My thoughts on the other candidates:

Ron Paul!!!!  He’s like the kid who tells you that he loves his kitten.  You kind of go  “awww” and agree that the kitten is nice and that the kid is sweet.  Then, before you know it, the kid throws the kitten in the microwave and turns it on.  Ron Paul is that kid, and the kitten is common sense. 

Santorum impressed me the least.  I didn’t like too many of his answers, and I don’t remember the ones I did like.  He doesn’t come off as a commanding presence.

Neither Bachman nor Cain impressed me as much as I thought they would.  I’m sorry, but Backman has not shown any effective leadership that makes me believe she can run the country.  She doesn’t show any statesmanship that I can see.  She sounds more like a politician pandering to the tea party than someone having any real ideas about enacting her policies.  I agree with her positions on most of the issues, but I’m not seeing effective leadership from her.  Maybe if she had actually accomplished anything in Congress…

Cain sounds more like he’d fit in as a Cabinet Secretary than a politician.  I think he would be more effective there, get some political experience, and maybe be in a position for president in the future.  Right not, he still sounds unprepared for politics.

Huntsman is a RINO and true career politician.  We might as well have McCain up there again.  I get the impression that he doesn’t really believe half the things he says, but feels the need to say them. 

Speaking of RINOs, Romney is sounding pretty good, but he always “sounds” good.  Then he defends RomneyCare – which is basically Obamacare - while claiming that the latter needs to be repealed.  He then says stupid things about Social Security.  Sorry, but Perry is right.  Social Security is a ponzi scheme.  Again, we might as well have McCain running.

Finally, Newt Gingrich impressed me with his responses.  He’s a thinker.  Unfortunately, I get the impression that he’s too invested in the establishment to take risks…I wonder how I got that impression…

I wish Santorum, Huntsman, and Paul would go ahead and drop out.  I’d include Bachman, Cain, and Gingrich in that list, but frankly, I like the impact they have on the national dialog.  Maybe we can get those three to moderate a debate…

In any case, Perry’s entrance is definitely a plus.  I’ll have some comments in the near future concerning the politicization of science, which came up the debate.  There’s been some interesting developments with global warming the last few months that deserve some attention, mainly because of the drama between researchers.

Here’s a question: What is our responsibility to future generations of Americans or even the world?  Imagine you were given a choice: live comfortably and leisurely knowing that your actions, lack of actions, or lifestyle condemns future generations to a life of hardship.  Would you choose that option or do you believe that your children or grandchildren deserve better?  (Afterall, isn’t that one of the arguments for protecting the environment?)

I believe we all have an obligation to future generations.

For the last few years (at least that’s how long I’ve been aware of the problem), many of us who have been paying attention to the budgetary numbers coming from Washington have been absolutely shocked.  (The numbers are at the end of the post.)  This isn’t a partisan issue and it’s not one that will only become a problem for some distant future generation.   It’s an existential issue that has already become a crisis.  The existential part is not an exaggeration!  Just ask Greece and other European nations who are in danger of losing their sovereignty.  The problem is with Entitlements and is now.  Medicare will run out of funds within the next 10-15 years or sooner.  At that point, services automatically gets cut (by law). 

The issue is very much linked to the economy (again, see the previously linked video).  The high unemployment numbers seem to be structural, not temporary.  Job growth has been halted since Obamacare passed, except, apparently, in red states who have initiated pro-jobs reforms (the numbers from TX are amazing), shrinking the size of government and limiting Union power.  Meanwhile, Administrative officials keep saying stupid things because, frankly, they have nothing more to offer. 

The current Republican field of candidates is very lacking on their ability and leadership when it comes to the debt, deficit, and Entitlement reform.  They want to avoid the scare-mongering of the Democrats and the media.  Maybe that’s good politics.  But is it responsible citizenship?

So that brings me to Paul Ryan.  The blogosphere has been abuzz all day on the possibility of Paul Ryan jumping into the race for president, just days after Rick Perry’s official announcement completely changed the Republican primary race.  Ed Morrisey at Hot Air, who seems to be excited about the Perry run, is not so enthusiastic over a Paul Ryan candidacy.  Others, seem to disagree.  Count me in with the latter group. 

The previous links have already made the case for Paul Ryan’s candidacy.  He has stated over and over that he doesn’t want to run, especially for the sake of his family.  So why would he reconsider this late in the game?  I like this analogy:

“With Paul, it’s more about obligation than opportunity,” says another Wisconsin Republican. “He is determined to have the 2012 election be about the big things. If that means he has to run, he’s open to it.”
…
One Ryan confidante used an analogy to make the point. Ryan sees running for president like taking a swan dive off a cliff. In the early stages of the race, when he started getting calls urging him to run, Ryan began walking away from the cliff at a brisk pace. Then, when Daniels announced that he was passing on a bid, Ryan stopped in place and turned around. In the weeks since, he’s slowly made his way back to the cliff and he’s now peering over the side trying to decide if he makes the leap.

The cliff is not just for the presidency.  Paul Ryan is determined to make that cliff about the future path of this country.  Are we going to go follow Europe down the path of decline as a direct result of an affordable, dehumanizing, cradle-to-grave Social nanny state?  Or do we turn the ship around and again follow the rockier, but more prosperous path of liberty? 

Here’s my question question to Paul Ryan (not like he will see it): if you don’t make the first leap, then who will and when? 

I think – or at least hope – that there are a lot of people behind Paul on that cliff.  If he makes the leap, a lot of us will follow.   The challenge will be to convincing the rest of the public to come, too.  And the public might actually be ready to have the right conversations.

Many people, like me, spend way too much time posting links on facebook and bitching about the problems.   I guess that’s got to change.  The crisis is here, and how we can expect our reluctant leaders to do what is right when we’re unwilling to provide the support that is needed.

The numbers:

The official national debt is $14.6 trillion, or over 98% of the US GDP, or $130,578 per taxpayer.  Well, that’s OK, right?  We just pay it off over many decades like a normal citizen would any debt.  According to some economists, deficit spending during a recession is good, right?  The problem isn’t that we have deficit spending over a few years, it’s that’s 98% debt to GDP number that keeps going up.  We’re borrowing $2 for every $5 we spend.  The effects are not good for the economy or the West, or the world.

The long term numbers are even more terrifying: the US has $115 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities (some sources place the numbers higher).  That means we are passing on to future generations over a million dollars per taxpayer.  We are essentially borrowing money and placing the burden on US citizens that haven’t even been born yet.  The US currently has a total of $76 trillion in assets (not GDP, assets).  That’s a lot of wealth creation that cannot happen with a barely growing economy.

A few points:

1) My issue with this is on tactics and not on whether the girl should be allowed to go to the prom with the date of her choice.  I think that’s an issue for the parents within the community to decide.  This is about kids, not adults, and even their freedom is limited until they are 18 (and even at 18, if they are attending a school function).

2) The ACLU is known to use these bullying tactics to push their agenda.  Instead of working for social change by dialog and other forms of speech, they push a lawsuit.  The school district, whether you agree with their reaction or not, was responding to the bullying when they canceled the prom.  The girl said that she didn’t think the school would react the way it did, which I find amusing.

3) Now since the ACLU didn’t get their way, they are pressing another lawsuit to force the school to hold the prom.  More bullying.  This would be like the government passing a law that you cannot discriminate against gay couples for adoption and then forcing the Catholic adoption agencies to stay open instead of closing due to moral obligations.

4) The original lawsuit was not claiming discrimination.  As Ed at Hot Air points out:

It’s interesting to me mainly as a legal matter: Per the ACLU’s complaint, this is not a discrimination claim. It’s a First Amendment claim, alleging that McMillen would essentially be engaged in a form of speech (“communicative content”) about her orientation in wearing a tuxedo and bringing a girl to the prom. That’s weak — she’s not going to prom to make a statement, she’s going because she wants to dance and have fun with her girlfriend — but because the Equal Protection Clause has never been held to apply to sexual orientation, the ACLU really has no choice but to try the speech argument. Not sure it’ll work, but then the point isn’t to win the suit. It’s to turn up the heat on the school district until the bad publicity makes them cave or, at the very least, scares other districts that might do this into thinking twice. Working like a charm so far.

The bottom line is this:  Coercing people to do what you want even if they don’t does NOT bring about good will and social change.  It puts people on the defensive, and actually hurts whatever progress you are trying to make.

At a joint press conference with Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization chief Ali Akbar Salehi in Tehran, ElBaradei brought Israel under spotlight and said that the Tel Aviv regime has refused to allow inspections into its nuclear installations for 30years, the report said.

“Israel is the number one threat to the Middle East given the nuclear arms it possesses,” ElBaradei was quoted as saying.

Chalk this up to one more reason the UN has no credibility. They are in Tehran for talks concerning Iran’s recently revealed secret nuclear site. They’ve given them two weeks to let them inspect the site – which is pleny of time for iran to hide anything they want to hide. Iran has repeatedly called for Israel’s destruction. Yet Israel is the bigger nuclear threat on the middle east? And to make matters worst, this announcement was made in Tehran.

I think Saudi Arabia would disagree since they’ve agreed to allow Israel to use their air space for any future strikes on Iran. Israel better hurry. The West seems hellbent on allowing Iran to build a bomb.

“I’m convinced that today the majority of Americans want what those first Americans wanted: A better life for themselves and their children; a minimum of government authority. Very simply, they want to be left alone in peace and safety to take care of the family by earning an honest dollar and putting away some savings. This may not sound too exciting, but there is something magnificent about it.”

Lori Roman is founder of RegularFolksUnited.com, the bully pulpit for regular folks.

From the Washington Examiner via Hot Air.

I mention this fact only because I was doing my daily reading of news and came across a blog about Ann Coulter’s new book titled “Guilty: Liberal “Victims” and their Assault on America.”  The Right Wing News blog was a summary of the best quotes in Ann’s book.  I have to say most of the quotes are right on.  

However, one of the quotes (from Ann’s book) in the blog was the following:  

“Getting pregnant isn’t like catching the flu. There are volitional acts involved — someone else explain it to Dennis Kucinich. By this purposeful act, single mothers cause irreparable harm to other human beings — their own children — as countless studies on the subject make clear. Not only do single mothers hurt their children, they also foist a raft of social pathologies on society. Look at almost any societal problem and you will find it is really a problem of single mothers.” 

I’ve never been punched in the face, but I imagine it is less painful than reading the above.   

What hurts is not that what Ann stated is false.  On the contrary, I know first hand that single-parent households can open the doors for kids going into gangs, drugs, abuse, low self esteem, etc., but it is the generalization that ALL single mothers are causing a problem and creating society’s evils.   

Believe it or not, I kept reading.  At the bottom of the blog was a link to another of John Hawkin’s pieces: “Ann Coulter on Single Mothers…”  Below is a clip from Ann’s book cited in Hawkin’s blog:  

“Here is the lottery ticket that single mothers are handing their innocent children by choosing to raise them without fathers: Controlling for socioeconomic status, race, and place of residence, the strongest predictor of whether a person will end up in prison is that he was raised by a single parent. By 1996, 70 percent of inmates in state juvenile detention centers serving long-term sentences were raised by single mothers. Seventy-two percent of juvenile murderers and 60 percent of rapists come from single-mother homes. Seventy percent of teenage births, dropouts, suicides, runaways, juvenile delinquents, and child murderers involve children raised by single mothers. Girls raised without fathers are more sexually promiscuous and more likely to end up divorced. A 1990 study by the Progressive Policy Institute showed that after controlling for single motherhood, the difference between black and white crime rates disappeared.

Various studies have come up with slightly different numbers, but all the figures are grim. According to the Index of Leading Cultural Indicators, children from single-parent families account for 63 percent of all youth suicides, 70 percent of all teenage pregnancies, 71 percent of all adolescent chemical/substance abuse, 80 percent of all prison inmates, and 90 percent of all homeless and runaway children.

A study cited in the Village Voice produced similar numbers. It found that children brought up in single-mother homes ‘are five times more likely to commit suicide, nine times more likely to drop out of high school, 10 times more likely to abuse chemical substances, 14 times more likely to commit rape (for the boys), 20 times more likely to end up in prison, and 32 times more likely to run away from home.’ Single motherhood is like a farm team for future criminals and social outcasts.

….Many of these studies, for example, are from the 1990s, when the percentage of teenagers raised by single parents was lower than it is today. In 1990, 28 percent of children under eighteen were being raised in one-parent homes (mother or father), and 71 percent were being raised in two-parent homes. By 2005, more than one-third of all babies born in the United States were illegitimate. That’s a lot of social problems coming.

…Imagine an America with 70 percent fewer juvenile delinquents, 70 percent fewer teenage births, 63 to 70 percent fewer teenage suicides, and 70 percent to 90 percent fewer runaways and you will appreciate what the sainted single mothers have accomplished.” — P.37-38

Well, if the first quote I read was a punch in the face, the second link and more detailed context of Ann’s book was definitely a dagger to the heart.   

It hurts me deeply to know that my daughter could end up as a statistic – it hurts to know that the odds are against me, even if I do everything I can to be a good mother.   

That being said, I want to go back to Ann Coulter.   

As a former liberal, I could not stand Ann Coulter.  As I’ve changed and have become more conservative, I have learned to appreciate many of the things she says.  Although I understand her point about single mothers, I feel she is doing the same thing a liberal would do: cry foul, without true remedy, i.e. she has become a victim.  

It is fine to point fingers and say that single mothers “choose” to be single mothers, or incite people by titling one of her chapters “Victim of a Crime? Blame a Single Mother.”  No matter what the statistics are, this is generalization at its finest.  Not to mention that she’s alienating people that might otherwise give what she is saying (which is an important point) a valid chance.  Worst of all is that she doesn’t get to the root of the problem.  Yes, single motherhood is bad for society, but what is causing this trend, what is at the root of this problem?    

Here’s an example.  I was abused as a child.  I lived with my abuser in my home until the age of 18 when I could no longer stand the sight of his face and could legally leave my home.  I was alone, naive and fell in love.  I got engaged and pregnant all by the time I was 19.  My daughter was born.  My daughter’s father wanted to marry me – and it would have worked out were it not for the fact that he raped me and turned out to be a child molester.  Does Ann call this “choosing” to be a single mom?  I would give my life to be with the man I love and have a family and a father for my daughter, but there are limits to what one can stand in the name of staying together.     

I know there are many single mothers that have done a great job in raising their kids alone, without being on welfare or sucking up taxpayer money, or raising thugs.  Single mothers that have raised kids that contribute to society.  I also know many married couples that could not control their kids and they ended up as criminals. 

So maybe it is not so much raising kids alone that is the problem, as it is raising kids with moral values.  It does not take two parents to teach a child that stealing is wrong (although it is ideal), or that rape is monstrous, or that a child is wonderful in God’s eyes and they deserve the best.  

I will be the first to agree with the study that Ann cites, which states that a home where the parents are married is the best place for a child to grow up in, but that does not change the fact that there are good single parents, and that not all children in single-parent homes are society’s downfall.   

I know Ann is trying to sell books, but I wish she would be more conscious of how she delivers her message.

Melissa Etheridge, champion of gay rights, declared back in November 2008 that because the people of California voted to keep marriage between a man and a woman, she would no longer pay taxes.  Her “reasoning” (I call it emotional blabbering) for not paying taxes was that it made her a “second class citizen” so she no longer needed to pay taxes.  Taunting the government, she blogged that the government would not be getting her “half million” in taxes owed.  Too bad that California and the country are going through tough times Melissa stated, she was keeping the extra money.  Who cares that she still uses California services, she no longer needed to pay her share.  Here’s the story.  

Anyway, for some reason, this story is still “news”, as it was on the front page of my AOL welcome screen a few days ago, and it made me think.   

As a single mom, I have worked hard to make something of myself (despite not going to college), and this year I am told by the government I owe taxes.  You can imagine how reading Melissa’s little tantrum makes me a little bit frustrated. 

Here is some reality for Ms. Etheridge.  I will be paying over $1,200 in Federal taxes this year (may seem small compared to her amount, but let me tell you that the money is needed much more in my household).  Do I like the fact that I am paying the taxes…no.  However, do I understand it as being part of living in this society, yes.  Is it then my right to be ABOVE THE LAW just because I don’t feel like paying taxes for whatever whimsical reason I can concoct today?  Let’s see, I am upset at a lot of things lately – maybe I should withhold paying my taxes because I disagree with Pelosi spending it on contraception?  Maybe I should withhold taxes because Obama is now paying for baby murder with my hard earned money?  Maybe I should withhold it because greedy politicians will end up stuffing it in their pockets anyway?   

Where does it begin and end? 

Here’s the kicker – before Prop 8, Ms. Etheridge had the same rights she has today.  She is able to legally be with her partner (just without the use of the word marriage).  Nothing has changed.  She is no more a second class citizen now than she was last October 2008.  Come and talk to me about being a second class citizen when you are really mistreated and denied your rights, like not being allowed to vote, or denied access to a restaurant because you’re gay – not just because the majority of California has an opinion different than yours.   

In her blog, Melissa also asks “Since when did we start legislating morality?”  Here’s the answer - always.  Does she not realize that when the government says “Murder is wrong” it is legislating morality?  Or how about when the laws state that it is not okay for a 40 year old man to rape a 10 year old girl?  That is legislating morality is it not?   

Anyway, I expect that if this woman does not pay her taxes, the full authority of the law will come down on her.  I’d ask Wesley Snipes how he would feel about Melissa getting away with not paying taxes.  

If they allow one person to skip taxes based on ideology, then maybe it’s time we all did.  After all, how many people can the government actually fit in Federal prison?   My guess is there’s not enough room to hold every single American that hates to pay taxes.  

Last night he had Dr. Drew Pinsky as a guest.  Dr. Drew is pretty well known (recently has the celebrity rehab shown on VH-1. 

Glen and Dr. Drew were discussing the emotional reaction to the AIG bonus scandal (see a clip here).  Glen brought up the fact that United States SENATORS were making ridiculous statements such as suggesting AIG employees who received bonuses should commit suicide (Sen. Grassley – sadly a Republican from Iowa), and the apathetic reactions (like just shrugging your shoulders and continuing with nonsense) from the likes of Sen. Barney Frank when Liddy (current CEO of AIG) advised that AIG employees had received death threats (some as horribly descriptive as using telephone wire and involving their families and children) and that releasing their names publicly could bring serious harm to innocent families – yes, Sen. Frank just continued with his gibberish.   

The general nature of the discussion, and it’s worth watching the whole clip, was that these overreactions by United States Senators, people who are supposed to be the leaders and are the lawmakers, were narcissistic and borderline crazy.  Beck suggested that it was a mob mentality on behalf of these politicians – trying to overrule the law (by finding ways to void a legal contract) and letting their emotions rule instead of the law (emotions that are fake and hypocritical anyway - see yesterday’s post for more on that) .  

Dr. Drew compared what is going on now to pre-French Revolution times, where those at the top thought they were “above the law.”  It made sense since there are actually US Senators thinking that in “solving” these problems they can overstep laws, retroactively implement laws, and tax 100% of the money that an individual made privately in a legally binding contract, which is completely ridiculous.

Based on last night’s show, I did a little more research because the media is spinning this story every which way, except in the way of truth.  First, I want to make clear some things I learned, that I did not get from reading any MSM notes. 

* Of note, Ed Liddy, the current CEO of AIG, came out of retirement (called upon as a public service) to help out with the AIG mess.  He did not create the mess and for some people to call for jail time of Liddy is stupid and defies any common sense (even Sen. Frank had to openly admit that). 

* The so-called “performance” bonuses everyone is all in a “rage” over, are actually retention bonuses.  What’s the difference you ask?  Well, Liddy explained it very well.  AIG needs to get back on its feet in order to pay back the money they took from the Federal government.  AIG will never get back on its feet if the people working there now just quit and leave behind a mess, without winding down the sections of the company that created the problem.  In order to keep these people working there, they paid them money to stay and do a good job in winding these areas of the company down.  Once they were done with the winding down aspect, they were allowed to leave.  Ignoramus, Sen. Barney Frank, doesn’t get that.  He keeps saying that he wants the names of the people that took money from AIG and then just quit.  HELLOOO!!! That was the point of retention payments - pay these people to finish the job (even if it was “distasteful” to give them any money as Liddy stated), which is necessary to keep AIG afloat, and then get rid of them. 

Nobody likes the bailouts- nobody wants to hear about people getting million dollar bonuses, but what is making this situation worse is the lack of truthful explanation from the government, especially the Treasury and the President, and the media’s refusal yet again to be unbiased and to seek the full story. 

Politicians are so intent on holding on to their power, making money, and still looking like the heros in front of the American people, that they are crumbling.  You cannot have it all.  You cannot always have your way.  And most importantly, the truth always, always, always comes to light – even if it’s not at the moment. 

Michelle Malkin has a good take on it (btw she looked great on the Glenn Beck show and is very well spoken – I can say that even though I disagree with her delivery of message on certain issues). 

Update:  Friday’s CG here’s a good read from Michael Goodwyn at the NY Daily News.

Hypocrite – a good word to describe President Obama.  While he is screaming and declaring his “outrage”  at AIG for paying out bonuses based on “performance” in 2008 – which is ridiculous in itself – he apparently forgot that he received $104,333 from AIG in 2008. Hat tip to CG for the link and to Cara Ellison for the short but sweet summary.   

To be fair, the list of politicians who have received contributions from AIG is long and it includes Republicans and Democrats alike (although it shows Democrats received the majority of the contributions in 2008).  In my opinion, anyone pretending to be offended by AIG paying out bonuses, while receiving money from them is a hypocrite. 

Anyway, this reminds me of a comparison someone made about Democrats trying to “fix” the housing and economic problems – they said something like “it’s like an arsonist coming back and trying to help put out a fire he started.”  I wish I could remember the source of that quote.  The point being that first Democrats create these horrible messes, and then pretend to be outraged, all while still managing to make a profit.   

One of the biggest claims Democrats/liberals always make is that Republicans stand for big corporations.  The repeat over and over that Republicans are not for the people, they’re for big business, etc, etc.  The truth (and I learned it recently and the hard way) is that politicians from both sides get money from corporations.  I’ll be the first to say that I was (maybe still am to some point) a Wal-Mart hater.  I had it in my head that Wal-Mart “oppressed” workers and they got away with it by paying off Republicans – yes, I was one of many victims of the mainstream media.  I’ve slowly learned that corporations are necessary to create a little something that the U.S. needs – it’s called JOBS.  

I don’t want to ramble – just wanted to note Obama’s hypocrisy – not that it’s the first, or the last time, there will be opportunity to point it out.

On March 9, 2009, Obama lifted the ban on embryonic stem cell research.  President Bush had formerly placed restrictions, and was only funding embryonic stem cell lines produced before August 9, 2001.   

Once again, Barack Obama reveals his true stance on things – not the moderate BS he spewed day-in-and day-out while on campaign.  Worst of all, he is promoting bad science.  

I can easily argue why this is morally wrong from a religious standpoint, but I’ll stick to my argument of bad science.   

Obama has just approved the use of taxpayer money to fund a science that has had no success in its research.  The taxpayer money will fund embryonic stem cell research, which involves the murder of human embryos (babies), but has yet to be successful in treating diseases.  This, in spite of the fact that Adult Stem Cell research (which does not involve destroying embryos and is described as “fragments of skin to create stem cells”) has been recognized as a better alternative and has been successful in treating various diseases. 

Daniel McConchie wrote about the false hope of embryonic stem cell research on The Center for Bioethics Human Dignity website.  

Mr. Hughes at the COG For Life blog states it best (in my opinion):  

“Adult stem cells (or, more accurately, tissue stem cells) are regenerative cells of the human body that possess the characteristic of plasticity–the ability to specialize and develop into other tissues of the body. Beginning in an unspecialized and undeveloped state, they can be coaxed to become heart tissue, neural matter, skin cells, and a host of other tissues. They are found in our own organs and tissues such as fat, bone marrow, umbilical cord blood, placentas, neuronal sources, and olfactory tissue, which resides in the upper nasal cavity.[2] This simple fact has remarkable implications for medicine–diseased or damaged tissue can become healthy and robust through the infusion of such cells. This has consequently commanded the attention of many researchers as well as those suffering from disease.   

It is necessary to note that the power of adult stem cells is not nebulously potential, but tangible and real, as it has produced wonderful results in multiple cases. These have been documented in clinical trials, that is, treatments with human patients. With adult stem cells, physicians have successfully treated autoimmune diseases such as lupus, multiple sclerosis, Crohn’s disease, and rheumatoid arthritis.[3] Furthermore, adult stem cells have helped to avert corneal degeneration and to restore vision in cases of blindness.[4] They have also restored proper cardiac function to heart attack sufferers[5] and improved movement in spinal cord injury patients.[”  

It is worth reading the whole thing (note that he wrote this in 2004).   

In 2007, the man who created Dolly the sheep by cloning, abandoned cloning altogether because he realized that adult stem cell research had the “best chance of leading to effective cures for chronic illnesses.”   

You can find many more articles about the success of adult stem cell research just by Googling.   

My point is this – why promote, and fund with taxpayer money, a science that has not yielded positive results and is at the center of a moral argument, when there is a better alternative?  I can find no real reason other than eagerness to promote your political views.   

If Obama were to admit that adult stem cell research has been more successful than embryonic stem cell research, he would essentially be saying that conservatives and many Republicans (including President Bush) were right, and that Democrats and liberal nuts were wrong.  

President Obama, the man who campaigned on bringing people together, would rather keep Americans separated by lies than united in truth.  Truth be damned with Mr. Obama – who needs truth when lies have gotten you the White House, and who needs truth when lies bring in more money to your causes, right?   

Update:  In doing further reading, I found someone that said it way better than I could and ties in the financial aspects of the argument.  Good read.