What if I had a cure for Parkinson's, leukemia, diabetes, or paralysis caused by spinal cord injury? All you would have to do is take an infant, remove all of its stem cells (sorry, the infant dies), tweak the cells, and transfer them to the ill patient.

Would you do it?

Most people wouldn't and would consider that murderous act barbaric. Yet those who favor embryonic stem cell research are in effect doing just that in the eyes of those who are pro-life.

If you believe that life begins at conception, then even using an embryo for research purposes is an act of murder.

President Bush has been adamantly opposed to federal funding for embryonic stem cell research for that very reason. (The Bush stance only opposes federal funding--not outlawing private research.)

McCain has voted for existing embryonic stem cell research in the past, but those measures failed. John McCain is opposed to embryonic stem cell research that would encourage growing embryos for the purpose. The Republican platform is against any federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, but THEY ALL, BUSH, McCAIN, and PALIN FAVOR FEDERAL FUNDING FOR ADULT STEM CELL RESEARCH! 

The outrageous Obama radio ad that distorts McCain's position includes a woman talking about her diabetic daughter. She says that John McCain is opposed to stem cell research. It goes on to say that medical research, benefiting millions, shouldn't be held hostage by a few.

So why do the Democrats constantly tell people that McCain and Bush are against stem cell research?

Two reasons: One, they want to portray the Republicans as heartless cretins, too stuck on religious principal to care about the ill. Two, if the Democrats can get people to buy into the necessity for embryonic stem cell research, it will dilute the anti-abortion/sanctity of life position of conservatives.

The issue should become moot in time, according to CNS, which is consistent with what I have seen reported*,

Stem cells obtained from adult humans have been widely acclaimed for their ability to promote human health and stave off dreaded illnesses. Stem cells obtained from human embryos, however, have not been successful in yielding results in scientific research thus far.

It will be wonderful to cure some of these diseases in the near future. McCain and Palin are in favor of curing these diseases too, just not at the expense of another individual! Remember that next time you hear an Obama ad saying they aren't.

PS Nick Reed (substitute for Vicki McKenna) called the mother, Jody Montgomery, from the ad to ask if she knew she was telling a complete lie. Turns out, this is the same woman who used the same type ad against Mark Green 2 years ago. Listen to the podcast from the 10am hour on Sept. 24th to hear more.

*Nick Reed just name some of the 73 benefits to human patients obtained from ADULT stem cell research on the same radio program. He continued the stem cell discussion into the 11am hour. He mentioned the 73 benefits at about 11:20am if you were listening to the podcast. See Stemcellresearch.org 

Brookfield District 7 Info meeting, Wed., Sept. 24, 2-3pm or 6:30-7:30pm City Clerk Kris Schmidt will be in attendance to answer questions or concerns regarding recent news about the Van Hollen lawsuit against the state elections authority.

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

I would like to formally retract a comment I made on Cindy Kilkenny's Fairly Conservative blog. It was regarding Tina Fey's impersonation of Sarah Palin on Saturday Night Live (Sept. 13th.) I said,

I did not see the program but heard about it today and read the script. Unbelievable. There is NOTHING funny about incest and certainly nothing funny about hinting at it going on in the Palin household. NBC's Saturday Night Live might think they can pass this sketch off as a slam on the New York Times, but I think it is just a disgusting attempt to further smear the Republican's VP pick.

Speaking of slamming the New York Times, today, McCain strategist Steve Schmidt called the New York Times a "Pro-Obama Advocacy Organization,"

Let's be clear and be honest with each other. Whatever the New York Times once was, it is today not by any standard a journalistic organization.

"It is a pro-Obama advocacy organization that every day, attacks the McCain campaign, attacks Gov. Palin and excuses Sen. Obama."

"There is no level of public vetting. There is no level of outrage ... let's not be dishonest and call it something other than what it is. Everything that is in the New York Times that attacks this campaign should be evaluated from that perspective."

Don't forget, MS-NBC is "in the tank" for Obama too. 

No other candidate has been treated like Sarah Palin has--ever. To have the lefty media attack her and her family like this is truly vile.

If the liberal media keeps this up, soon they will have no independent minded or conservative viewers left. This election is certainly showing the media's true blue state colors.

Brookfield District 7 Info meeting, Wed., Sept. 24, 2-3pm or 6:30-7:30pm City Clerk Kris Schmidt will be in attendance to answer questions or concerns regarding recent news about the Van Hollen lawsuit against the state elections authority.

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

I am a little puzzled by this statement, since the Democrat's presidential candidate and platform are pro-abortion too.

The Roman Catholic group, Fidelis, says Barack Obama's selection of pro-abortion Catholic Joe Biden to be his V.P. running mate "is a slap in the face to Catholic voters" and poses a major challenge for American Catholics.

In a press release sent out overnight, Fidelis president, Brian Burch, declared that Barack Obama has "re-opened a wound among American Catholics" by picking a pro-abortion Catholic politician like Joe Biden.

According to Burch, the American Catholic bishops have made it clear that Catholic political leaders must defend the dignity of every human person, including the unborn. 

The article goes on to state Joe Biden's "steadfast support for legal abortion" in the US Senate. 

This same issue came up in the 2004 election when John Kerry "sparked a nationwide controversy over whether Catholics who support legal abortion can receive communion." 

The Catholic group's president, Brian Burch stated, "Selecting a pro-abortion Catholic is a slap in the face to Catholic voters."

According to Burch, "The American bishops have instructed Catholic voters to consider many issues, but have characterized the defense of human life as foundational and have explained that the issue has a special claim on the conscience of the Catholic voter. This means that a political candidate like Biden, because of his strong support for abortion rights, forfeits any claim for support despite his views on other issues like health care and the economy."

I would agree with Mr. Burch that this issue is foundational.

What I don't quite understand is why would a pro-life Catholic (or a pro-life voter from any other religion) be voting for Barack Obama--the most anti pro-life candidate? 

Links: 

Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield, Mark Levin,   Vicki Mckenna

If you remember, The American Family Association objected to McDonald's joining the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce, making a $20,000 donation to that group, and placing a McDonald's executive on the their board back in April. McDonald's did not take the AFA's objections very seriously.

This month, the AFA is dialing up their objections a notch; they recently announced a McDonald's boycott because of McDonald's refusal "to stay neutral in the cultural war over homosexuality." From The Washington Post:

The [AFA] association asked McDonald's to remove itself from the chamber but the burger-maker declined, leading to the boycott. "We're saying that there are people who support AFA who don't appreciate their dollars from the hamburgers they bought being put into an organization that's going to fight against the values they believe in," Tim Wildmon, the association's president, said yesterday.

"Hatred has no place in our culture," McDonald's USA spokesman Bill Whitman said. "That includes McDonald's, and we stand by and support our people to live and work in a society free of discrimination and harassment."

"Hatred?"  Who said anything about hatred? All AFA asked was that McDonald's stop supporting the Gay/Lesbian Chamber, a group the AFA sees as promoting anti-family values, such as same sex marriage.

To be perfectly clear about what this boycott is NOT and IS about, the AFA has stated their position in plain English on their boycott page:

Links:  

I attended the Human Growth and Development (Sex Ed.) work session Tuesday night. Several of the HG&D parent committee members were in the audience along with some interested parents. 

It was great to see many of our board members boldly standing up for the rights of the parent members of the HG&D committee as well as their own right to review and approve of specific lesson plans and materials used for Elmbrook's Sex Education program.

On a minor note, Glen Allgaier questioned the change in terms from STD (sexually transmitted disease) to STI (sexually transmitted infection). He said that the word "disease" caught his attention more than "infection." I would agree with that. Disease seems more detrimental than the term infection, especially considering some of these "infections" are fatal or incurable. The change from STD to STI was not made by Elmbrook, but was a change made by the CDC, I believe. (Update: See comment below from Cheri who notes that CDC still uses STD. Anyone know why we changed to STI?)

Another question about terminology that keeps cropping up is, what is meant by "curriculum?" This becomes important when discussing who is responsible for approving curriculum. Are we talking outcomes/general topics or actual teaching materials/lesson plans?

Dave Marcello said he would be in favor of getting curriculum in place, not outcomes. Outcomes is fuzzy.

Tom Gehl noted that it may be semantics, with curriculum, I conjure films, lesson plans, etc. 

Later in the meeting, Glen Allgaier suggested that they should just drop the word curriculum all together and just talk lesson plans and outcomes.

I would agree, because then everyone would know exactly what was being decided on. Are we agreeing to just the general topics of what is to be taught (outcomes)? or are we talking about the exact lesson plans and materials used to teach that topic?

If you remember, this was brought up before. Eileen Depka and Dr. Stewart say curriculum is the collective word for the total of individual outcomes. But State Statute 118.019 does state, "...nothing in the law prevents the [HG&D] committee from actually writing and developing lessons or a curriculum, for that matter." It later refers to "curriculum (lessons)" in their instructions.

Curriculum review is one area the HG&D committee does not agree on:

12 of the committee agreed: I believe that the HG&D Advisory Committee should review and approve all outcomes and Certified faculty should create the lessons. Grade Level parents (2 or more) should review the lessons and provide recommendations prior to adoption. Parents can review any lesson before their student participates in the class. (Current practice)*

5 of the committee agreed: I believe that the HG&D Advisory Committee should review and approve all outcomes and all lessons. Parents can review any lesson before their student participates in the class. 

*My note: It may be current practice in principle, but not in reality. At the last meeting we were told by the Pilgrim Park Principal that the binders were not available for parental perusal.  

So 5 of the HG&D committee wish a greater role in reviewing and approving the actual lessons taught. According to State Statute, they have that right.

Depka many times said that allowing the parents on the committee to approve of actual lessons would slow the process down. She seemed to favor that the teachers gather the materials--some prepared, some designed--and then parents (not necessarily HG&D parents) can look at the program. If all of that went to committee, it slows down the process.

David Marcello asked how long would that take?

One semester for the staff approval method, Depka answered. Dr. Stewart said that maybe we need to say, this is what we need done, this is the time frame.  She added, This time we are not starting from zero--some (outcomes) were not changed.

Marcello then said, we heard testimony for Pilgrim Park's Principal Galster that the binders are not in order. We ought to give support to teachers and parents sooner than later. I am in favor of speeding up the process, that is why I like the pre-printed materials. (The "Game Plan" Galster held up at the April school board meeting from Just Say Yes.)

I think Depka and Stewart said that they looked at them, but had not been given any materials.

Marcello estimated that 70% of parents probably would agree with the parents on the committee (that the pre-printed program was good.)

Board President Meg Wartman mentioned that the board had not approved of those materials. She also mentioned that as policy is written now, there is no formalized step for parent review. They then talked about where parent review would come in to play.

Dr. Gibson emphasized that the authority (for approval) resides with the board.

Steve Schwei doesn't think any board review of lessons is needed. (He earlier referred to board review as micromanaging.)

Marcello rebutted, someone should.

Gehl said, what I am looking for is elevating the voice of parents to that of staff.

The Journal reported Gehl as saying, "greater scrutiny is warranted because without it, Elmbrook and other districts have 'led to a case where (sexual) abstinence is presented as an option, but it's nowhere close to being presented as the healthiest option.'" We're not standing behind the policy that says abstinence is promoted. I looked at the pre-packaged, Just Say Yes. I liked much of it. It addresses hesitant teachers, it is uniform, transparent, consistent and aggressively promotes abstinence as the healthiest choice.

Gibson again said the way policy is currently written, (review) is not the role for the board or parents.

Marcello stood up for parents again, We'd like to see parents review this. Later he added, Why wouldn't you solicit the parents on HG&D? 

Depka stated that they want to expand to more parents to look at all materials. In just approving outcomes it took 1/2 year already. If we took actual lessons, it would take longer.

Allgaier said, We have a terrific source in this HG&D team. I would advocate for a very strong role of HG&D team parents. They will reach consensus, the ones (lessons) with disagreement will come to the board.

Wartman added, Prior to parent review, the HG&D team should review. 

There was lots of back an forth on the issue of who reviews the lessons. Some comparisons were made to how they approve of other classes like math, but to me, that is rather apples to oranges.

HG&D parent members, who wish a greater role in reviewing and approving what is being taught in HG&D, have every right to that role. Board members Allgaier, Marcello, Gehl, and probably Jones, seem like they are interested in reviewing/approving at the very least the HG&D lessons the committee couldn't come to consensus on.

It may not be the way we did it in the past, but that does not mean that the way we used to do it is the only way to accomplish the goal of a HG&D program. Plus, past methodology is hardly a shining beacon. Remember last year when oral sex instruction was going to be taught to 6th graders without proper approval process?

Considering there is pre-written curriculum in place that the parent members of the HG&D committee and middle school principal Galster thought excellent, it would seem pre-printed would be the more efficient place to start, rather than reinventing the wheel.

One statement from Dr. Gibson stands out as a glaring, What? Fairly Conservative talked about that yesterday. Please know that nothing the HG&D parents asked for was "Christian" material. Just Say Yes is not a Christian based group either, and an emphasis on abstinence as the best choice is the State's priority.

Past Postings: Updated: So What Happened With HG&D and School Board? April 11, 2008

Links:

McDonald's has been showing it's true rainbow colors as of late, and I'm not lovin it. What next? Ronald McDonald coming out of the closet? (Ooh, not ready for that!)

On April 2, 2008, I received an Action Alert from American Family Association, a conservative Christian group. It informed that "McDonald's has signed on to a nationwide effort to promote 'gay' and 'lesbian' business ventures."  

Less than a week later, AFA sent out McDonald's rebuttal to the AFA's accusation that they are "aggressively promoting the homosexual agenda." AFA addressed McDonald's rebuttal: (McDonald's remarks are in bold, AFA's are in normal type.)

 “While one McDonald’s employee is affiliated with the National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce (NGLCC), McDonald’s is in no way ‘aggressively promoting the homosexual agenda’ as suggested in the newsletter.”

To refer to Richard Ellis, who is the vice president of communications for McDonald’s, as “one McDonald’s employee,” as if he is a teenager flipping hamburgers, is disingenuous at best.

While “aggressively” is admittedly a subjective term, AFA believes that giving money to and partnering with a homosexual lobby organization is certainly an enthusiastic promotion of the homosexual agenda.


“The NGLCC is a non-profit organization dedicated to support economic opportunities for the gay and lesbian business community.”

It is quite clear from the NGLCC Web site that that organization not only supports “economic opportunities” for homosexuals, it also lobbies Congress on a wide range of issues related to the gay agenda.

This is the press release from the National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce about McDonald's Vice President of Communications, Richard Ellis, being added to the NGLCC board. It also mentions Ellis is an active member on the Board of Directors for the AIDS Foundation of Chicago.

Today I received another Action Alert. It stated that McDonald's is still saying they are not a member of the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce. McDonald's Vice-President Jack Daly stated that although they gave the NGLCC $20,000, "Richard Ellis was elected to the NGLCC board as a private citizen and not a representative of McDonald's." 

Watch the ad and decide for yourself if Richard Ellis is acting as a private citizen. (If he is, why is McDonald's name used and logo evident?) "So dedicated to promoting gay activities on public streets, McDonald's sponsored the 2007 San Francisco Gay Pride parade with a television commercial. In the ad, McDonald’s brags that it is 'a company that actively demonstrates its commitment to the gay and lesbian community.'”

According to a OneNewsNow* poll, 83.64% of those surveyed answered, Yes, to the question, "Is the decision by McDonald's to help fund homosexual activism enough for you and your family to start eating at another fast-food restaurant?" Granted, the survey might have been from a conservative pool of people, but can any corporation afford to alienate that large of a customer group?

That article cited a similar incident with Wal-Mart a few years ago: "...two years ago, Wal-Mart joined the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce. But after AFA representatives discussed the matter with Wal-Mart officials, the company allowed their position on the Chamber's board to expire -- and according to Wildmon, Wal-Mart is no longer a member of the NGLCC."

If this is an important issue to you, send McDonald's an email (link is to pre-written email--use as is or write your own) or give their president, Andrew McKenna a call: Phone: 1-800-244-6227 or: 630-623-3000, E-Mail: Andrew J. McKenna, Since McDonald's are franchised, speak to your individual store manager and let them know how you feel about this affiliation.  

*OneNewsNow is part of the American Family News Network.  

Past Posts: Strength in numbers translates to policy changes or When people/money talk, companies listen

Links: