And what’s so wrong with that?
“Embryonic stem cell research is taking the concept of taking a life and using it to conduct experiments so we can temporarily extend somebody else life. Let me tell you what i just described, I just described what the nazis did to the jews in the death camps of WWII.”
Coleman has proclaimed his pro-life stance from the outset of his campaign, so such a statement shouldn’t really surprise anyone. Though his Right to Life position paper on his website doesn’t specifically mention stem cell research, Coleman makes clear he’s adamantly opposed to abortion and dedicated to protecting the life of the unborn.
Still, Democrats are attacking the central Arkansas businessman. Claiming he’s attacked researchers and Jewish Arkansans, left-wingers across the country have descended on the story like a pack of ravenous wolves.
When asked to comment for this article, Rabbi Kalman Winnick of the Agudath Achim Synagogue in Little Rock said he didn’t think the comparison was appropriate, but stopped short of saying it was invalid. He said there is a contemporary tendency to compare anything one disagrees with to the Nazis and that practice is hurtful to those who actually endured the atrocities of the Nazis in WWII. According to Winnick, such comparisons should not be used in modern political disputes.
Winnick did not take a position for or against embryonic stem cell research, but did say he’s not sure Coleman was wrong to place a high value on a potential life. The Rabbi said he does a lot of counseling and often tells people they can be both right and wrong in what they’re saying. “What you say may be right, but you can be wrong to say it,” said the Rabbi.
Predictably though, liberal blogs and news organizations have seized the comment to paint Coleman as an “extremist.” But, these left-wing media outlets have ignored the veracity of Coleman’s statement as they intentionally misinterpreted the comment in the hopes of boosting Democrats’ chances in a race that recent polls have shown is more than likely to be won by the GOP in November.
MSNBC, The Huffington Post, Think Progress, and other left-wing Democrat propaganda appendages are all trying to convince the electorate that Coleman envisions microscopic cells being marched to gas chambers. But Coleman meant no such thing, and the left-wing rags all know that.
Given Coleman’s unequivocal belief that human life begins at conception, by definition he believes an embryo embodies human life. Coleman insists he’s not against using other types of stem cells for research purposes. He posted the following comments on his blog to clarify his misinterpreted remark.
“We must, therefore, be ever vigilant against allowing ourselves to rationalize our way into unjustly terminating life at any stage. I have consistently and strongly supported stem cell research, especially umbilical cord stem cell research, and celebrate reports that more than 70 human diseases are being treated by this process. I question only the specific kind of embryonic stem cell research that requires human life to be sacrificed by the destruction of a human embryo.”–Curtis Coleman
We’ve all seen images of atrocities committed against Jews by the Nazis in WWII concentration camps. Mass graves, human incinerators, gas chambers, cattle cars, starving prisoners literally worked to death to feed the Wehrmacht are burned into our minds from photos, movies, and newsreels that we’ve seen over the years. But lesser known atrocities were committed in these camps as well, including the use of Jewish prisoners as human guinea pigs for medical experiments.
The United States Holocaust Museum breaks down Nazi medical experiments on human subjects into three separate categories.
Experiments aimed at:
- facilitating the survival of Axis military personnel
- developing and testing pharmaceuticals and treatment methods for injuries and illnesses
- advancing the racial and ideological tenets of the Nazi worldview
The authors of the previously mentioned left-wing articles on Coleman’s comment have intentionally attempted to give the impression that such experiments only fell into the third category. Perusing the comments on several of these articles, it appears the consumers of these Democrat propaganda organizations have virtually no idea that experiments of the first and second category were performed in the Third Reich death camps.
Technically and literally, experiments in the first and second category did exactly what Curtis Coleman described–they took lives to conduct experiments to temporarily extend the lives of others.
by Ken Blackwell at Townhall.com
Dawn Johnsen is President Obama’s nominee to head the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel (OLC). It’s arguably the most important office at DoJ. OLC sets policy for the entire federal government.
When not serving in government, Dawn Johnsen has spent her career promoting abortion-on-demand. She denies there is even such a thing as Partial-Birth Abortion. Even the term, she maintains, is “intentionally provocative.” She does not think that “progressives”—that’s PC-speak for liberal—should suggest that abortion is ever a tragedy.
Not for Dawn Johnsen Bill Clinton’s slippery formulation: “Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.” Dismiss for the moment that Bill and Hillary Clinton did everything they could in their eight years to promote abortion world-wide. The only places they made abortion rare were on the Moon and in Antarctica.
Even the Clintons’ basic premise was flawed. If abortion is “a fundamental constitutional right,” as they said in every official document, then why should it be rare? Is there any other fundamental constitutional right we want to be rare?
Hillary once said abortion is “wrong.” (Newsweek, 31 October 1994). Only once. But she pressed governments around the world to legalize it. That’s an odd way to deal with something you think is wrong.
Dawn Johnsen doesn’t think abortion is wrong at all. She is all for it.
OPINION: August 24, 2009
By Congressman John Carter
There was an old country judge that had the highest criminal conviction rate in the state. When a reporter from the state capital came down investigate this judicial phenomenon, the judge explained that he simply instructed the jury to listen very carefully to what the prosecutor had to say, then make their decision. The reporter cried indignantly, “don’t you also tell them to listen to the defense?” The judge replied, “well, I used to, but it just confused ‘em.”
20 years as a Texas judge taught me a few things about listening to both sides of an argument. In most cases, both sides truly think they’re right. Then they start presenting arguments and evidence to try to prove their case. Naturally, neither side will present anything remotely supportive of their opponent, even if they know it’s true. So as a judge, you sit there and weigh the evidence presented by all with a grain of salt, knowing that either side is capable of stretching the limits of veracity and withholding relevant information if not in their favor.
That’s precisely the kind of case that all Americans are having to judge right now concerning the healthcare reform proposals being pushed by Democrats in Washington.
We hear it everyday in the press – the President says anybody who likes their current health insurance will get to keep it, while opponents say all private health insurance will be gone by 2013. Democrats in the House say their plans will control rising healthcare costs, while opponents say it will drive costs even higher. Opponents say the new system will eventually start denying care to elderly, and encourage euthanasia, while supporters say it won’t.
Who’s right? With our very lives at stake, along with 19% of our gross domestic product, being wrong could be deadly for us personally as well as our free market economy.
Let’s examine the evidence together. In looking at the both sides of this case, let’s leave out the emotion and political rhetoric, and try to look at just the facts on each major point.
To begin, we can only examine the bill passed by Democrats in the House Energy and Commerce Committee in late August, HR 3200. That will not be the final bill, if there is a final bill. The current House version would first be voted on by the entire House, where changes would be made, then reconciled with whatever the Senate passes, changed again, then brought to a final vote in both Chambers. But this Committee version is all we have in writing, so that’s what we must judge.
Can You Keep Your Current Health Plan?
The bill contains no provision that would specifically abolish any health plan. But it would require all individuals and employers to purchase health plans approved by a new federal agency starting in 4 years, or pay a heavy tax penalty. It is not enough to require a health plan be purchased – it must be a federally approved plan to avoid paying an 8% payroll penalty by employers or a 2% income tax penalty by individuals. The bill allows the new federal agency to set any requirements they like on what constitutes an “approved” plan. Whether a current individual plan could survive and be approved by this new bureaucracy is suspect, as is whether an employer will continue to offer any current plan under these circumstances.
Verdict: PROBABLY Not
Will This Help Control Health Care Costs?
This issue is one of the most clear. After extensive research, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which is currently overseen by the Democrat majority, officially reported to Congress that not only would it not hold down health costs, it would push them even higher than doing nothing. The number one problem with American health care is high cost, and this bill would make it worse.
Does The Bill Encourage Denial of Care and Euthanasia for the Elderly?
There is no language specifically calling for denial of care or euthanasia. But language was added requiring Medicare to pay for “end of life counseling” that will include educating senior citizens on the option of pre-authorizing the cessation of life-sustaining care, and in states which allow physician-assisted suicide, education on that option as well. President Obama has made repeated references to avoiding costly treatments for elderly patients, and other nations that have adopted this same style health system do in fact limit medical treatments and encourage euthanasia for elderly patients. These facts, coupled with the creation of a new federal agency that will unilaterally determine what benefits are included in “approved” health plans AFTER the bill passes, is heavy evidence that the bill may encourage denial of care and euthanasia. But in this issue there is even more – a proverbial “smoking gun.” The very advocacy groups like the now-defunct Hemlock Society that have historically lobbied for legalized suicide were instrumental in adding the “end-of-life” counseling section to the legislation.
Does the Bill Use Federal Funds to Pay for Abortions?
There is nothing specific in the bill to fund abortions. However, the yet unspecified new rules for all “approved” health plans – rules that will be written by Obama Administration appointees AFTER the bill passes – could include abortion coverage. Over concerns on this issue, an amendment prohibiting abortion funding was submitted in the House, and subsequently voted down by Democrat members of the Committee. This provides substantial evidence that the new federal health plan rules could require abortion coverage by all health plans in the country, while the final decision remains unknown.
Is This the Beginning of Single-Payer Healthcare?
Like most issues concerning this bill, there is no specific provision that would mandate single-payer socialized medicine and the shutdown of private sector healthcare. But as early as 2003 then-Senator Barack Obama was advocating single-payer healthcare publicly, and has recently stated along with key House Democrats that this bill would lead eventually to single-payer healthcare, over a period of 10-20 years. All of these comments are on tape and available to the public.
Verdict: Likely Over Time
Will the Bill Increase the Federal Deficit and Federal Taxes?
No argument here from either side. The bill will cost $1.28 trillion in the first 10 years according to CBO, and raise taxes $818 billion on those who cannot afford to buy insurance, not counting surcharges on small business income.
Will the Bill Cost American Jobs?
No argument here either. The Obama Administration’s own White House Council of Economic Advisors has estimated 4.7 million Americans will lose their jobs if the bill passes, as employers who cannot afford health insurance or the 8% payroll tax penalty will have to fire their employees, move overseas, or go out of business.
There are many more issues to this bill than seven, but in my opinion the answers to just these are enough to reach a final judgment on HR 3200: NO.
HR 3200 is fatally flawed, does not provide the health reforms we truly do need in this country, and should be buried. It is one of the worst pieces of legislation I have examined since being elected to the House. It would destroy the finest quality health care system in the world, undermine the free market, throw Americans out of work, and violate the moral principles of the majority of this country in the process.
Examining all the evidence is not just important in determining action on legislation, but in writing that legislation to begin with. Like the story of the old judge who only listened to one side of a case, this bill was written without any consideration of opinions from anyone other than the liberal Democrat faithful, with a resulting faulty outcome.
We can do better. We don’t need the federal government to take over the healthcare industry, we just need some commonsense bipartisan reforms.
First, we are already in bipartisan agreement to make affordable health insurance available to folks with pre-existing health conditions who are presently barred from buying a health plan.
We can let small businesses and organizations join together to purchase group insurance at the same affordable rates as big business, allowing more small employers to offer coverage.
We can remove restrictions on buying health insurance across state lines, letting families in prohibitively high-cost states purchase affordable plans in other states.
To pass these reforms will require a simple concession from the Democrat majority. That is to agree to work with Republicans in a bipartisan effort, and listen to both sides of the case before reaching a verdict.
U.S. Rep. John Carter (TX31)
Secretary, House Republican Conference
Fox News reported yesterday that a majority of Americans now identify themselves as pro-life on the abortion issue.
Fifty-one percent of Americans consider themselves “pro-life” and just 42 percent say they are “pro-choice,” the first time a majority of the country has stated a personal objection to abortion since Gallup polls began tracking the data 15 years ago.
This is the first time since Gallup began tracking this issue that pro-lifers have overtaken pro-choicers! In fact, just last year the numbers were 50% pro-choice, 44% pro-life.
If you’re thinking this is simply a statistical anomaly, think again. Gallup’s own article indicates it considered this possibility when it explains these results were corroborated by two other polls yielding almost identical numbers–one was another Gallup poll, but confirmation also came from a Pew Research Center which showed an 8-point drop in those who believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases.
Republicans and right-leaning Independents are responsible for the dramatic position shift as Democrats’ and left-leaning Independents’ views remained virtually stagnant from last year. The following graph shows a 10% shift from pro-choice to pro-life among the former group in the study.
The poll also found a corresponding shift on the extent to which Americans believe abortion should be legal. Fifty-three percent of Americans now believe abortion should be legal under certain conditions, down slightly from last year. But it’s now a dead-heat between those who believe there should be no legal restrictions on abortion and those who believe the procedure should never be performed under any circumstances. With 22% holding the former position and 23% the latter. Until now, the left extreme heavily outnumbered the right on the legality question.
Gallup probed further with those who believe abortion should be legal in some cases, but not all. When asked whether they thought abortion should be legal in most cases or in only a few cases, the latter view won handily. The chart below shows those 37% of respondents favor legalization only in rare cases while those who prefer few legal restrictions make up only 15% of Americans.
Another interesting take on the graphic above is seen by combining the left extreme with those who believe abortion should be restricted, but only in few cases vs. the right extreme and those who believe the procedure should only be illegal in most situations. While only 37% of Americans stand on the left half of the spectrum, fully 60% place themselves on the right half .
Gallup also found both men and women who identify themselves as pro-life jumped 8% and 6%, respectively. This year, 49% of women and 54% of men identify themselves as pro-life vs. 43% of women and 46% of men in last year’s survey.
All three categories of religious preference used by Gallup showed gains in the percentage of pro-life Americans as well. Protestants identifying themselves as pro-life shot up 8%, Roman Catholics 7%, and those who categorized themselves not in either of these two groups (other/none) but consider themselves pro-life rose 4%.
This is great news for the pro-life movement in the US. But what will it mean on the political front?
Gallup says “With the first pro-choice president in eight years…Americans — and, in particular, Republicans — seem to be taking a step back from the pro-choice position. However, the retreat is evident among political moderates as well as conservatives.”
Personally, I believe this dramatic shift is a direct result of the radical changes President Obama and the Democrats in Congress are cramming down our throats. We saw the beginnings a conservative uprising immediately following the November election with groups like Rebuild the Party and Top Conservatives on Twitter springing up on the internet, and more recently the Tea Party, the 9/12 Project, and numerous other conservative activist organizations.
Sounds like great news for the Republican Party, right?
Not if it listens to the numerous calls that insist a move to the center is the GOP’s only hope for survival, like seen here, here, and here. There’s evidence the party may already have charted this course. Continuing to take this path will only make matters worse as the party continues to alienate true conservatives, and offers no alternative to the Democrats and their left-wing, Socialist agenda.
Rush Limbaugh‘s been saying it, Dick Cheney‘s been saying it, I and countless others have been saying it, the GOP needs to move back to its conservative roots if it hopes to recover from the thrashing it’s taken in the last two election cycles.
This Gallup poll should tell the GOP a move to the center will be committing suicide.
You’ve certainly heard the flap over Notre Dame’s keynote speaker at this year’s graduation, President Barack Obama, but today a group of graduating seniors announced plans to skip their own graduation because they refuse to support or pay homage to a President who holds such disdain for the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.
The problem, of course, stems from Notre Dame’s Catholic roots and Obama’s position on the sanctity of human life in its embryonic stage. The Catholic Church “has always condemned abortion as a grave evil” and condemns stem cell research on the basis that “It is immoral to produce human embryos destined to be exploited as disposable ‘biological material.” These views are polar opposites of the President’s positions on abortion and stem cell research.
Several Catholic leaders have publicly criticized the university’s choice of a commencement speaker.
The Catholic Bishop of Ft. Wayne/South Bend, John D’Arcy, has publicly denounced the invitation to OBama and will not attend the commencement exercises.1
Ralph McInerny, a philosophy professor at Notre Dame wrote “Notre Dame has forfeited its right to call itself a Catholic university.”1
Now the student group ND Response has organized a prayer vigil to be held concurrently with the commencement ceremony. The following announcement has been placed on the group’s website where you can also find a schedule of demonstration events.
ND Response has received official permission to hold a prayerful and constructive demonstration on the South Quad of the University of Notre Dame between 11am and 4pm on the day of Commencement. The students of this coalition would like to extend an invitation to all those interested in joining us on campus on May 17th as we respectfully give witness to Notre Dame’s Catholic identity and pro-life principles.