What do John Lennon, Glenn Beck, and Alexander Solzhenitsyn all have in common? The answer (and question) appears to be something no major political party in America appears able to grasp. While the GOP is looking for the leak in the roof, selling out conservative values to include more in the “big tent”, the big tent (the new and improved fiscal responsible one of course, sans “social values”), is swiftly being washed downstream, heading for the perilous cliff.

Splash, crash, there goes another one!

9-9-09 SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) – A Republican state lawmaker from Southern California was ousted Wednesday from two legislative committees after he was caught on tape bragging about having sex with female lobbyists

The short answer of course, is an attempt to save man from himself. The only ‘revolution’ that will ultimately matter is the one fewer and fewer Americans understand. It has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with morality.

All of America’s problems are rooted in immorality; a consequence of course of throwing out God from the public square; a loss of conscience.

Being that morality is rooted in conscience, it would behoove us to remember Chuck Colsen’s “Cop and Conscience law.”

Colson’s Law states that the only alternatives to conscience are cops or chaos. If the inner shield of a community is lowered, the outer shield must be raised to stave off chaos. Therefore, a community, especially a free democracy, that loses its conscience, will necessarily become a police state.

It’s worth noting that no secular society has ever survived more than 72 years, the former U.S.S.R. being the best example. America will be no exception.

Even John Lennon saw it coming. He might have been misguided, and may not have ever personally found his own inner piece, but even in his ‘Maharishi TM altered state’ at the height of the radical 60’s, Lennon inherently knew that ‘peace’ was more than the absence of war, that the “real revolution” was within. Imagine!

“You say you want a revolution.
Well, you know,
We all want to change the world.
You say you’ll change the Constitution,
Well, you know,
We all want to change your head.
You tell me it’s the institution,
Well, you know,
You better free your mind instead.
But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao,
You ain’t going to make it with anyone anyhow.
Don’t you know it’s gonna be all right.”

Here’s a piece of little known Beatle Trivia regarding ‘Revolution’:

Lennon really wanted this song to be the ‘A’ side of the single instead of “Hey Jude,” and kept changing it around to come up with something that would make Paul see it his way. He basically wrote the song because he felt like he was being pulled in so many directions by different people, all of whom wanted his backing, politically. It was also him questioning his own belief in the revolution that was going on… whether he was “out” or “in.” In truth, he was writing about a revolution of the mind rather than a physical “in the streets” revolution. He truly believed that revolution comes from inner change rather than social violence.

If Lennon doesn’t resonate with you, how about Solzhenitsyn? After all, who could know better than an intellectual Nobel Prize winning Russian Novelist who personally experienced horrors of communism? As I’ve written many times, the Harvard elite booed “the prophet” after he dared to go beyond literature and into the realms of morality, not to be ‘out ousted’ by the NY Times, who condescendingly dismissed his “hectoring jeremiads.” In all the reviews I’ve read since the death last year of Solzhenitsyn, Dinesh D’Souza nailed it better than anyone; ‘The Prophet at Harvard’. Here’s an excerpt:

On what has happened to the rule of law: “People in the West has acquired considerable skill in using, interpreting and manipulating law….If one is right from a legal point of view, nothing more is required, nobody might mention that one could still not be entirely right and urge a willingness to show restraint or sacrifice. Everybody operates at the extreme limits of those legal frames….A society without any objective legal scale is a terrible one indeed, but a society with no other scale but the legal one is not quite worthy of man either.”

On the rights of criminals: “Legal frames especially in the United States are broad enough to encourage not only individual freedom but also certain individual crimes. The culprit can go unpunished or obtain undeserved leniency with the support of legions of public defenders. When a government starts an earnest fight against terrorism, public opinion immediately accuses it of violating the terrorists’ civil rights. There are many such cases.”

On the abuses of freedom: “Destructive and irresponsible freedom has been granted boundless space. Society appears to have little defense against the abyss of human decadence, such as misuse of liberty for moral violence against young people, motion pictures full of pornography, crime and horror…Such a tilt of freedom in the direction of evil has come about gradually but it was evidently born out of a humanistic concept according to which there is no evil inherent to human nature.”
On freedom of the press: “The press, too, enjoys the widest freedom. But what use does it make of this freedom? The press has become the greatest power within the Western countries, more powerful than the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. One would then like to ask: by what law has it been elected and to whom is it responsible? How many hasty, immature, superficial and misleading judgments are expressed every day, confusing readers, and without any verification? Thus we see terrorists made into heroes, or secret matters pertaining to the national defense publicly revealed, or shameful intrusion into the privacy of people under the false slogan: everyone has the right to know everything.”

On the atrophy of the spiritual life: “Mere freedom does not in the least solve all the problems of human life and it even adds some new ones….We have placed too much hope in political and social reforms, only to find out that we were being deprived of our most precious possession: our spiritual life.”

How many more sex scandals, how many more tax cheats, traitors, communists, and porno kings within the White House; how many more radicals, hidden agendas, corrupt ‘no accountability czars”, and how many more lies from our “elected by the blind’ sophist, elitist, “I really don’t care about you America” President is it going to take before America wakes up to the fact that it’s all an illusion? Isn’t the only ‘problem’ not the act but getting caught in the act? Imagine how much we DON’T know; how much gets suppressed by “the thugs.”

Sex, lies, greed, thieves, tax cheats, thugs, Marxists, phony Christians, sycophants, and cowards; the sins of our elected, (to name a few). How is it that Glenn Beck (and Sarah Palin also to be fair) is the only one with an audience big enough to matter, has the guts to yell, “STOP, wait, at least ask the bold questions.”

It takes being in the light to see the light, and right now, America is looking pretty dark. How can a country that calls itself “Christian” remain so “voiceless” while infested with the sins of pornography, homosexuality, abortion on demand, euthanasia, easy divorce, and embryonic stem cell research? How can this same “Christian” country not know the perils of pseudo new age “Christians” like Oprah and feel-good evangelists, who have hijacked Christianity for “Christ without a cross?

How can that same country remain for the most part silent while the mainstream Protestant Lutherans allow “homosexuality within the clergy?”

9-21-09 After an emotional debate over the authority of Scripture and the limits of biblical inclusiveness, leaders of the country’s largest Lutheran denomination voted Friday to allow gay men and lesbians in committed relationships to serve as members of the clergy.

To not know the consequences of homosexuality on the family and society is simply not to know God. It certainly isn’t Christianity (or Judism). Congrats to the Lutheran Church of America for also joining the ranks of the illusionists.

Isn’t it a bit strange that the same MSM that turned this country upside down over the Catholic Sex Abuse scandal, which was for the most part a “gay problem”, not only has no problem with gays within the Protestant clergy, but celebrates the gay lifestyle?

Where’s the “equal outrage?”

Sexual perversion destroys lives, undermines civilization and ultimately wounds us all. The problem that unfolded in the Roman Catholic Church has its roots in homosexuality, not pedophilia. It is an important distinction. If Pope Benedict XVI can’t bring moral clarity on this issue to a world rapidly descending into homosexual acceptance, then who can?

(Since this article, Pope Benedict DID change and address homosexuality; details outside the scope of this post-another time)

If we allow ourselves to see outside of the illusion, it’s not a stretch to understand two things: God and family are the two big obstacles to Marxism/Communism taking hold; a concern we just might want to take seriously if we can ever get beyond the rose colored glasses.

Why do you think Obama is encouraging “moms” to go school, homosexuality and transgender is the new “norm”, and the Catholic Church is the last acceptable prejudice in America? For any real “truth seekers”, you might find it interesting to understand how and why the Catholic Church is under so much attack (recent article in American Thinker).

That too is another topic, another time, except to say that the “Divide and Conquer Catholics in America” has proven most effective, much thanks to George Soros and friends. After all, it was the Catholics who put Obama into office. Had Catholics voted like Catholics, Obama clearly could not have won

And that brings it all back to Glenn Beck, the Mormon (although, like Sarah Palin, does have the seal of an indelible Catholic baptism).

It’s my belief that God is using Glenn Beck in his all of his brokenness, as God himself has revealed to us that He will use the “weak to humble us.”

Besides, the Catholics, especially those in high office, have failed him. I would argue that Beck is more “Christian” in his Mormonism than most Americans are in their “feel good Christianity.”

Never under estimate who God might use in his “fly swatting”, especially in courage and humility. This last thought can only best be summed up by the great American Philosopher, Dr. Peter Kreeft.

Who are the fly-swatters? Not censors, but saints, the heroes who embody Colson’s Law. Love makes more waves than hate. Wicked men will hate and fear you more for loving them than for hating them. They will forgive you for being wrong, but never for being right.

Saints always go into the ghettos, especially the moral ghettos. They make waves. Moses made waves. Jesus made waves. Muhammad made waves. The waves make the garbage come to the surface, and the waves of garbage often drown the saints and make them martyrs, white corpuscles that give themselves up to fight an infection. Saints are society’s white corpuscles, society’s saviors. If nobody wants to crucify you, you’re not doing your job. Or else your job isn’t His work

St. Glenn? Who knew!

The events of this past week really gave clarity as to why I remain ‘sans political party’. Having once been a staunch Democrat, I could never quite bring myself to become a Republican, even as a business owner. Consequently, I’ve since been a registered Independent voting almost entirely, as much as it was possible, Republican/Conservative. To prove my point, today was the first time in at least ten years I’ve ever agreed with anything written in the New York Times, ‘The Audacity of the Pope’. Not only did I agree with Ross Douthat , he was spot on!

But Benedict’s encyclical is nothing if not political. “Caritas in Veritate” promotes a vision of economic solidarity rooted in moral conservatism. It links the dignity of labor to the sanctity of marriage. It praises the redistribution of wealth while emphasizing the importance of decentralized governance. It connects the despoiling of the environment to the mass destruction of human embryos. This is not a message you’re likely to hear in Barack Obama’s next State of the Union, or in the Republican Party’s response. It represents a kind of left-right fusionism with little traction in American politics. But that’s precisely what makes it so relevant and challenging — for Catholics and non-Catholics alike.

Contrasted with Kathleen Kennedy Townsend piece this week in Newsweek, and the left spinning Pope Benedict’s words faster than Michael Jackson’s stage spin, I had a an epiphany.

In truth, though, Obama’s pragmatic approach to divisive policy (his notion that we should acknowledge the good faith underlying opposing viewpoints) and his social-justice agenda reflect the views of American Catholic laity much more closely than those vocal bishops and pro-life activists. When Obama meets the pope tomorrow, they’ll politely disagree about reproductive freedoms and homosexuality, but Catholics back home won’t care, because they know Obama’s on their side. In fact, Obama’s agenda is closer to their views than even the pope’s.

For starters, Kathleen Kennedy Townsend’s piece, written from the level of a 3rd grade educated Catholic with an adult leftist agenda, is loaded with one misconception after another. I would almost have to rewrite the entire article to correct it. Likewise, reading over the comments of Ross Douthat’s piece, the majority of the comments are sophomoric and inaccurate, albeit quite telling in making my point. Less than 10 years ago, in trying to prove the Catholic Church wrong in her teachings, I spent an entire summer reading the last hundred years of papal encyclicals. Having been somewhat of a fan of Austrian Economics, albeit unable to totally buy into “Laissez-faire capitalism”, Ayn Rand/ Objectivism/Atlas Shrugged, I came to find the Church’s social teachings (after finally reading them), simply brilliant. It wasn’t the only reason, but subsequently, I became a practicing Catholic. My point isn’t to convert FA readers to Catholicism, but it is to say this: Benedict just hit the ball out of the park in his latest encyclical on social teaching! Despite President Obama being gifted a signed and leather bound copy by Pope Benedict personally last week during his visit, it will most likely fall upon deaf ears. The deaf ears won’t just be Obamas.

The “left” Pelosi/Kennedy Catholics will continue to spin it into meaningless and out of context political football, never being able to acknowledge that the foundation of all social teaching is the dignity of each and every human life. The “right” will more than likely misinterpret it as too “compromising for the left.” And the others, like many American Catholics who never got beyond 3rd grade catechism, will never take the time to understand it. Last but not least, the anti Catholic bigots, easily identified by injecting “pedophile priests” into any and all Catholic conversation, incaple of any meaningful dialogic conversation (as if before the scandal they loved all things Catholic), can never make the leap to understanding how under attack the Catholic Church has and always will be. As long as the Catholic Church stands, there will always be a powerful and “in the way” voice against socialism and immorality. In the meantime, as our Godless “Brightest and Best” in the WH continue on the guarantee path to destruction, Ayn Rand ‘Atlas Shurgged’ Books, (based in the pseudo ‘philosophy’ of Objectivism) , greed, and Godlessness, continue to become the “most have” book on every shelf. I’m simply amazed, with few exceptions, how many Christians have been duped by such perilous fiction.

Objectivism itself consists largely of trivial victories over unworthy opponents, cheap shots at easy targets, blasts of rhetorical fire directed at straw men, and short trips down blind alleys followed by furtive, unacknowledged withdrawals.

~~~

We began by describing the essence of Objectivism as the claim that “there is no God, and man is made in His image.” We have shown that Rand’s arguments do not make much sense on their own terms, and that therefore our own interpretation should be preferred. Rand is trying to show, in effect, that we can have reason and liberty without God — and she is doing so, not by following the argument where it leads, but by determining in advance where she wants the argument to lead and rejecting, for altogether inadequate reasons, everything that stands in the way of her preferred conclusions. In short, she deliberately eliminates from philosophy every doctrine, every tenet, which she associates with theism, ultimately for no better reason than that she does associate it with theism

I suspect it’s too much of wishful thinking that we could all be “Americans” going for what is right, not “right and left.” Consequently, we continue to spiral into bankruptcy and dictatorship, with the best solution (s) left untried because it simply doesn’t quite “fit” into either political tent. Properly understood with an open and unbiased mind, “Charity and Truth” would wow every reasonable American. Oh well, at least it will still be around for the next indebted generation. After all, the only institution in the world to have survived since the days of Christ is none other than the ‘backwards’ Big Bad Catholic Church; two thousand years and still going strong! Not bad for an institution so “behind the times.”

Note – This is a repost of a April 8th post which has been lost

Well, Dr. Oz may have actually said it, but as Wesley J Smith points out, try finding THAT in the transcript. I doubt the video will be on line much longer (both video and transcripts are linked in the W J Smith article).

One should be dishearten, to say the least, to hear these words from Michael J. Fox.

Michael says America has a lot of ground to make up when it comes to stem cell research. “We had eight years where there was no forward progress and some things people don’t even understand,” he says.

After all, if Michael J. Fox, both a patient and a man of means, can be this duped, doesn’t it prove the point of how deceitful the whole stem cell debate has been?

A few weeks ago, in the Sacramento Bee Wesley J Smith confirmed my similar thoughts regarding Obama’s lifting of the ban on federal funding of ESC’s; it had NOTHING to do with cures, and everything to do with politics!

In 2007, President Bush issued an executive order requiring the government to fund research into alternatives. Inexplicably – and without discussing it in his speech – Obama revoked this Bush order, too. He claimed he wants to fund such research, but what he did was take away the existing legal requirement that it be done. We have seen this same undermining of alternatives here in California.

~~~

If pursuing the best and most ethical science were truly the goals, why deflect increased support for this promising research to which no one objects? Perhaps it is because this debate involves more than stem cells taken from embryos “left over” from in-vitro fertilization – as the argument is usually couched – which brings us back to ethics. In the wake of the Obama changes in federal policy, the New York Times editorially threw down a gauntlet, calling for both the rescission of the Dickey Amendment and federal funding of human therapeutic cloning research. Now that the Bush restrictions are history, look for these battles – which again are not science debates – to flare in the years to come. In this sense, embryonic stem cell research threatens to become a launching pad to an ever-deepening erosion of the unique moral status of human life.

Don’t we deserve better?

Can you not see how this is indeed the “launching pad” for ALL of us when it comes to human life? I again remind you of the point I endlessly make: Legal and cultural acceptance of abortion and ESC research are NECESSARY for “what will follow” when it comes to ALL OF OUR LIVES. Between the unregulated potential MISUSE of Biotechnology which is unregulated and riding high in the Wild Wild West (deserves its own piece; more on that later), to assisted suicide, radical animal rights, and radical environmentialism to the medical elite against the hippocatic oath we better wake up fast before it’s too late.

I can’t possibly do justice to what awaits once we “lose faith and conscience” rights. One need long no further than the Obama appointments. Does anyone really believe it’s a coincidence that the deck is stacked with the likes of this, this, this, this, or this in addition to Kathleen Sibelius (heading up the HHS as “gatekeeper”?

We our are only and last hope. I urge all to make your voices heard. For any not up to speed on the Conscience Clause, here are two well written recent articles that may help; here, and here.

I also suggest a regular check into Wesley J Smith’s Second Hand Smoke Blog. I personally don’t know of anyone in the country more on top of these issues.

And last but not least, especially those who are pro choice, perhaps its time to at least, “rethink” the consequences of a “pro choice culture.” Eventually, Pro choice for some is going to become “NO CHOICE for all of us, guaranteed!

Note – This is a repost of a March 13th post which has been lost

America, we’ve been duped; from our president, our fourth estate, and sadly even some of our scientists. President Obama’s lifting of the ban on federal funding for ESC research this week, albeit heart wrenching, was expected. What wasn’t expected, or reported in the MSM , was the “under the radar” revocation of funding for alternative stem cell research, Executive Order 13435 (June 20, 2007), by President George W. Bush.

I don’t know about you, but my head is spinning! I keep asking myself what I might be missing, but so far everything I read or research turns up the same. Are we really going to stop funding the ethical, ground breaking progress in ethical alternatives, and instead, fund the “unethical obsolete” embryonic research that involves the destruction of human embryos?

You will want to read what Attorney Sam Casey has to say. Prepare to be shocked and if you are a scientist or physician, I hope you will consider signing the Amnesty For Babies petition. Here’s an excerpt

Sam Casey, Advocates International’s General Counsel and one of the attorneys involved in the federal court litigation in 2001 that resulted in the lawful and ethical stem cell research policy revoked by President Obama, labeled the President’s actions today “legally limited, unnecessary, unethical and fiscally irresponsible.”

~~~

It was scientifically unnecessary and even counter-productive because ethically sound ways and means for advancing stem cell science and medical treatments were already authorized and moving forward under Executive Order 13435 that President Obama revoked today.”

~~~

Casey also points out that while opposition to human ES cell research is often cast by news reports as primarily a religious objection, there are many scientists, physicians, and reproductive health professionals who object based on their knowledge of the humanity of human embryos and their knowledge of stem cell therapeutics. A growing worldwide list of them is publicly expressing their objection by endorsing an online scientists’ and physicians’ declaration against human ES cell research and abortion.

Casey also noted that “President Obama’s actions today are obviously ethically offensive to everyone who understands the undisputed scientific biological fact, as recently affirmed by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeal, that ‘during its embryonic age,’ a human embryo is ‘a whole, separate, unique, living human being, an individual living member of the species of Homo sapiens.’” See Planned Parenthood v. Rounds, 530 F.3rd 724, 735-736 (8th Cir 2008). “For all who understand this biological fact and also believe that every human being has intrinsic moral value — President Obama’s decision is clearly unethical,” Casey said. “Destroying one human life through human experimentation, even in order to possibly help other human beings, is always morally wrong and should not be countenanced by any government, particularly in this case where it is not even necessary and the subject of the experimentation cannot possibility give his or her consent. It is also ethically wrong to force taxpayers who do honor the dignity of every human being to help pay for research that they believe is an immoral taking of innocent human life.”

~~~

“we think it is fiscally irresponsible to channel limited federal funds away from research that has a proven track record of treating human disease into research that shows no hope for doing so.”

In all of American History, federal funds have never before been allowed for research on human subjects. Earlier this week I posted in some detail , why this funding was not only immoral and unnecessary, but scientifically, a giant step backwards. Despite all the hype and misleading rhetoric, embryonic stem cell technology will be, as one leading scientist said, at best a mere footnote. If anyone cares to talk a look at the original rhetoric, take a look at this 2004 Democratic convention speech.

As in all situations, a silver cloud always surfaces. This news appears to have at least brought journalist Kathleen Parker back to earth. Thank God. I was convinced after that last fluff piece on the Obamas’ svelte bodies aboard Air Force One, we might have lost her for good. Welcome back Kathleen, and thanks for being one of the lone rangers out there with the guts to call it what it may well be; the ethical dilemma of the century!

Time magazine named iPS innovation No. 1 on its “Top 10 Scientific Discoveries” of 2007, and the journal Science rated it the No. 1 breakthrough of 2008.

~~~

The iPS discovery even prompted Ian Wilmut, who led the team that cloned Dolly the sheep, to abandon his license to attempt human cloning, saying that the researchers “may have achieved what no politician could: an end to the embryonic stem cell debate.” And, just several days ago, Dr. Bernadine Healy, director of the National Institutes of Health under the first President Bush, wrote in U.S. News & World Report that these recent developments “reinforced the notion that embryonic stem cells . . . are obsolete.”

~~~

Good people can disagree on these things, but those who insist that this is “only about abortion” miss the point. The objectification of human life is never a trivial matter. And determining what role government plays in that objectification may be the ethical dilemma of the century.

In this case, science handed Obama a gift — and he sent it back

There’s still at least two more, very important shoes that can drop. One is the Dicky-Wicker Amendment (1950), the other the Weldon Amendment (2004); both which will involve congress. The Dickey Amendment currently protects human embryos (federally funded), to be either created or destroyed. Obama tells us he is against cloning, but it sounded to me like his typical “double-speak.” Considering he also told us he’s for unity and factual science, I’ll take a wait and see on that one, thank you. Do know, that if approved, cloning or heaven help us fetal farming, could open the door to places no man should dare go.

The Weldon Amendment relates to patent rights.

The Weldon Amendment would prohibit the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office from issuing any patent “on claims directed to or encompassing a human organism.” The USPTO understands the Weldon Amendment to provide unequivocal congressional backing for the long-standing USPTO policy of refusing to grant any patent containing a claim that encompasses any member of the species Homo sapiens at any stage of development. It has long been USPTO practice to reject any claim in a patent application that encompasses a human life-form at any stage of development, including a human embryo or human fetus; hence claims directed to living “organisms” are to be rejected unless they include the adjective “nonhuman.”

As one might expect, it was forcefully opposed by the Biotech Industry. If revoked in the near future, it could mean cash cows for many, while taking America down to an almost unimaginable new low. No question about it, embryos have no voice regarding how they are used or how they may be patented.

I would be remiss in not mentioning, in addition to his unwavering respect for the dignity of every human life, the hundreds of thousands of dollars President GW Bush put into alternative ethical stem cell research. ESC research was NEVER banned, only the use of federal funds. No one will convince me otherwise that in generously funding ethical alternatives, it didn’t add to the stunning iPSC success (Wisconsin, a key player, was partly funded by NIH monies). I grant you the iPS technology out of Japan wasn’t US funded, but I absolutely believe it was “US influenced.” Remember, people who are opposed to immoral technology are also going to be opposed to immoral therapies. I don’t waste too much time worrying about how we will sort them out based on the fact I’m pretty convinced there isn’t likely to be any therapeutic therapies from human embryos. It’s more likely that future therapies will be done by in vivo stem cell repair.

Not only did GW Bush get NO credit, he was constantly labeled a Luddite, when in fact, we have all just witnessed who the real Luddites in America are.

So how is all of the “new funded money” going to be spent? If this wasn’t so egregious it would be fascinating, after all, who could make this stuff up? America do you realize what has transpired? It’s no longer only the helpless embryos who are being exploited, WE too (albeit in a much lesser way), are also being exploited. I predict if we took a poll right now, the majority of Americans would honestly think (also owing to the fact that the average American doesn’t grasp the life science involved) that Bush stymied science and FINALLY, Obama will be bringing home the cures! Common sense only should tell us that expensive stem cell therapies aren’t compatible with a Nationalized Healthcare Plan

So what’s really behind it? Sure, we can follow the money, the Bush derangement Syndrome mentality, or even the vaunted egos of a select group of scientists. IMO, it’s far bigger than all of that. As I mentioned in my first post, it’s much about abortion and dare I say, conscience. Don’t you see, if we acknowledge that it’s immoral to kill a one day old embryo, than how could we possibly justify abortion or even in vitro fertilization (which by the way is also immoral, but another topic, another time)? After all, aren’t we “entitled” to both?

We also now have two states with legal euthanasia, (and fortunately, one glimmer of hope in ND that recently gave embryos the protection of personhood). Once national healthcare kicks in, “population/cost control”, i.e., euthanasia and abortion, will most likely be just part of the program, so we best start getting used to the culture of death.

All said, allow me to simply sum it up. For an obvious hidden agenda, despite what he says, the actions of Barack Obama clearly are not conducive to any breakthroughs and cures in stem cell research. Most certainly private companies will carry on just fine with private funding in the iPS work (and in that there is indeed real hope). Let’s hope and pray they don’t misuse the science, but I suspect it will too powerful of a force (evil), at least for some; simply too powerful to resist.

I guess now it makes sense why, Ron McKay, a stem cell researcher at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, when asked by a Washington Post reporter Rick Weiss about 5 years ago, why scientists have allowed society to believe wrongly that stem cells are likely to effectively treat Alzheimer’s disease. McKay’s response, “PEOPLE NEED A FAIRYTALE. Maybe that’s unfair, but they need a story line that’s relatively simple to understand.”

The only problem with that answer is, unlike Fairytales, this one isn’t going to end “happily after after.”Stay tuned America, and keep your eyes on congress and those upcoming amendments.