And the Children Shall Lead: The Battle to preserve life still rages

Today, was a great day in Washington, a day that I see as a day of hope. Today marked 34 years since the landmark decision of Roe v. Wade was decided. This was a Supreme Court decision, which like many other court decisions, has been perverted and stretched to allow for abortion on demand, even though great victories against that have been won in recent years, something that was not even intended originally, but since has mutated into faulty and fragile law, held together by the sheer will and audacity of the American Political Left and organizations like Planned Parenthood and NOW.

As dark and complicated a picture as this is, I have reason to hope. I hope because as in years past many Americans came out in support of life at the Right to Life march in Washington, and this year I saw something I had not considered in the past: many of the participants were kids, teenagers. I met with a number of them myself today as they came to visit Capitol Hill. I found myself amazed that they were here, in the blustery cold, to stand for something that all must cherish (only to find that previous years have been worse weather-wise).

Here's to them, our future, fighting for that sacred gift on behalf of those that are too fragile and small. I'm proud to know them and to stand beside them as they take up the charge given to Solomon in Proverbs 31 - to speak for those who for themselves, cannot.

To Err on the side of Life...

Yesterday, the "100 hour" agenda of the new Democrat Majority continued with a vote on federal funding for Embryonic Stem Cell Research (a.k.a. Stem Cell Research). Now in August of 2001, President Bush enacted a law which allowed for Federal Funding to go to Embryonic Stem Cell lines having had been destroyed (the embryo penetrated, the nucleus removed, and a viable life extinguished) prior to the day that Bush enacted this law. From then on federal funding has not been allocated for such research and the subsequent destroying of human life; he did this to stop a horrible practice that had been going on in the name of science and progress.

One must recall that there are now multiple sub-headings under the term "Stem Cell Research". One is Embryonic Stem Cell Research (ESCR) as described above. Another type is Adult Stem Cell Research (ASCR), where Stem Cells are taken from a living and breathing person, post womb, and certian cells are used to create cells of the same type. The third (and a recent breakthrough) is Ambiotic Stem Cell Research, a recent development that has unvieled the ability of scientists to take stem cells from the ambiotic fluid that results from the birthing process. This new development allows for the acquisition of stem cells that have similar properties to embryonic stem cells, without actually destroying the embryo.

Now the distinction that has just been laid out rarely ever enters the public discourse. When SCR is put before the public, "Stem Cell Research" means "Embryonic Stem Cell Research". These other procedures are rarely discussed, much less hailed as the incredible advances that they are. It is ASCR that has yielded 70+ cures for different diseases, while ESCR has yeilded no cures or great advances. Additionally, it has been reported ESCR trials in labratory animals have actually yeilded cells that have become cancerous within the animals that ESCR cells were injected to. With ASCR, this has not has not happened, not to mention the fact that ASCR has been sucessfully used on people and ESCR has not. This lack of distinction caused former Senator Jim Talent of Missouri to lose his seat in the Senate as of November 2006, because his opponent (and the Media) painted him to be "Anti-Stem Cell Research", when in truth he supported the stem cell research procedures that yeilded results and protected innocent life. His sitation highlights the fact that the distinction needs to be made and certianly in races for political office, because if not things can go down a dark path.

Enter House Resolution 3, the Democratic Majority's attempt to try and undue the stand which the President has taken all these years. This resolution, which sadly has passed, seeks to expand the amount of federal funding which would go to ESCR. Right now the amount of funding is a whopping nothing - no federal monies are allocated for ESCR. This being the case, many in the Democratic party would have the public believe that ESCR is not going on at all because it recieves no federal funding. Contrary to this, ESCR actually happens all over the country in the halls of research facilities and universities, but this is all finding by the private sector. The new Democratic majority wants to see federal funding go to support ESCR. In layman's terms, Democrats want to see your tax dollars go to fund research that has yet to yield a worthwhile return on the investment that the private sector has put into it. Additionally, this funding (America's tax dollars) would go to extinguish viable life that would be destroyed as a by-product of ESCR.

Now a question arises amongst all of this: if ESCR has yet to yield a solid return on investment (even in the private sector) and also extinguishes innocent life by destroying embryos, then why would it be so solidly supported by the new Deompcratic majority? To find the answer, return to the beginning: the President's stand on ESCR. H.R. 3 is a bill that is identical to a bill that was put forth last year. It passed both the House and the Senate, but when it reached the President's desk he VETOED it (as he should have). This is the only bill he has ever vetoed as President. That said, why is this such a big deal to the new majority?

Answer: Vengence

This time around, if the bill reaches the President's desk and he vetos it again, as he says he will, the new majority in both the House and the Senate will attempt to override the Presidential veto. They will attempt to override the veto and allow the tax dollars of hardworking Americans go down the drain, through the use of federal funding being put towards reseach that has done little to no good and extinguishes innocent life.

All of this in the name of vengence, in the name of "beating" the President. This is certianly an err, but it is not an err on the side of Life.

Is America winning the "Shadow War?"

Yesterday it was announced that the United States has clashed with terrorists in Africa, in Somolia (of Black Hawk Down fame). This was a terrorist capturing and killing operation. Greater detail about the situation can be found here, thanks to Richard Miniter of Pajamas Media.

When things like this transpire, and the public is made aware of it, it leads to the question of "Is America winning the Global War on Terror"? This question is a very pertinent one, as the President unviels his new plan for the War in Iraq tomorrow night, and Congress considers legislation concerning the implimentation of the suggestions made by the 9/11 Commission to improve security.

It is my personal opnion that the answer to that question is "yes, America IS winning the War on Terror". Many would disagree because of the President's comments in the past, but it must never be forgotten that Iraq is not the entire theatre, as well as the fact that America has not been attacked in these last five years. The fact that America has not been attacked begs the question of why hasn't America been attacked in the last five years?

I believe the answer lies in what we don't hear, what we don't know. Earlier I mentioned Richard Miniter of Pajamas Media. Mr. Miniter has garnished a reputation as a expert on terrorism, and has written three best-selling books on the War on Terror. In his second book, Shadow War, he deals heavily with events and operations from September 2001 through March 2004 (the bombings in Madrid, Spain) that the US government took part in and spear-headed to hunt down and capture (or kill) terrorists plotting against the United States (and much of what he details had never been reported prior to the publishing of this book). It is because of the vigilance that Miniter portrays, that America has not been attacked since 9/11. During this time, many terrorists were captured or killed. Have there been mistakes and does Shadow War talk about some of them, it sure does. However, America is still attack free at this point and it is not because the terrorists have not tried (consider the Shoe Bomber, Richard Reid, and the plot in August of 2006 to hijack planes from London to the United States).

Having now read such a volume, I find myself wondering about the operations that have happened across the world since March of 2004 that no one knows about, operations that have probably averted terrorists plots and kept America safe. This most recent operation in Somolia only highlights the part of the Global War on Terror that is fought to keep America safe, the part that is fought in the shadows...

The First "100 Hours": Are Promises Broken, Set Precedent?

Back in December of 2006, one of the prime headlines in both Roll Call and The Hill (Capitol Hill newspapers) dealt with the proposition by the incoming Democratic leadership of a "new Congressional Work-week", meaning that business would start Monday evening and conclude Friday afternoon - a 5 day period where Representitives in the House would be legislating and debating in Washington, instead of the three days that have been common while the Republicans were in control of the House. That was one of the big promises, one of the big shake-ups that was going to happen under Pelosi's leadership. However, the House was not in session today, thus breaking that pledge of a 5 day work week in Washington for Members of Congress.

It was later discovered that the House was not in session because of the Ohio State and FL football game this evening...

In other news, a number of freshmen Democratic members of Congress were elected as more centrist/conservative Democrats, who supported not raising taxes. However, last week, Democratic legislation was proposed that would allow tax hikes to be voted on by a simple majority vote, as opposed to the 3/5 majority vote needed under Republican leadership prior to the 110th Congress. Various pundits such as Bob Novak and Grover Norquist have much to say on the subject of possible tax increases that could be fourthcoming.

As I stated previously legislation may soon be considered that would call for the continued and addition funding of embryonic stem-cell research. As of today there has been an apparent scientific breakthrough concerning such scientific endeavors. Part of the article can be found here, thanks to Ed Morrisy of Captain's Quarters.

I read the article today, and I found it interesting that researchers were not hailing the end of Embryonic Stem Cell Research that destroys the embryo (though that is discussed as little as possible), but they were saying enphaticly that this was NOT the end to such research, just something along side of it; yet ESCR has NOT yeilded the results that the scientific community has wanted to see, but Adult Stem Cell Research has yeilded the desired results - something that seems to be hidden to a great degree from the public.

Count on this to still be a hot button issue as the 110th Congress progresses, certianly as Democrats wil try and increase funding as part of their "100 Hours" inititive.

One of the many renditions to this story can be found here and information as to the background on Stem Cell Research and what the new Democratic majority will attempt to accomplish can be found here, under The Destruction of Human Embryos for Research.

110th Congress - Signaling a New Age in America?

History was made today in the halls of the Capitol here in Washington D.C. With the swearing in of the new members elect of the House of Representitives, the Democratic Party is now holding majority status and Nancy Pelosi has become the first woman to ever hold that post in the 200+ year history of the United States. I think that it is great that a woman has finally achieved that honor, but I am not a supporter of Pelosi - I wish it were someone on my side of the asile.

Does this groundbreaking event signal a new age in politics in America?

Speaker Pelosi has said that under her leadership the 110th Congress will be the "most ethical Congress ever". I question the Truth of such a statement because of the fact that one of her commitee chairs is none other than Mr. John Conyers, the Cogressman who, over the new years weekend admitted that he "accecpts responsibility" for possible ethics violations. Add to this that until recently, Speaker Pelosi wanted Alcee Hastings, a former impeached judge and now member of Congress, to chair the Inteligence Committee; the comittee that is intimately involved in the Global War on Terror.

Another facet of this incoming Congress that catches my attention is yesterday's events concerning Cindy Sheehan and the shortcutting of a Democratic Leadership Press Confrence. Yesterday, Sheehan and her fellow anti-war protesters inturrupted a press confrence and once the leadership walked away from the mic, Sheehan siezed the opportunity to express to the Democrats and the Media that it is the Anti-War Left that got the new majority elected, and thus this new majority had a obligation to end the war in Iraq and bring the troops home.

That said the new majority faces the following crisis: do they govern to the center and work to keep their new majority in 2008 and beyond? Or do they bow to the demands of Sheehan and others on the Left, bringing their majority further to the left and in greater danger of being rejected by the center-right electorate of the United States in 2008?

I do know that the Democratic agenda includes sweeping legislation changes within the first 100 hours of Congress; legislation on issues such as ethics and lobying reform, raising the minimum wage, and increased funding for stem cell research (be aware that this means embryonic stem cell research, research that extinguishes life - the distinction between adult and embryonic is hardly ever stressed).

Does all of this signal a new age in American politics? In some ways yes - a woman has achieved one of the highest offices in the land. In other ways no - politicians continue to break their promises made on the campaign trail.

Look for legislation to be brought forth that sounds good, but in truth is weak (or has loop holes that exonerate the majority and punish the minority). Look for the new majority to bow to the anti-war left while looking like they are not going to do so.

Stay tuned...