deem captain’ a few bucks to get them some more research material?  Of course that is all speculation, but very probably in my opinion if you think about a logical chain of events.

Addressing the Moral Concerns of Advanced Technology

            Stem cell research offers tremendous hope for those suffering from a variety of deadly diseases - hope for both cures and life-extending treatments. However, the compassion to relieve suffering and to cure deadly disease cannot erode moral and ethical principles.
                For this reason, 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.

                I would like to point out how much more detailed McCain’s position is on the issue.  It’s much harder to figure out if McCain is trying to pull one over on you, and has very little question.  Even if you were on the opposite side of the table at least you would know where he stands.  This is not traditional political strategy.  You want to do what Obama does, which is to stay vague so that you can precise your position when it benefits you later. 

        A good example of this is his position on Iraq.  He wants to end it.  A while ago he wanted all troops back by March of 2008, which, of course, was a mute trumpet because he didn’t have the power, the influence, or stamina of convincing all of Congress and Senate, and the President to do so.  It was a simply a pretty tune to firstly placate the anti-war folks, and secondly, to entice his prospective voters. 

        Now, he still says he wants to end the war.

        Great man, so do I!  The question is, when?  Now? Later?  Or perhaps when the job is done?  Most successful people (which is what I’d like to be) like to finish what they started.  However, he added this little snippet of information to his bold statement:  ‘Responsibly’.  He wants to end it responsibly.  Tell me how is this any different than how I, McCain, or the rest of logical America want to end it?  Again, shouting out key words that draw in the numb and mesmerized. 

        I seriously do not understand the Obama voter.  I would be rather offended if someone thought of me as so easily captured.

I was at the CNN site today, and they had one of those polls again that obviously lean toward the 'left' in their questions.  Today's question was my title.

To tell you the truth, people, I don't get it.  Why is there all this talk about the economy being bad.  The only thing I get that's negative about is high gasoline prices, and a high deficit.  Other than that, things couldn't be peachier... for me at least.  

Then, I go on to ask how my my friends and family and neighbors are doing, and big surprise that they're doing wonderful too.   The richest person I know has near hundreds of millions in assets and funds.  The poorest person I know has $100.00 in the bank.   However, both are always in this state of economic condition.

As for me, I'm a full time student, I'm a landlord/property manager, Army Reservist, and I don't struggle for anything except which movie to watch at the theater, or who to take to the ball game with me (go Rocks).  Sure, my credit is shot due to bad calls on credit cards that I was living off of two years ago, but that was MY CHOICE.  

I think the biggest factor in financial hardships are people, and them taking on too much debt, expecting 'not to make payments for 6 months' or thinking their ARM won't change, or thinking that they'll keep making the same amount or money, or more in the future. 

Anyone can get a job right now.  The problem is, most of us don't want to get something 'beneath us' until we find our 'dream job'.   We want the dream job right here, right now.

The economy is doing great right now.  Am I wrong?

What about you? 

This guy makes me mad -not because he's a socialist, but because he's such a good damn politican.

I distinctly remember him saying that Bush's policy of not talking with the enemy (terrorists, fascist states like Iran) was a failed one.  He said, how does not talking solve anything?  I believe that talking solves something... or words to that effect.  

If anyone out there can find the transcript, and post it, I'd appreciate it.  He said this during a question/answer section of a speech he was making at a university or some other rally.  It wasn't prepared.

Today, I read the following from foxnews.com:

“Instead of tough talk and no action, we need to do what Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan did and use all elements of American power — including tough, principled, and direct diplomacy — to pressure countries like Iran and Syria. George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the president’s extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel,” Obama said.

He said this in reaction to President Bush's speech in Isreal about people (not mentioning Obama) who try to talk with terrorists are foolish because history has revealed it accomplishes nothing but them stalling.

READ THE ARTICLE

On John McCain

He is not as energetic as Barack Obama, and uncharismatic, but he has something to say –unlike Obama who likes the word ‘change’.  Change what?  Everything?  That doesn’t say much.                    Sen. McCain has laid out a vague plan of action, but one we’re all interested in having at least some idea of the goals.  Remarkably, it’s one he doesn’t even guarantee.

"What I want to do today is take a little time to describe what I would hope to have achieved at the end of my first term as president. I cannot guarantee I will have achieved these things,"

 One could say that he is at the very least honest.  He has objectives he wants to meet, but doesn’t know for sure if he can meet them.  Some might pick at this characteristic of him like at a scab.  However, one should keep in mind he’s talking about an entire country, a nation, a Congress and the world, and not a grocery list.  One man, alone, cannot make things come true without cooperation, tact, and a little luck.

"By January 2013, America has welcomed home most of the servicemen and women who have sacrificed terribly so that America might be secure in her freedom.

By his words, he seems to be a realist.  Most politicians are not so.  Politicians tell people what they want to hear (“change”), when they want to hear it (primaries), so that they get what they want (a nomination).   

He also seems to be resistant to political party lines –a reason why hardcore conservatives in the population and in Congress don’t really like him.

McCain pledged to work with members of either party to make the country safer and more prosperous.  "And I won't care who gets the credit," he said.

He is the ‘crusty old white dude’ according to many liberals and conservatives alike.  He is JFK’s Nixon, and we are in a term like Eisenhower’s in that people really do want a change (in that case civil rights issues, and in ours Iraq, health care and the border).  However putting faith on a different political party alone is as ignorant as believing that pastors, priests and reverends aren’t capable of wrongdoing. 

What will get us through the next four to eight years successfully will be clear leadership that’s in the best interest for most, to all Americans, with the rest of the world a close second.

Source:  Cnn.com

...not about keeping out Mexicans, Muslims, or Canadians (halfway joking).  It's about keeping out creepshows, felons, 'evil doers', and cowards.  Since you can't tell the bad from the good, you have to screen everyone.  This is why border security, even before immigration law enforcement, is the most important in keeping legal American residents and Citizens safe.

I'm sure I have a post about his guy, but as I was going through a mugshot slide show that cbs4denver has, it reignited my fire.  This would be one of those 'cowards.'