Tuesday, October 31, 2006

NO on Amendment 2

I have nothing against cloning. I can't think of any reason why, in theory, a century from now, childless couples shouldn't be allowed to clone new children under technology which guarantees a healthy child.

In theory.

But once a human embryo is created, that human being has all the full unalienable rights to life, liberty and property that God gives every other human and that the Constitution protects. (In theory.)

It is murder to intentionally kill a one-year old child, despite the fact that the child cannot survive on its own, and is completely dependent on someone else. (Some have called such a child the legal equivalent of a "trespasser.") It is also murder to kill a one-week old child, and in terms of ethics (though not necessarily "the law"), it is murder to intentionally kill a child one week before scheduled delivery. It is the moral equivalent of murder to clone humans in order to harvest their body parts (leaving them dead). It is the moral equivalent of kidnapping to clone a human being for purposes of making that human being a slave or soldier for the New World Order.

We're moving in that direction, and a NO vote on Amendment 2 would delay that Orwellian prospect.

Amendment 2 requires human beings to be killed, so I'm voting against it.

I would vote against Amendment 2 if for no other reason than that it is immorally deceptive.

It starts off saying, "(1) No person may clone or attempt to clone a human being," but then defines "cloning" as

(2) “Clone or attempt to clone a human being” means to implant in a uterus or attempt to implant in a uterus anything other than the product of fertilization of an egg of a human female by a sperm of a human male for the purpose of initiating a pregnancy that could result in the creation of a human fetus, or the birth of a human being.

Nobody objects to implanting an existing embryo in a uterus for the purpose of initiating a pregnancy or live birth -- at least not that I know of. All the debate is over researchers who will not implant a cloned embryo in order to allow it to develop and be born alive, but instead want to kill the embryo in order to harvest stem cells.

Amendment 2 in effect mandates compulsory abortions by making live birth illegal, if the human being who would be born is a product of "somatic cell nuclear transfer" (SCNT), which is the creation of a human embryo without sperm in a lab, which this initiative makes legal.

It is "somatic cell nuclear transfer" -- otherwise known by everyone in the medical world except the authors of this ballot initiative as "cloning" -- that Amendment 2 makes impossible for Missouri legislators even to discourage.

(Actually, I have no reason to doubt that those responsible for this ballot initiaive know very well that they are promoting cloning. Many scientists who stand to gain research grants know that their plans are opposed by a majority of people. Biologists want to drop the word 'cloning' according to New Scientist)

If Amendment 2's backers successfully lobbied Jefferson City for a law to protect cloning, lawmakers would at least be able to change their minds in the future. But adding it to the Missouri Constitution would prevent any future state General Assembly, county commission, or city council from even "discouraging" human cloning.

After 40-odd years of stem cell research, both embryonic and adult, all the cures and medical insights are coming out of adult stem cell research, which doesn't require killing anyone, while embryonic stem cell research, which does require killing human beings, has not produced a single cure or promising insight.


Given the fact that millions of people object to killing human embryos, and given the fact that adult stem cell research is is light-years ahead of embryonic stem cell research in producing tangible results, why compel taxpayers to pursue morally offensive and scientifically infertile embryonic stem cell research?

Supporters of the Amendment stand to gain billions of dollars in tax-funded and private grants in an age where killing the youngest human beings is becoming politically correct, but not yet supported by a majority of Missouri voters. This is why supporters have invested $30 million into promoting a "yes" vote, and why they have used deliberately deceptive language to describe their true intentions. $30 million would buy a lot of stem cell research, but it will also buy much more for the research institute founded by the Stowers family, which has bankrolled 97% of the pro-Amendment advertising.

If the Amendment passes, it will create an avalanche of thoughtless trend-think in favor of cloning for embryonic stem-cell money.

DNAPolicy Publications & Resources Center Reports Cloning: A Policy Analysis

Lack of coherent cloning policies reflects polarized debate, limited understanding, study says, USA

Biologists want to drop the word 'cloning' - sex - 21 October 2006 - New Scientist

Somatic cell nuclear transfer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

stemcellresearch.org - Political Science


Yuval Levin on Cloning on National Review Online

Thursday, October 26, 2006

Secular Education and the War on Drugs

[This is an email going out to Christians in the 7th District. If you have email addresses for those voters, send them this.]

The press release below is being sent to Christian ministers and workers who care about America and the ideal of "Liberty Under God."

America's Founding Fathers invested "our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor" in their "experiment in liberty," so we should be willing to invest a few minutes to become informed voters.

In case you haven't heard, President Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox, and Prime Minister Paul Martin of Canada agreed in March of 2005 to merge the U.S. and Mexico and Canada into a new government similar to the European Union, which might be called the "North American Union" or the "United States of North America." Our current Congressman has been a major leader in the creation of these regional governments (such as CAFTA), which will not be accountable to the U.S. Constitution.

America's Founding Fathers would urge you to look at this website:


Your vote for Kevin Craig on November 7 sends a powerful message to our current Congressman (who is safely assured of a landslide re-election) that you support a Christian America and "Liberty Under God."

Thank you for forwarding the following information to Christian voters in Southwest Missouri. You may be wise to do so as a private citizen rather than as a representative of your tax-exempt ministry, because the freedom of religious expression which America's Founding Fathers fought for is now "void where prohibited by law," and your ministry could lose its tax-exempt status. (Keep in mind many Founding Fathers lost their lives, their fortunes, their homes, their businesses, and sometimes sons and daughters. Your risk is minimal in comparison.) See:

Thank you for showing your interest in "Liberty Under God" by reading the information below.

Kevin Craig
Libertarian Party Candidate
U.S. House of Representatives, MO-7th
Powersite, MO 65731-0179

Press Release
Libertarian Candidate Kevin Craig Announces New
Website Asking "Is it a SIN to Vote for Roy Blunt?"

Tens of thousands of conservative Christian voters in Southwest Missouri have "lost their first love" with the Republican Party.
  • The Foley Scandal and David Kuo's disclosures have shown that Republican leaders are contemptuous of conservative Christians and willing to put Republican Party interests ahead of Christian values.
  • The goals of the "Republican Revolution of 1994" -- smaller government, the de-funding of unconstitutional bureaucracies like the Department of Education, the National Endowment for the Arts, etc. -- have been ignored, and government growth and debt has skyrocketed under Republican leadership.
  • "The Republican Party of 2006 is a tired, cranky shell of the aggressive, reformist movement that was swept into office in 1994 on a wave of positive change," Frank Luntz, one of the strategists of the 1994 G.O.P. takeover, wrote last week in a column for TIME.com. "I worked for them. They were friends of mine. These Republicans are not those Republicans."
The race for the U.S. House of Representatives in Missouri's 7th District is one of the least-talked about races in the nation, because the re-election of the incumbent is a virtual certainty. But Kevin Craig (www.KevinCraig.US), the Libertarian Party candidate, hopes his new website will start a few conversations. Craig is trying to appeal to the Christian voting bloc with a website that asks the question, "Is it a SIN to vote for Roy Blunt?"


The incumbent, Majority Whip Roy Blunt, was re-elected by a landslide vote in 2004 against a moderate Democrat, Jim Newberry. Blunt faces a more "fringe" Democrat opponent this year in Jack Truman, a producer of "adult" films, whom conservative Democrats in Southwest Missouri have not rallied behind as they did with Newberry.

Craig claims that if the conservative Christians who signed the Constitution in 1787 could travel through time to 2006, they would be outraged at the unconstitutional growth of the federal government, and its commitment to the secularizing principle of "separation of church and state."

Craig says he wants to "wake up Republicans, get them thinking, and motivate them to use their vote to promote Biblical values rather than a 'double-minded' political party."

Craig acknowledges that most people are surprised to hear the words "sin" and "vote" in the same sentence. His website has numerous quotations from America's Founding Fathers, who viewed political participation as a sacred trust and a religious duty. And a violation of such a duty is the very definition of "sin."

"A government that is not 'Under God' is a government that thinks it *is* God," Craig says. "The messianic state is a modern idolatry."

Craig charges Blunt with violating his oath to "support the Constitution" by voting for unconstitutional and unBiblical government programs. "Those who vote for Blunt must share the blame for a more atheistic and socialistic America."

Libertarians are known for opposing tax increases, government regulation of the economy, and infringements on personal liberties, not for running explicitly Christian campaigns. But it's not just political posturing for Craig, who was a Chalcedon scholar at the California foundation identified by Newsweek Magazine as the "think tank" of the "religious right." After passing the California Bar Exam, Craig was denied a license to practice law because his allegiance to God was higher than the allegiance to the government required of an "officer of the court." Craig insisted on putting God above government, and this was unacceptable to the same federal appeals court that prohibited students from saying the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Craig then spent several years as co-director of "Isaiah House," a recovery home for homeless drug addicts. As a Christian he finds no conflict between the teachings of Christ and Libertarian Party proposals to legalize drugs. "If Jesus wanted someone to stop using drugs, would He send a heavily-armed SWAT team or Rick Warren?" Craig asks.

According to Craig, the "War on Drugs" is unconstitutional for the same reason alcohol Prohibition was unconstitutional in 1918 -- "until we amended the Constitution to give the federal government powers it didn't previously have," he says. "Then those powers were found to have disastrous side effects: high black-market profits, organized crime, and impure bootleg liquor. Americans then re-amended the Constitution to take away from the federal government the power to ban alcohol."

"'We the People' have never given the federal government the power to ban the sale and use of drugs like we gave the government the power to ban alcohol."

"Today's 'War on Drugs' is making billions of dollars for terrorists from Arizona to Afghanistan, who raise funds for terror in a highly-profitable government-created black market. Legalizing drugs would take away a source of profit for international terrorists, and allow addicts who need help to seek it openly -- help which is both medical and spiritual," Craig says. "Those who use alcohol, caffeine, nicotine or marijuana responsibly should have nothing to fear from the government, according to the Constitution."

As someone who was denied an opportunity to take an oath to "support the Constitution" as an attorney, Craig wonders why so many politicians take that same oath and then ignore it, expanding government power without constitutional authority.

"Keeping one's oath is the heart of the Third Commandment," Craig says, "and the Framers of the Constitution would point a stern finger at too many leaders in the Republican Party who are ignoring their oath to defend the Constitution."

Education and "The Organic Law"

Dealing with meth labs and building more jails is a theme Craig says he hears all across Southwest Missouri. He blames the Republicans for the rise in drug addiction and crime.

"When the U.S. Supreme Court removed voluntary prayer and the Bible from public schools in the early 1960's, Justice Douglas admitted that 'Religion was once deemed to be a function of the public school system.' But Republicans have followed the secular agenda of the Supreme Court instead of America's Founding Fathers," Craig says.

Justice Douglas cited The Northwest Ordinance of 1787, the blueprint for the constitutions of states admitted to the union in the 1800's, and part of what legal scholars call our nation's "organic law." The Ordinance provided in Article III that "Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged."

Craig says federally-controlled schools teach students to be their own god, and this makes education impossible. "If students are their own authority, why should they submit to the authority of the teacher?" Craig asks. "Class disruption is the natural by-product of schools that will not acknowledge the authority of God."

Craig says the Republican Party was right to demand the abolition of the federal Department of Education in its Party Platform of 1996, the year Roy Blunt was first elected to Congress. "The Constitution gives no authority at all to the federal government over education, much less does it authorize the federal government to prohibit local schools from acknowledging God and His Commandments," Craig says.

"Take away the federal monopoly on education and polls indicate that more than 80% of parents will choose Christian schools -- and they'll be able to choose from a wide variety of higher-quality educational choices which a competitive Free Market will offer," Craig predicts.

"On the other hand," he warns, "government-imposed secular schools produce a secular culture in which abuse of property (crime) and abuse of drugs (addiction) always flourish. And the federal education budget under Republicans is now double what it was under Bill Clinton."

Craig cites a 1972 U.S. Supreme Court case which held that government employees who take the oath to "support the Constitution" are implicitly supporting the nation's "organic law" as well, which includes the Northwest Ordinance and the Declaration of Independence. "Voting to increase the budget of an unconstitutional bureaucracy that rips religion and morality out of local public schools is a violation of one's oath of office," according to Craig.

"Socialism is a Sin"

Craig's website claims that "socialism is a sin," and that Roy Blunt's voting record is more socialist than Congressman Bernie Sanders of Vermont, an avowed Socialist. "Government expands at the expense of private property," Craig says, "and government confiscation of property is theft, a violation of the Eighth Commandment."

The Libertarian Party is widely acknowledged to be the most vocal critic of big government and defender of capitalism and free markets. It also appeals to Democrats with its strong advocacy of civil liberties.

This is Craig's second run against Roy Blunt, but he hopes that this year, in a mid-term election, with no chance for a Democrat victory, tens of thousands of Republicans will cross party lines and use their vote as a way of sending a message to Roy Blunt and Republican leadership to return to the Christian and libertarian values that made America great.

Kevin Craig
Libertarian Party Candidate
U.S. House of Representatives, MO-7th
Powersite, MO 65731-0179

    Wednesday, October 18, 2006

    Is it a SIN to vote for Roy Blunt?

    If I'm going to make a decent showing in November, I'm going to have to capture the votes of thousands of conservative Bible-believing Christians, who undoubtedly won't think twice (or even once) about voting to re-elect the Republican incumbent.

    In order to reach this voting bloc on my limited campaign budget, I need to get a little free publicity. I need something that grabs attention, even from the secular press.

    How about a website called

    Is it a SIN to vote for Roy Blunt.com

    Before I send out a press release, your comments on this website would be appreciated.

    Saturday, October 14, 2006

    A Thank-You Note

    Yesterday I received a thank-you note postmarked in Springfield. My name and address were neatly handwritten. No return address.

    Inside the envelope was a nice gold-embossed store-bought thank you card. I opened the card.


    For some reason I immediately thought of the recent murder of Anna Politkovskaya, which puts the lie to claims of "glasnost" (openness) in the "former" Soviet Union.

    As a strong critic of Russian President Vladimir Putin, especially his repressive policies re: Chechnya, she was regarded by many as "the conscience of the nation."
    This is a role that Russian society has long required in its public life, from the time of the Tsars through the Soviet period to the oil-state authoritarianism of today: some prominent figure to serve as a moral counterbalance to the ruthless machinations and arbitrary will of the ruling cliques. It has been filled by such people as Lev Tolstoy, Boris Pasternak, Anna Akhmatova, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Andrei Sakharov and Yelena Bonner.
    Chris Floyd, "Red October: Killing the Truth in Moscow"
    Not that I'm anywhere near being in Politkovskaya's league, but rather that someone in Springfield -- perhaps someone who heard me speak at the Greene County Medical Society, or the Bethesda Retirement Community -- was grateful to hear my ideas, but afraid to identify him/herself as being in agreement, at least while being outside a "free speech zone."

    I tend to be paranoid. It was probably just an oversight. If you're reading this blog, "You're welcome."

    Monday, October 09, 2006

    The Foley Scandal

    Republican voters in Southwest Missouri may choose to stay home on Election Day, sensing that Republican power-holders really don't care about the values of Missouri voters as much as they do protecting their own political power. The Foley Scandal is only the most recent confirmation of this suspicion, as Republicans are seen to have covered up (and thereby promoted) child molestation in order to insure votes on Election Day.

    Last week Ozarks Public Television broadcasted Bill Moyers' documentary on the Abramoff Scandal. Republican fund-raisers like Abramoff, Ralph Reed, and Grover Norquist spoke of "family values" to those who opposed gambling, while working on behalf of Indian casinos, but not really working for the Indians as much as their own bank accounts. The Foley scandal reveals Republicans who talk about family values but subordinate those values to the political success of the Party.

    Roy Blunt's Democratic opponent, Jack Truman, is star and director of the upcoming film "Son of a Stripper," who also produced a film called "Phone Sex Grandma," starring his mother. Truman will undoubtedly receive fewer votes than his more conservative 2004 Democrat predecessor, Jim Newberry.

    Do conservative "homophobic" Christians have a defender of their values in Roy Blunt? Democrats think so. But the more discerning Christians have noticed that neither Bush nor Blunt have actually done as much work to counter homosexuals as they have to advance the "New World Order." Witness the amount of energy both invested in the passage of CAFTA, as opposed to their effort to pass a marriage amendment.

    Bush and Blunt have also invested more effort in "No Child Left Behind," a totally unconstitutional program which is 180° opposite the promise Republicans made in 1996 when Blunt was first elected to Congress: Abolish the Federal Department of Education. Federal control of local schools is about as effective in stemming the tide of homosexual propaganda as federal levees in New Orleans. The number of children who are having their views shaped in favor of homosexuality by federally controlled schools vastly outweighs any contrary effect the Marriage Amendment would have had, as many perceptive Christians have noted.

    When conservative Christians look at the Libertarian Party Platform, they might see a pro-homosexual agenda. When astute homosexual activists look at the same platform, they might well see a viciously anti-homosexual platform, because the LP platform strips away homosexuals' opportunity for government advocacy or indoctrination on behalf of homosexuality. George W. Bush's government schools are by far the biggest and most powerful weapon in the homosexual movement's arsenal.

    Too many Missouri conservatives will be brainwashed by the Republican Party's toothless anti-homosexual rhetoric into voting for Republicans who promote government pro-homosexual indoctrination ("public schools") and molestation (Mark Foley) of children.

    The libertarian platform takes away most of the power homosexuals have to impose their views on children, while leaving Christians freer than ever before to indoctrinate society in terms of "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God."

    Every single person who signed the Constitution believed that homosexuality was a sin, contrary to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." Jefferson was the more liberal of America's Founders, advocating castration rather than execution for homosexuals. Kevin Craig is more liberal than Jefferson in terms of government response to homosexuals, but far more conservative when it comes to his commitment to the Bible. Call him "homophobic."

    Voting Republican is voting for more Mark Foleys and for government-sponsored homosexual indoctrination at taxpayer expense. Voting libertarian is voting to remove the loudest homosexual megaphone ("public schools"), and giving the demographically powerful Christian base the liberty (and tax dollars) to restore a Christian nation.

    Kupelian on 9-11 Conspiracies

    David Kupelian is is vice president and managing editor of WorldNetDaily.com and Whistleblower magazine, and author of the best-selling book, The Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-Experts Sell Us Corruption Disguised as Freedom. He has been featured on Fox News, MSNBC, CBN and many other media outlets.

    The September 2006 edition of Whistleblower Magazine was headlined, "9-11: 5 Years Later, A Time for Truth." But it was, instead, a time for whitewashing. Kupelian wrote:
    Stop and think. To believe that 9/11 was an "inside job," that it was accomplished with the blessing of the U.S. government, requires that you believe not only that George W. Bush is a demonically inspired, genocidal monster, but also that dozens and perhaps hundreds of other people in the government are likewise crazed mass-murdering psychopaths.

    How can bright and intelligent Americans believe such things?
    Wrong question. The proper question is, "How can bright and intelligent Americans DO such things?" 9-11 is not what makes George W. Bush and hundreds, if not thousands of others, "crazed mass-murdering psychopaths." How about the assault on Iraq conducted by thousands of members of the Bush-Clinton regime, leaving two million dead and millions homeless?

    On 60 Minutes in May 1996, Leslie Stahl asked Clinton’s UN Ambassador, Madeline Albright, point blank: “We have heard that a half million children have died [from the sanctions]. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And — and you know, is the price worth it?”

    Albright replied, “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price — we think the price is worth it."

    Thousands of people in Washington D.C. or deployed by Washington D.C. are able to kill more children than died in Hiroshima. Are they "crazed mass-murdering psychopaths?" How can they do such things?

    Kupelian answered his own questions, if a few substitutions are made:
    For one thing, when you're brainwashed from birth to believe Americans are the source of all good, you feel no need to examine your own life, culture, or religion. The natural need all humans have to understand right and wrong, to solve problems, to feel like they're good people, and so on, are all satisfied by the all-consuming quest for "national security" or "western hegemony." It's an almost perfect illusion.
    Not only can they commit a 9-11, but they believe with equal fanaticism that keeping that fact a secret from the American people is in the interests of "national security." It's all too easy for some "conspiracy theorists" to believe that there are people in Washington D.C. who thought that 9-11 would be "worth it."

    Saturday, October 07, 2006

    Tell me what Blunt thinks

    On September 28, 2006, Representative Virgil H. Good, Jr. (R-Va.) introduced House Concurrent Resolution 487 "Expressing the sense of Congress that the United States should not engage in the construction of a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Superhighway System or enter into a North American Union with Mexico and Canada." Ron Paul (R-Texas), Walter B. Jones, Jr. (R-NC), and Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) are cosponsors.

    One key goal of this emerging North American Union is a borderless North America by 2010. This helps explain why the Bush administration is so insistent that Congress pass guest worker legislation this year. The goal of the elites who are constructing the North American Union is "temporary migrant worker programs expanded with full mobility of labor between the three countries in the next five years."

    I would appreciate it if someone in Roy Blunt's District would send a letter to Rep. Blunt asking him if he will support this Resolution, and more importantly, relentlessly work to stop the Bush administration's construction of a North American Union under its "Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America" initiative with Mexico and Canada.

    I live in Jo Anne Emerson's district, and mail to Blunt tends to be forwarded to the appropriate representative. I'd like to get some quotable soundbites from Blunt on this issue. Here is the contact page. You can call or send an email using the form. Make sure to say "I would like to hear back from you on this issue," or words indicating you're not just telling him what you think, but you want to get his opinion sent back to you. And if you get Blunt's position, post it in a comment on this blog. Thanks!

    Outside Blunt's district? Send a letter to your own representative.

    Monday, October 02, 2006

    Anti-SPP Resolution in Congress

    Ron Paul is co-sponsoring a resolution against the North American Union and the NAFTA Superhighway. Details here. Library of Congress info here