I really need to have a Chat with Donald Miller

Like the Title says, I really need to have a Chat with Donald "Blue Like Heresy(Jazz)" Miller.

The Following Article is from The Guardian

"Obama to lift restrictions on funding stem cell research"

Ian Sample, science correspondent
The Guardian, Monday 9 March 2009

Stem cell research in the US will receive a major boost today when Barack Obama lifts restrictions on federal funding that were imposed eight years ago by the Bush administration, scientists say.

The long-awaited announcement will overturn a ban that prohibits scientists from using taxpayers' money to study embryonic stem cells created after 2001.

The ban has meant scientists working in the US can use government grants only when working on some of the oldest embryonic stem cells available. Many centres have been forced to divide their labs in half, to keep projects paid for by private money separate.

The seemingly unique ability of embryonic stem cells to grow into any type of tissue in the body has led scientists to believe they could transform medicine through treatments that replace and regenerate damaged or diseased organs.

Lifting the ban will unleash a flurry of collaborations between scientists who had been barred from working together.

John Gearhart, director of regenerative medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, has made more than 100 trips to Washington to protest against the ban and has been invited to the White House for today's announcement.

"Better use of space and resources will have a great and immediate effect. That to me is the biggest benefit of this," he said.

Douglas Melton, co-director of the Harvard Stem Cell Institute, said he planned to begin collaborations with publicly funded scientists immediately. The research will investigate treatments for diabetes, Parkinson's and Alzheimer's disease using freshly made embryonic stem cells.

"The removal of a barrier that has stood in our way for eight years will open important new areas of research, and move the field forward more rapidly," he said.

Scientists are still unclear how quickly the change will take effect. Some expect Obama to look for legislative backing from Congress, and to ask the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to draft documents outlining how embryonic stem cells could be used. Both processes would take time and could be held up by religious groups who strongly oppose lifting the ban.

"The conservatives will rally support to slow this down, so on one hand we're celebrating, but there's a way to go yet. This is not a slam-dunk," said Gearhart.

The timing is particularly critical for researchers hoping to benefit from the $10bn (£7bn) awarded to the NIH through the president's stimulus package.

The Bush administration's unfavourable stance on stem cells drove some US scientists to leave for Britain, where laws on stem cell research are more liberal. By overturning the ban, Obama may trigger a brain drain back to the US.

Stephen Minger, a US stem cell scientist at King's College London said: "It's unlikely we'll see a mass exodus to the US, but funding for embryonic stem cell research in the UK is low and extremely competitive."


I would First like to point out that when thinking about President Obama, and Abortion/Rights for Unborn Children he has done the following: Reversed a Ban on Funding for Oversea's Abortions , He has named Kathleen Sebelius the Health Secretary, He has taken the next step to remove protections for pro-life medical centers and staff who do not want to do abortions; He has Failed to invite Pro-life medical Groups to a summit on Health Care Reform and now he is increasing funding for Embryonic Stem Cell Research... In Light of all this I have to say that it is fitting that Obama has a 100% pro-choice rating from NARAL.

What does all this have to do with Donald Miller you ask...

First of all, Mr. Miller was very very active in his support for Now President Obama. He spoke often on how Mr. Obama was "the only candidate who has a plan to reduce the number of abortions.(1)" He continues on, "McCain's only plan is the same old trick: say that you are pro life and offer no plan at all other than to criminalize abortion.(1)" This begs the question Mr. Miller -- Do you believe that Unborn people are Children worthy of the same protection of born children? If so, isn't Murdering them Criminal? Shouldn't they then be punished and treated as the Murders that they are? The alternative, Mr. Miller, leaves us asking either, what is this Unborn Child, if not human, if it doesn't have the same rights because it hasn't been seen outside of the womb. If you don't believe that Murdering Children is Criminal, what is it? "I simply think that plan hasn't worked, and we have to face that fact and look for other ways to make progress.(1)" The problem is this Mr. Miller - Roe V. Wade was decided January 22, 1973. This is 2 years after you were born, and 12 years before I was born. Neither of us have seen in our lifetime the results of Abortion being Criminal. History tells us however, that in 1966 there were only 1028 Legal abortions. After Roe V. Wade in 1973 there were 615,831 Legal abortions. That is about 599 times the number of abortions in 1966(2). So it seems to me, that we haven't really tried actually making abortion Criminal. That we haven't really outlawed it, but that you and others like you, Mr. Miller, simply say that it won't or doesn't work. The fact it, it is a Good Plan to reduce abortion, make it illegal.

Donald Miller says this,"I believe in the sanctity of life, I simply think we need to begin making progress, and Barack is offering progress.(3)" I have to say, that I do genuinely believe that Mr. Miller is Pro-life and that He believes that life should be protected, in fact he says, "I do wish we could end abortion completely, but the Republicans have not spelled out a realistic plan to do so, and until they do, I won't vote for a candidate who simply throws us a pro-life line and no plan. (3)" The problem here is at least two-fold: 1. Obama has not reduced anything having to do with abortions, He has expanded. 2. If you really want to end abortion Mr. Miller, if you really believe it is the Cancer, the abomination, that I do, then why arn't you fighting for that, why instead to you back a person who is openly and by your own admission, Pro-Choice(4). That would be like me saying that I was anti-Rape, but then Voting and supporting and Campaigning with a Rapist.

Mr. Miller, I want to call you to repentance. I believe that if you look at the facts at this point, you must come to the same conclusion I have, mainly, you were mistaken; that you sinfully helped a man get into the highest office of the land, who is openly willing to enable the murder of Children in the Womb. It is my prayer that you would openly make a statement that you do not support what Mr. Obama is doing, and if you are truly Pro-Life, that would be the case.


Footnotes
1. http://burnsidewriterscollective.blogspot.com/2008/09/interview-with-donald-miller.html; Paragraph 6
2. http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-unitedstates.html
3.http://burnsidewriterscollective.blogspot.com/2008/09/interview-with-donald-miller.html; Paragraph 7
4. http://burnsidewriterscollective.blogspot.com/2008/09/interview-with-donald-miller.html; Paragraph 8
5.

Calif. AG urges court to void gay marriage ban - You Have Got to be Kidding me!

By LISA LEFF, Associated Press Writer Lisa Leff, Associated Press Writer

SAN FRANCISCO – The California attorney general has changed his position on the state's new same-sex marriage ban and is now urging the state Supreme Court to void Proposition 8.

In a dramatic reversal, Attorney General Jerry Brown filed a legal brief saying the measure that amended the California Constitution to limit marriage to a man and a woman is itself unconstitutional because it deprives a minority group of a fundamental right. Earlier, Brown had said he would defend the ballot measure against legal challenges from gay marriage supporters.

But Brown said he reached a different conclusion "upon further reflection and a deeper probing into all the aspects of our Constitution.

"It became evident that the Article 1 provision guaranteeing basic liberty, which includes the right to marry, took precedence over the initiative," he said in an interview Friday night. "Based on my duty to defend the law and the entire Constitution, I concluded the court should protect the right to marry even in the face of the 52 percent vote."

Brown, who served as governor from 1975 to 1983, is considering seeking the office again in 2010. After California voters passed Proposition 8 on Nov. 4, Brown said he personally voted against it but would fight to uphold it as the state's top lawyer.

He submitted his brief in one of the three legal challenges to Proposition 8 brought by same-sex marriage supporters. The measure, a constitutional amendment that passed with 52 percent of the vote, overruled the state Supreme Court decision last spring that briefly legalized gay marriage in the nation's most populous state.

Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, called the attorney general's change of strategy "a major development."

"The fact that after looking at this he shifted his position and is really bucking convention by not defending Prop. 8 signals very clearly that this proposition can not be defended," Minter said.

The sponsors of Proposition 8 argued for the first time Friday that the court should undo the marriages of the estimated 18,000 same-sex couples who exchanged vows before voters banned gay marriage at the ballot box last month.

The Yes on 8 campaign filed a brief telling the court that because the new law holds that only marriages between a man and a woman are recognized or valid in California, the state can no longer recognize the existing same-sex unions.

"Proposition 8's brevity is matched by its clarity. There are no conditional clauses, exceptions, exemptions or exclusions," reads the brief co-written by Kenneth Starr, dean of Pepperdine University's law school and a former independent counsel who investigated President Bill Clinton.

Both Brown and gay rights groups maintain that the gay marriage ban may not be applied retroactively.

Starr's co-counsel Andrew Pugno said Brown's decision to challenge the voter-approved measure and the argument advanced by the attorney general was "totally unprecedented."

"His legal duty as attorney general of the state is to defend initiatives passed by the voters," he said.

The state Supreme Court could hear arguments in the litigation in March. The measure's backers announced Friday that Starr had signed on as their lead counsel and would argue the cases.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What does it take? The voters have spoken, Twice! Get it through your head California Liberals, Gays, and Mr. Brown - The People Don't want Gay Marriage.


This is where things get to be even more amazingly Stupid - - - This is a direct quote from Mr. Brown:

Based on my duty to defend the law and the entire Constitution, I concluded the court should protect the right to marry even in the face of the 52 percent vote.

The Gays already have the Right to Marry, they can marry Just like everyone Else -- You sir are talking about extending a Special Right, creating a new right... People already have the right to marry in California. No Special Rights for 'Special' People!