Friday, July 29, 2005

Embryonic Stem Cell Debate

The embryonic stem cell research question is a difficult one. Far more difficult than abortion. After all, abortion is typically the snuffing out of a well-developed human life for no other purpose than the convenience of a couple of irresponsible adults. It is immoral. And while I do not want it to be made illegal neither do I want the federal government diverting money from research or social security or defense or schools or homeland security to fund it.

In the case of embryonic stem cell research, however, the human life is far from well-developed and its purpose is not just to protect the comfort of, and prevent inconvenience to, irresponsible adults but rather to keep alive people with children and loved ones and to end the profound suffering of those ravaged not by a night of drunken debauchery but by the cruel realities of disease and accident.

But it is undeniable that with these efforts humanity is crossing a line, and to glibly accept it without serious thought, debate and soul-searching is quite frightening to me. I'm just not sure that I want to cross this line into a "brave new world" where assembly lines pump out the materials of human existence -- start the process of human life -- only to then coldly and methodically harvest pieces for profit and personal gain.

And I am disturbed by the people who are for it.

It is frankly stunning to me that the same Democrats who tell us that the real enemies of the world are not the Islamic fascist mass murderers but rather American corporations and the pharmaceutical companies in particular are now so willing to blindly throw billions of dollars at these "little Eichmanns" and put in their hands the stuff of life itself.

I am further disturbed by the left's inability to engage in this discussion -- with its unprecedentedly profound consequences all around -- in any way deeper than to attack those of us who have moral, ethical and practical reservations as "religious zealots." Are the Democrats really so totally devoid of morality that there is nothing in which they see personal gain that they will not run to unquestioningly? It is damning in my eyes that the Democrat who at every turn demands "political correctness" to protect people's "feelings" won't give a moment's thought to moral correctness to preserve the very sanctity of human life.

And, while I am not a big fan of the "slippery slope" argument, as it tends to prevent reasonable compromise, I cannot help but recognize that we have traveled this particular slope before with abortion and it was, indeed, slippery. What began as what many might find an acceptable (if unhappy) compromise -- legal abortion but only in the first trimester of life -- has devolved in the hands of the Democrat into abortion anytime, anywhere for any reason and FREE!!! I can't help asking myself, in the hands of people who have no moral compunction about shoving scissors into the skulls of partially born babies, how long until they are demanding the creation of, and the harvesting of parts from, fully grown humans in the name of their personal convenience?

I must admit that my concerns are only deepened by my experiences with the Democratic Party on other issues of humanity. Many of us have come to recognize that the Democratic Party has become the party of death. There seems to be -- I'll even say is -- an agenda amongst Democrats to cheapen life and to undermine the very sanctity of humanity. The only "constant" I can detect in the Democrats' positions is that, when it comes to the sanctity of human life, they are without exception on the side of degradation.

From their adoration for the world's most murderous regimes to their support and defense of terrorists to PETA's campaign comparing humans to chickens to their support of pornography to their stance on "mercy killings", abortion and crime and punishment one cannot find a single instance where questions of the sanctity of human life arise in which the Democrat does not side with its devaluation.

I am further distrustful of the arguments for embryonic stem cell research in that I have come to recognize the Democrats as a party of liars. It should not be surprising that, to people to whom life means nothing, truth means even less. I simply do not take anything the Democrat says at face value anymore. These are people who give standing ovations to lie-filled anti-American "documentaries", use forged documents in their newscasts, pilfer papers vital to our security and call our soldiers "Nazis" all for effect and the chance to advance their personal agendas, wealth and tastes.

It certainly did little to increase my confidence in the Democrats when the party's most recent standard bearer, John Kerry, sought personal gain by demagoging this very issue, offering false hope to millions by promising a nearly overnight cure to virtually every ailment that has ever befallen mankind if only everyone would help Kerry achieve his lifelong dream of becoming President.

Even today, with no election on the horizon, the Democrats continue to sell lies about the issue, succeeding in convincing millions, for example, that there are no alternatives to this magical therapy and that the President has outlawed embryonic stem cell research. As is typical with the leftist, the truth is exactly the opposite. Research into the use of adult and embilical chord stem cells (neither of which requires the creation, harvesting and then destruction of nascent human life) is extremely promising and George W. Bush was the first President to make embryonic stem cell research legal.

Further, still, I recognize the tactics of the Democrat from their other misinformation and disinformation campaigns where the pro-death and pro-degradation position is hyped and the pro-sanctity of human life position either ignored or falsely portrayed.

This, of course, is exactly the paradigm the Democrats use in their pro-abortion arguments (see my piece Republicans the Pro-Choice Party) where abortion is falsely portrayed as devoid of costs -- emotional, physical or even financial, while the lie that there aren't enough people willing to adopt children has been turned into the "conventional wisdom." This is exactly the paradigm of the self-degradation party in their incessant efforts to portray teenage sex as fun and cool (and those who do not engage in it as "losers") while funding such anti-chastity rallies as NARAL -- Pro-Choice's "Fuck Abstinence" events.

The propriety of manufacturing human life on an assembly line to have the pieces harvested for use by others is clearly a serious moral question. It deserves to be discussed and debated amongst people of good will doing their best to provide fact and accurate information. With Republican Senator Bill Frist having entered the fray perhaps now we'll get some thoughtful and truthful arguments from someone on behalf of federal funding for such practices. Although I must say, the good doctor is in some pretty bad company.


LogicalOne said...

I was busy watching your previoius post and just got around to reading this one. Where does all this hate for Democrats come from? As a young child, were you abused by a Democrat?

You know the joke about the guy who said he talked to himself because that was the only way he could get an intelligent conversation? He was wrong. You can talk to uncritical people with the same beliefs. So I think I'll just leave you people to talk to each other.

Evan Sayet said...

Abused by a Democrat? Nope. I was one. But unfortunately the Democrats have been taken over by a philsophy I call "Modern Liberalism" (others call it "multiculturalism". Because in short form it's easier to explain as "multiculturalism" I will do so here) and it is a philosphy that demands they side ALWAYS with evil over good, wrong over right and the behaviors that lead to failure over those that lead to success.

It's not because they are evil (though some are. Michael Moore is evil. Al Franken is a sad, pathetic evil little man, Ted Kennedy is mentally ill from watching his brothers murdered and then killing someone himself).

It's because as "multiculturalists" who believe that all cultures are equally good and equally right they are forced always to champion the evil and the failed or else admit that they are evil and their failure is the result of an inferior culture. That, of course, would destroy their entire "multiculturalist" philsophy.

Alva Goldbook said...

I have heard time and time again about the great canard of “the sanctity of human life”, and I began to ponder some things. Where did it come from? How did we discover it? Who had it and who didn’t have it? The answers to those questions unfortunately led me to a very disturbing place that I feel compelled to share with you.

You see, the mantra is that human life is sacred. But not all human life, some. For the “pro-lifer” the sanctity of human life seems to only matter on very specific occasions. In fact, it is almost exclusively limited to fetuses.

Their dedication to those fetuses is quite startling. Some “pro-life” extremists take their beliefs so seriously, that they come to the other side and become US born and bred terrorists. Case in point: Eric Rudolph. Rudolph certainly had no compunction about the sanctity of human life when he set off pipe bombs at the 1996 Olympic Games in Atlanta. The rational conclusion seems to be that fetuses are sacred, but random passersby at the Olympic Games are…well….not.

I began to ponder this rather strange omission of the sanctity of human life. What made Rudolph’s victims so much less sacred than human fetuses? I couldn’t find an answer to that question before I discovered this little thing that’s been going on, that some are calling THE IRAQ WAR.

You see, the United States is currently at war with this little fart of a country called Iraq that’s out there somewhere in this place called “The Middle East”. (seriously, who comes up with this stuff?) The problem seems to have started when the United States put a madman by the name of Saddam Hussein into power. The US was so happy with him that a special envoy was sent to Iraq, Donald Rumsfeld, to present Saddam with a pair a golden cowboy boots, a gift of affection from President Ronald Reagan. Reagan loved Saddam so much that he violated Congress by giving him plenty of weapons like anthrax and botulism toxins, and even helped him to build nuclear refineries.

A short time later (you guessed it) the US invaded that country for having anthrax and botulism, and maybe a nuclear weapon made from those refineries.

So I began to wonder if the sanctity of human life applied to the Iraqi people as well. You never would have guessed what I found. Drum roll, please….the answer is nope. Since Saddam came into power the US has helped him to slaughter his own people. The most disturbing example was when Saddam gassed the Kurds in 1988. The suppliers of that gas? Dow Chemical. After the US decided that Saddam wore a black hat instead of a white one, we launched 2 wars against him, and put a 12 year long embargo on him. After two wars and 12 years of embargo, Saddam is still alive and well. The Iraqi People? Not so much. You see, two wars and a 12 year embargo will kill a lot of people. Figures vary, but the best estimates are that the latest war has killed at least 100,000 Iraqis. Just the embargo alone killed 2 million Iraqi adults, and 600,000 children.

So that got me to wondering. Obviously the sanctity of life just didn’t apply to Iraqis at all. When whoever was handing out sanctity, the Iraqis must have forgot to check their e-mail. So maybe the sanctity of life only applies to Americans? Then a friend told me that we have this thing called THE DEATH PENALTY. Yikes. Talk about diversity. How could a country that values “the sanctity of human life” also have THE DEATH PENALTY? Something didn’t seem right here. Did those people somehow lose their sanctity? You would have to do something awfully bad to lose it, wouldn’t you?

As it turns out, it really helps if you did do something really bad, but you don’t HAVE to in order to receive the death penalty. In fact, in the state of Texas, all you need to get the death penalty is to have a defense lawyer who sleeps through your trial. Sounds like a crappy deal, huh? You get to sleep, I get to die. Not much of a trade off. You could at least throw in a ham and cheese sandwich.

So at this point, I was at a loss. When does the sanctity of life really apply? How do you know you have it? Who gives it to you? Can you buy some of it? I came back to the fetuses. What in the hell made them so special to have this sanctity thing, that it seems no one else has? Then it dawned on me. Maybe it was their age!

Fetuses as it turns out are very new. They’re like brand new people, except they can’t walk, talk, or barely move or think yet. It’s like that brand new car you buy that’s so new it hasn’t even been filled up with gas yet. We all know there’s nothing like a brand new car. People will be happy with their brand new car for at least a year or two. So maybe the same applies to the fetuses, at least for the first year or two.

Then my friend told me about this thing called INFANT MORTALITY RATES. Sounds pretty hairy, huh? You see, eventually these fetuses are born. That’s when they become this thing called “infants”. (I know what you’re thinking, who the hell can keep up with all this stuff?) Some of those infants live, and some of them die. The ones who die seem to be the ones that nobody seems to care enough about to make sure that they live. Infant mortality rates are a very good indicator on how well any particular society values their infants. It would seem to me that a society that is so deeply concerned with the sanctity of human life…or well…the sanctity of human fetuses anyway, would have one of the lowest infant mortality rates in the whole darn world. And guess what I found out? The answer…nope.

You see, the US has a pretty high infant mortality rate. So high that we’re 36th on the list. We’re not talking about just coming in to collect the bronze, we’re talking about coming in 36th place! So what economic and moral powerhouses could have possibly beat us? Here’s some of them: Singapore, Sweden, Hong Kong, Iceland, Finland, Norway, Malta, Andorra, Macau, Slovenia, Belgium, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Portugal, Monaco, San Marino, Aruba, and Taiwan. Who ever heard of these places? Are they like some kind of fairy tale utopias?

So I started listening to these people who keep talking about “the sanctity of human life”, and see if they also really don’t like certain countries. My theory was if they really hated these countries, their infant mortality rates would make ours look REALLY GOOD. After months of careful listening, I found two countries that most of the “sanctity of human life” types seemed to really hate. In fact, I would go so far as to say they absolutely despised these two bitty nations. They hated, deep down in their guts, these two countries more than any other on earth. Those countries are none other than Cuba and France.

Gee, how bad could their infant mortality rates be? Wouldn’t it have to be so high to make you puke in absolute disgust? The answer…well…not really. You see, France and Cuba has a lower infant mortality rate than well…the US. Who would have guessed?

All this was getting very confusing. How could fetuses have so much sanctity that Iraqis, Americans, and even infants don’t have? It didn’t make any sense at all. That’s when my friend told me that fetuses actually grow inside of people.

Now this was a major breakthrough. Fetuses have to grow inside of people. So, logically, everything that grows inside us is sacred. I was so relieved that I had finally found the answer. That’s when my friend told me that no one considers cancer to be very sacred, and so I was at square one.

What could fetuses have, that nothing else has? What made them so damn special? The answer? Fetuses grow inside CERTAIN KINDS of people called…drum roll please…women.

This had to be the answer. Finally, I had found the holy grail. Growing inside women must be what makes fetuses so sacred. But my conclusion was fatally crushed when my friend told me that the vast majority of women wanted the right to be able to get rid of their fetuses when they wanted to.

I was in shock. How could women possibly want to get rid of their own fetuses? It’s the only thing in this entire world that is sacred! This didn’t make any sense at all. But then my friend explained to me that the vast majority of the people who didn’t want women to have the right were men.

You know that sinking feeling you get in the pit of your stomach you sometimes get when you know something horrible has just happened? That’s what came over me. You see, one thing my friend didn’t have to tell me, that I already knew was that people sometimes lie to get what they want. It’s not pretty, but it happens. It seems that the entire “sanctity of life” concept was nothing more than a fraud, made up for the sole purpose for men to control women. It had nothing to do with Iraqis or Americans. Children or babies. The innocent or the guilty. It had everything to do with POWER. These men wanted the right to tell women how to live their lives, and they were so dedicated to that concept, that they were literally willing to kill people who got in their way.

These “pro-lifers” wanted to right to control not only the majority of the American population, but they wanted the absolute right to decide who will get to live and who will get to die. The sad fact is that there is NOTHING that could possibly be sacred about that.

EPorvaznik said...

You've written a lot of great stuff, Evan, but I do believe this takes the cake (hot on the heels of putting the Chucky Schumer comment as one of my sig files, too). Priceless:
"It is damning in my eyes that the Democrat who at every turn demands 'political correctness' to protect people's "feelings" won't give a moment's thought to moral correctness to preserve the very sanctity of human life."

Evan Sayet said...


You fall into virtually every intellectual dishonesty.

If there's ONE person out of 100 million that's all you need to define the entire group.

Eric Rudolph was a sick murderer. The real question is how did the rest of society respond to this sick murderer? He was hunted, caught, capture, arrested, punished and reviled.

(Compare and contrast the Islamic murderers who are cheered, harbored, made into heroes and their families are rewarded with riches).

Please, A. you've got to be able to see the difference. Can't you?

Again, A. as I wrote, one of the great victories that the leftists have achieved for idiocy is their having convinced their follows that the minimum standard of truth is perfection.

Since NOTHING is perfect -- every person has some bad, every movement has some criminal, etc. the Democrats get away with convincing themselves of whatever it is they want to believe.

You then go on to tell only half stories (and spun ones at that).

America didn't "create" Saddam Hussein. That's an outright lie. (Not good when your side can't make its points with truths but only through progapganda films, books of satires and utter demogogery).

Saddam Hussein came to power on his own after a long career in Iraqi "politics."

You then have to go into yet another lie "Reagan loved him so much..."

There was no love there. Just the realistic, grown up realities that Jimmy Carter in his cowardess, weakness and pro-anything anti-American positions allowed an allhy in the Shah of Iran to be overthrown by the first of the Islamic fascist terrorist states that are still murdering people around the globe today.

In the grown up world Reagan (and all intelligent people) recognized that sometimes you have to side with an evil in order to defeat an even greater evil.

Only by telling half a story (leaving out the horrors of the Ayatollahs) can you even attempt to support your point.

The same is true with your spin on Iraq. So your point is that one is not pro-life if they save the lives of twenty-five million human beings from rape, torture and genocide. The "pro-life" position is really to allow the continued genocide of the marsh arabs?

A, if you have to cherry pick spin, and lie to sustain yuor arguments maybe your arguments are wrong.

As for your silliness on the "infant mortality rate" you don't seem to mention that it only became this high after Amercia adopted the leftist ideals of promiscuity, drug use, and the dehumanizing of indivudals in the sixties.

Back in those horrible "Ozzie and Harriet Days" America's infant mortality rate was the envy of the world. Hmmm, is there a connection here -- hippies, drug use, abortions, babies thrown in garbage cans by crack whores and infant mortality? I'll have to think about it.

What is telling is that there is not a spin that is anti-American that you do not engage in. There is not a lie you won't try to sell as long as it attacks America. There is not a statistic your won't swallow whole so long as it goes against the US.

A, you're not a thinker, your an ideologue. You start with your conclusion that you hate Republicans and then all it takes is one Eric Rudolph for you to validate your preordained and set in stone conclusion.

All it takes is the ability to say something -- like America created Saddam Hussein -- and it matters not if it's true it only matters that it allows you to uphold your preordained and set in stone conclusion.

Whenever you find something you don't like you never bother to ask "why is this true" (such as infant mortality) you simply use it to bludgeon America and continue your anti-Republican attacks without consideration that maybe it's the Democrats who caused it.

You tell half stories, spin to the point where liberating Iraq and saving twenty-five million people is not "pro-life", etc.

A. ideologues like this can always find justifications for their destruction positions. You have a choice to make. Do you want to be an ideologue or do you want to be a thinker?

Alva Goldbook said...

Eric Rudolph was not alone in his TERRORIST horrors. Tim McVeigh got quite famous after he blew up the federal building in Oklahoma City. Meanwhile, Rudolph evaded authorities for a decade with the help of that “pro-life” movement. They even printed up t-shirts for him saying “Run Rudolph Run”. It doesn’t stop there either, as Pat Robertson and Jerry Farwell both stated that the United States deserved to be attacked on 9/11 because our government does not insist on doing “sneak and peeks” on every American woman’s uterus.

It is true that some Islamist murderers are cheered, harbored, whose families are rewarded with riches. The vast majority of those riches are coming directly from Saudi Arabia. The former Saudi ambassador to the US, Bandar bin Sultan (known to Dubya as “Bandar Bush”) has been key is rewarding those Islamist murderers. His wife, Princess Haifa has written numerous personal checks to those suicide bombers.

You are correct, there is a difference. On one hand we have Islamist fundamentalists who are killing innocent people. On the other we have Christian fundamentalists who are killing innocent people.

You also show the utmost in dishonesty. You constantly decry the terrorism of “Islam”, yet you refuse to acknowledge the biggest sponsor and actor of international terrorism in the world. That, of course, is none other than the United States.

I refer you to section 2331 of the US code that defines “international terrorism”:

(1) the term “international terrorism” means activities that (B) appear to be intended - (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping”

When George W. Bush told Saddam that he had 48 hours to leave Iraq or suffer the consequences, that was a TEXTBOOK example of “international terrorism” as defined by the US Code.

One of the great victories that leftists have achieved is that only a minimum standard of truth is perfection? Such as “Saddam has weapons of mass destruction”? Or perhaps “Saddam has long and continuing ties to al Qaeda”? Or maybe that Senator John McCain has an illegitimate black daughter?

I didn’t say that “America created Saddam”. I said the UNITED STATES put Saddam into power, and then funded his regime, provided him with nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, which he in turn used on his neighbors and his own people. This very fact is PUBLIC RECORD, as all you’d have to do is read the Senate Foreign Relations Committee report “Duel Use Technologies to Iraq, 1983-1989” reported on May 25th, 1994.

I’m not sure what Michael Moore’s film Fahrenheit 9/11 has to do with any of this, however you have said continually that it is a “propaganda film” that is filled with lies. You have offered NOTHING to back up your dubious claims.

Reagan loved Saddam enough to present him with several generous gifts, including a pair of golden cowboy boots. Saddam has publicly stated recently that he dearly misses Reagan, and said he wish he was still in office. Don’t you wonder why?

Carter was many things, but weakness was not one of them. Carter was simply screwed by the extreme right wing that came in with Reagan, who had made an arms for hostages deal with those very Ayatollahs. Perhaps you can explain to me how giving Iranian terrorists weapons signifies “strength”.

You are correct that the Rezi Pahlevi, the Shah of Iran was our ally. The Shah, and his CIA trained secret police, SAVAK, literally slaughtered the Shah’s entire political opposition. In 1976 Amnesty International said Iran had the “highest rate of death penalties in the world, no valid system of civilian courts and a history of torture which is beyond belief. No country in the world has a worse record in human rights than Iran.” It was under this kind of US-sponsored oppression that the Ayatollahs came to power. It didn’t have to be that way. Before 1953 Iran was a democratic nation, headed by Mohammad Mossedegh. Seen as a principal ally against Soviet expansion by Truman, Mossedegh allowed a free, democratic, open society. One exception was that Mossedegh did not allow political activity by communists. Mossedegh had even ordered police to open fire on a protest sponsored by the Tudeh, the Iranian communist party. Mossedegh’s crime was when he nationalized Iranian oil, instead of allowing the British to simply steal it. It was then that John Foster Dullas (working under a Republican administration, I might add) said that “we must get rid of this madman.” And thus, world events led DIRECTLY to the Islamist threat we face today. The irony is not lost on me that one of the planes used to attack the US on 9/11 lifted off the ground from Dullas airport, named after John Foster Dullas, who more than any other American, ignited the terrorist realities of today.

Let’s be clear here Evan. Before the United States put Saddam into power, Iraq was one of the most advanced societies on earth, and by far the most educated and supplicated in the Middle East. If it had not been for the foreign policy of the United States, Iraq would most likely today have a GDP comparable to Germany or France. That society had a literacy rate higher than the US currently enjoys, and now that society is completely devastated, and will be lucky if it will be able to recover in the next 200 years. Somehow you equate Iraqis with being “liberated” as we continue to drop high explosives upon their heads, and rig their elections. Iraqis are now so “free” that acute malnutrition of Iraqi children under 5 years of age had doubled since our invasion. The Iraqi Health Ministry has found that at least 400,000 Iraqi children are suffering “wasting” from conditions such as chronic diarrhea and protein deficiency. Similar studies have found that at least 200 Iraqi children are dying every day from malnutrition, a lack of access to medical treatment, and from the lack of clean drinking water. This is hardly a surprise, as the US has targeted water purification and refrigeration systems in Iraq for the last 14 years continuing to this day.

You ask if the “pro-life” position would be to allow the continued genocide of the “marsh Arabs”. I can only assume you mean the Kurds. The Kurds were gassed by Saddam in 1988 with the help of the United States. After the 1991 Gulf War Kurds requested access to captured Iraqi arms in order to remove Saddam from power. Bush’s daddy’s response was to give Saddam satellite intelligence in order to find those Kurds and to slaughter their uprising. This isn’t the first time the US has had a heavy hand in slaughtering Kurds. At this very moment the US is giving Turkey billions in foreign aid, who in turn use that money and US arms to slaughter more Kurds in south east Turkey. Kurdish repression is so severe in Turkey that even speaking in their own native tongue will land them in a prison cell that makes Abu Gharib look pretty nice.

It is true that infant mortality rates in the US has risen since the ‘60’s. For reasons that apparently only you can figure, those mortality rates are a result only of promiscuity, drug use, and the “dehumanizing of individuals” (whatever that means), that is has been “magically” only promoted by “liberals”. There’s been many studies of marijuana and LSD use that was so popular during the ‘60’s, but so far none have cited that it leads to pregnancy. I would also point out that infant mortality (along with abortion rates) are the highest in the red state south, while Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate in the nation. In REALITY infant mortality (as is abortion) is not an indicator of “leftist ideals”, “promiscuity”, or “drug use”, but of POVERTY.

Perhaps, Evan, you could explain to us what “anti-Americanism” is? Suppose I said that Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi was “a schmuck”. Would that be “anti-Italianism”? Would calling Tony Blair Bush’s poodle be “anti-Britishism”? Any Brit or Italian would laugh themselves sick at such a concept. You will find similar experiences all across the globe. One exception was in the Soviet Union. “Anti-Sovietism” was a grave crime in the USSR. Perhaps you should take some time to reflect on that.

You say I hate Republicans. That is false. There are several Republicans that I highly respect (such as Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Barry Goldwater, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Senator McCain, Senator Voinovich, former Congressman Bob Barr, and G. Gordon Liddy to name a few). As a good Christian, I do not hate anyone, but I do despise the ideology of fascism (definition: the meager of state and corporate power with a bellicose militarism) that is currently being followed by the Republican leadership. This is why Bush’s popularity is below 50% even among Republicans, while the Republican Congress has a 30% approval rating. The American People know that these people are not Republicans, but radical ultra-right reactionaries, a philosophy traditionally known as fascism.

You will find that I will not hesitate to criticize Democrats either. I have criticized Carter for supplying arms to Indonesia to slaughter a third of the entire population of East Timor, just as I have criticized Ford, Reagan, Bush Senior, and Clinton for doing the same (a slaughter that ended with a simple phone call by Clinton in 1999). When will YOU criticize George W. Bush for slaughtering 100,000 innocent Iraqi people for a LIE?

MiamiMiami said...

I am just curious if America and Americans are so bad why are you still here Alva? I mean, who is holding you hostage here in this country. Why not continue the Michael Moore idealogy and fly off to a better country? I here the socialist paradise of Cuba will welcome him and you.

I mean why not go to a country that has done more to preserve human life than we have. I mean I am sure you could find such a land and live peacefully threre.

Alva Goldbook said...

I love it when you cons promote this BS "love it or leave it" mentality. Strangely enough, I don't remember any of you saying the "love it or leave it" when Clinton got a government clerk to get on her knees. But since you asked the question, I refer you to the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain UNALIENABLE RIGHTS, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness... That whenever ANY FORM of Government becomes DESTRUCTIVE of these ends, it is the RIGHT of the PEOPLE to ALTER or to ABOLISH IT, and to institute NEW GOVERNMENT".

Evan Sayet said...

Alva and her ilk are still here (even after threatening at every election to run away to some socialist nation) because they are very much like children. There's a book with the title of something like "I Hate You, I Hate You I Hate You, Mom, Now Can You Drive Me To The Mall."

It's hilarious to hear Elton John bitch about America and then move to Atlanta because this "great humanitarian" doesn't want to have to pay socialist level taxes. There was a great article by the brilliant Mark styen where he outlines Linda McCartney's probate. All you need is love...and a fake address in America.

That's what the Democrats are all about -- being children. having the government take care of them while they bitch and moan and complain.

this is in no small part because the leftist education has taught them that rational thought is an act of bigotry and that truth is define by emotions. Everyone not having health insurance makes them sad. Of course they can't actually figutre out why it would only make things worse or look to history (which they've been taught to reject as just the word of the corrupt people in power) to see that it has failed everywhere it's been tried.

This is why the scream HITLER at every little thing. It's like the twelve year old who screams "you're the worst parent in the history of the world" knowing little -- and caring less -- about anything that ever happened in the history of the world.

It's not an accident that they are children. The leftist elite recognizes that only children would support their agenda so they intentionally keep them stupid by teaching "ebonics" instead of English, promoting children through the system who can't read or write with "social promotions" while punishing anyone who does learn with "affirmative action" programs that have nothing to do with being disadvantaged, only failed.

Evan Sayet said...

there is a terrific piece on stem cell research by the always brilliant Charles Krauthammer at

While you're at it you might want to make that your homepage as it is simply the best collection of the best articles of the day by a wide range of writers (left and right and what they call "center")

Anonymous said...


I am out spreading the word
to all true supporters of journal evangelical theological society

I believe that readers of this blog
would be fascinated to read about
the great new book at

journal evangelical theological society

TheDevilIsInTheDetails said...

Another abortion image Resource... . A discussion forum for all that deals with such hot-button issues as abortion image .

Roberto Iza Valdes said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
TheDevilIsInTheDetails said...

Another induced abortion Resource... . A discussion forum for all that deals with such hot-button issues as induced abortion .

Blog World said...

Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so.
Douglas Adams- Posters.