During a segment on Friday’s Newsroom program, CNN senior medical correspondent Elizabeth Cohen heralded the FDA’s approval of the first human clinical trial involving embryo-destroying stem cell research. Cohen then gave a soft interview of the president and CEO of the company involved in the trial, who made the bizarre claim that new medical breakthroughs, including corneal transplants and anesthesia for women in childbirth, were supposedly “always met with concerns from the Religious Right” in the past. Cohen did not follow-up to this statement by the CEO.
The segment, which began 17 minutes into the 11 am Eastern hour of the CNN program, began with anchor Tony Harris trumpeting how the FDA’s approval of the embryonic stem cell clinical trial represented “major milestone in this field of research.” He then asked Cohen to “explain to us how significant a day this is.” The correspondent gushed in reply, “This is a big day, and I will tell you, I interviewed Christopher Reeve many times about stem cells, and I think he would probably be smiling if he were here to see this day.” She did not bring up the moral objections to embryo destruction in her explanation of the breaking news item which followed, just that “some say that some of this research has been overblown, and a it’s not quite as promising as many people say.”
Cohen then introduced Doctor Thomas Okarma, the president and CEO of the Geron Corporation, the biomedical research outfit involved in the clinical trial. She first asked the “Christopher Reeve” question -- if the technology could “make human beings who are paraplegic walk again.” When Okarma answered that patients might see “modest improvement in patients with so-called complete injuries who are paralyzed for life,” Cohen replied, “So if people are hearing this and are thinking, oh, wow, with this treatment, paraplegics are going to hop out of their wheelchairs and walk again, you’re telling us, right now, be a little more realistic.”
Later, the medical correspondent concluded by asking a question which oversimplified conservatives’ objections to embryonic stem cell research: “Now, in 2001 -- you know this well -- there was an outcry. There were some folks who said embryonic stem cell research involves destroying an embryo and they were incensed. They said that this research should not go on. Are you hearing from those folks now or has some of that uproar died down?”
Okarma’s strange reply:
OKARMA: Well, most of the uproar has died down, and we would hope that if we show safety and utility in this clinical trial, it will go away forever. This is a new idea, and any new idea as big as this one always generates controversy. So the first corneal transplant, the first use of anesthesia to achieve painless childbirth -- historically, these were always met with concerns from the Religious Right. So we hope to demonstrate that using an embryo that would have been destroyed or discarded to treat millions of patients with chronic disease is a very ethical step forward.
The “Religious Right” opposed corneal transplants? That’s news to the University of Louisville’s Lion Eye Bank. On their frequently asked questions webpage about cornea/eye donation, the Eye Bank answered that “[c]ornea/eye donations are consistent with the beliefs and attitudes of major religions.” Also, on the issue of anesthesia for women undergoing childbirth, the Wood Library-Museum of Anesthesiology, in an article marking the sesquicentennial (one hundred fiftieth anniversary) of the first modern obstetric anesthetic in 1847, cited a paper which “debunks the idea that the physicians objected to anesthesia for religious reasons - a myth...perpetuated by generations of writers.”
The full transcript of the segment from Friday’s Newsroom program:
TONY HARRIS: Breaking news in medicine now -- the U.S. government has approved the world’s first known embryonic stem cell trial in humans. It is something ‘Superman’ actor Christopher Reeve fought hard for. He helped propel spinal cord injury into the national spotlight after his own paralysis. Now, a little more than four years after his death, his wish coming true -- the stem cell study aimed at spinal injury. It is a major milestone in this field of research. CNN senior medical correspondent Elizabeth Cohen is joining me now to talk about, and Elizabeth, explain to us how significant a day this is.
ELIZABETH COHEN: This is a big day, and I will tell you, I interviewed Christopher Reeve many times about stem cells, and I think he would probably be smiling if he were here to see this day. Let me tell you what’s happening -- stem cell -- embryonic stem cell research has been going on for about a decade now, but it’s never been tried out in human clinical trials. So today, the Geron Corporation announced that they’re going to try it out in human beings who’ve had spinal cord injuries. What we’re talking about is stem cells that are taken from a human embryo -- the embryo is destroyed, the stem cells taken out, turned into a treatment, given to people with spinal cord injuries -- first known clinical trial happening this summer.
HARRIS: And I know you have a guest coming up -- a very special guest coming up --
COHEN: Yes.
HARRIS: But one more quick question. What kind of potential does this research hold?
COHEN: You know, it holds potential, not just for spinal cord injury, but also for other diseases. The Geron Corporation says that they want to start human trials also for folks who have heart problems, folks who have liver problems -- these treatments might hold promise for Parkinson’s disease, for other kinds of illnesses. Now, some say that some of this research has been overblown, and a it’s not quite as promising as many people say, and now, well, we’re going the find out. They’re definitely putting it to the test. We have with us Dr. Thomas Okarma. He’s the president and CEO of the Geron Corporation. Good morning, Doctor Okarma.
DOCTOR THOMAS OKARMA, THE GERON CORPORATION: Good morning.
COHEN: Thanks for joining us today.
OKARMA: You’re welcome.
COHEN: My big question for you, sir, is your company has made paraplegic mice walk again using these human embryonic stem cells. Do you think you can make human beings who are paraplegic walk again using this treatment?
OKARMA: Well, that’s obviously our hope. What we actually expect to see is modest improvement in patients with so-called complete injuries who are paralyzed for life. Slight improvements in sensation, bladder control, locomotion -- could be amplified with physical therapy. So we’re trying to fit the frame-shift outcome from one of no hope to one of progressive rehabilitation.
COHEN: So if people are hearing this and are thinking, oh, wow, with this treatment, paraplegics are going to hop out of their wheelchairs and walk again, you’re telling us, right now, be a little more realistic.
OKARMA: Exactly, and also, the first set of trials will be limited to patients who’ve had their injury within seven to 14 days of the injection. So in our animal work, we’ve shown that these cells do not work months after the injury.
COHEN: Right, that’s an important point, that it has to be a relatively new injury. Dr. Okarma, talk to us about other research using you’re doing. You want to use human embryonic stem cells for people with other kinds of problems. Can you talk to me about that?
OKARMA: Well, we’ve learned to make eight different differentiated cells, each of which addresses a major unmet chronic disease, so heart muscle cells for heart failure, eyelets for diabetes, liver cells for liver failure, condrocytes or cartilage for arthritis, bone cells for osteoporosis, and an immune cell for cancer immunotherapy. So our initial pipeline of embryonic stem cell base products addresses an enormous number of patients with chronic diseases whose symptoms are only mildly met by using pharmaceuticals.
COHEN: Now, in 2001 -- you know this well -- there was an outcry. There were some folks who said embryonic stem cell research involves destroying an embryo and they were incensed. They said that this research should not go on. Are you hearing from those folks now or has some of that uproar died down?
OKARMA: Well, most of the uproar has died down, and we would hope that if we show safety and utility in this clinical trial, it will go away forever. This is a new idea, and any new idea as big as this one always generates controversy. So the first corneal transplant, the first use of anesthesia to achieve painless childbirth -- historically, these were always met with concerns from the Religious Right. So we hope to demonstrate that using an embryo that would have been destroyed or discarded to treat millions of patients with chronic disease is a very ethical step forward.
COHEN: Dr. Okarma, thank you for joining us from California to talk about embryonic stem cells, and we’d like to see how the Geron Corporation trials continue. We look forward to hearing from you again.
OKARMA: Thank you.
HARRIS: Will you keep us posted, please, on the progress here?
COHEN: I will -- fascinating stuff -- absolutely
HARRIS: Yeah, what a day. Ok, Elizabeth -- appreciate it. Thank you.
—Matthew Balan is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.





















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
It's a little known fact
Fri, 01/23/2009 - 18:58 ET by BlazerIt's a little known fact that Barack Obama likes to break open a raw egg and blend it together with a human fetus and a smidgeon of wheatgrass to start the day off.
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
" The Cake is a lie."
Blaze... It may be worse
Fri, 01/23/2009 - 19:32 ET by Clear thinkerBlaze...
It may be worse than we know... Rick Warren Bad Mouths Christianity
Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/
CT
Fri, 01/23/2009 - 20:04 ET by choselife3xRick Warren, Joel Osteen and their ilk have always creeped me out. Anyone who gets rich off their use of the Word of God is automatically a huckster in my book.
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
"It may be worse than we
Fri, 01/23/2009 - 20:22 ET by Blazer"It may be worse than we know..."
Actually not.If Jesus didn' tspeaki t,then no problem.
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
" The Cake is a lie."
Blazer, be careful.........
Sat, 01/24/2009 - 06:19 ET by old croany mention of Ohhbama eating eggs seems to set dr_devil_dog (where you be?) into a rage and he is perplexed if someone mentions that ;)
Ah, the vaunted Religious Right
Sat, 01/24/2009 - 08:24 ET by bpjamI bet those dastardly Religious types also opposed other medical advances like: Bloodletting, Electroshock 'therapy' and Frontal Lobotomies.
But hey, what kind of logic can you expect from people who oppose destroy life for the sake of curiousity.
What this guy is really
Fri, 01/23/2009 - 19:07 ET by MidAmericaWhat this guy is really saying is that results are not assurred so without government funding we won't take the risk just using his companies money. ....or he is just bellying his company up to the govenment money trough. and why not? The democrats are so desparate to have embryonic stem cell research funded by the government they will gladly pay someone to do it.
It's no surprise that the
Fri, 01/23/2009 - 19:17 ET by kgIt's no surprise that the media always leaves out the part of "Federally funded" meaning tax payer's money.
"Forget change, I want improvement!"
kg.... Spot on. Of
Fri, 01/23/2009 - 20:05 ET by bigtimerkg....
Spot on.
Of course we all know they do this purposely...what the heck, matters not.
Agenda, agenda, agenda...at any cost.
You're spot on, MA
Fri, 01/23/2009 - 22:50 ET by Indiana JoeIn fact, even Christopher Reeve was quoted as saying that embryonic SC research offered no hope for his problem, IIRC. He was a proponent of stem cell research, which is going on right now. In fact, there are already stem cell therapies out there, some of which are becoming very common. Adult stem cell therapies, using self-donation, familial donation, and type-and-match donation.
In theory, fetal stem cells offer more flexibility than adult cells, but there is not one shred of proof that they would cure any particular affliction. It's a theory that sounds good, and serves a political purpose. That's about all it is.
And you hit the nail with the statement about the $$$. If ESC research was so promising, entrepreneurs would be lining up to fund it. That's obvious. There is plenty of money to be made in health-care, that's the other side of the "too expensive" coin.
With the technology to implant "test-tube babies" in a woman's womb, destroying fetuses in a lab is about as much an abortion as destroying them in vitro. I'm sure a way could be found to donate these "excess" fetuses to couples who can't afford the in vitro procedure. Now, I may be willing to have my government help pay for that! This is just another scam to make that destruction seem to serve some "good."
If the Feds (that's US, btw) will pay to destroy a fetus in a tube, why not one in a woman's womb, especially if she wants it destroyed? Another step towards making a fetus mere "property."
"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss..." - The Who
IJ... You said it
Fri, 01/23/2009 - 23:04 ET by bigtimerIJ...
You said it all...filled in a heck of a lot that some of us don't know about, or are too tired to post it like you did so well.
Just wanted to say thank-you.
Hey, bt
Fri, 01/23/2009 - 23:36 ET by Indiana JoeHappy to oblige, and thanks.
Really, too many people (especially the proponents of ESC) have no idea what they're talking about. I have some small knowledge, and some strong opinions.
Obviously. ;^)
"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss..." - The Who
At last count there were 73
Sat, 01/24/2009 - 07:49 ET by GrannyGrump42At last count there were 73 SUCCESSFUL treatment regimens involving adult stem cells (such as the process that took stem cells from my sister's bone marrow to put her cancer into remission), and ZERO involving embryonic stem cells.
http://www.stemcellresearch.org/facts/treatments.htm
To my knowledge, the one attempt to put embryonic cells into human beings resulted in "absolutely devastating" and totally untreatable side effects, with no therapeutic result whatsoever.
http://realchoice.0catch.com/library/weekly/aa031201a.htm
But you see, if you use embryonic stem cells, you can PATENT THE TREATMENT. There's a lot more money in it. This is why the US researchers cling to embryonic stem cells with the (very appropriate) tenacity of the damned.
And the MSM clings to embryonic stem cells because it dehumanizes embryos and demonizes the prolife movement.
Neither side gives a rat's ass about what's good for the patients.
"Neither side gives a rat's
Sat, 01/24/2009 - 09:33 ET by NL207"Neither side gives a rat's ass about what's good for the patients"
This is cynical garbage spoken in ignorance. I know researchers who OPPOSE fetal stem cell research because they know that a huge number of the laboratory experiments done on lower animals using fetal stem cells from those animals has led to cancer in the treated animals. They think there is significant risk of the same occurring in humans.
"Sir, The good news is we cured your diabetes, the bad news is we gave you pancreatic cancer."
By "neither side" I meant
Sun, 01/25/2009 - 16:18 ET by GrannyGrump42By "neither side" I meant "neither the MSM nor the ESC researchers".
Fetal Stem Cells
Sat, 01/24/2009 - 09:21 ET by allanfMid American's point is excellent. Nothing the goverment did prevented this man's company from using fetal stem cells, so long as the work was conducted without Federal funding.
As a businessman, he would be better served steering clear of politics.
Another myth of the
Sat, 01/24/2009 - 09:38 ET by lotrAnother myth of the pop-left propaganda machine: That "Pres. Bush outlawed promising stem cell research." The Democratic Party itself could not spin it better.
Embryonic stem cell research ought to be outlawed worldwide. Pres. Bush only withheld U.S. taxpayer dollars from funding it.
And one by one dropped the revellers in the blood-bedewed halls of their revel, and died each in the despairing posture of his fall. -- Edgar Allan Poe
Bailout mentality
Sat, 01/24/2009 - 15:07 ET by KC MulvilleExcellent point, MidAmerica!
They want the government to bail them out, if the research doesn't prove to be commercially viable. They're now treating the government like a bank (but we now own the banks, thanks to the bailout). The banks refused to lend that money until there was some sign of commerical interest. But the government disperses money for political reasons, and doesn't care about whether the investment will return anything.
And so, socialism has begun -- when money is directed to political ends, and not commercial ends. This is just the first step.
The politics of this
Sat, 01/24/2009 - 16:06 ET by MidAmericaThe politics of this embryonic stem cell funding has a really sick side to it. It involves using the emotions and hopes of desperately ill people and their families as a scheme to garner votes.
John Edwards had the most quotable line when he and kerry ran for office: "If we do the work that we can do in this country, the work that we will do when John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve are going to walk, get up out of that wheelchair and walk again." ....absolutely shameless
The religious right
Fri, 01/23/2009 - 19:16 ET by Defector01Is there anything they can't do?
I have only ever made one prayer to God, a very short one: O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous. And God granted it - Voltaire
I'm sure BARRKY'S new SGUS Sanjay MENGELE Gupta ...
Fri, 01/23/2009 - 19:20 ET by Jayke... will be looking into other ways of experimenting on humans deemed NOT WORTHY TO LIVE.
"The 'Religoous Right'" is what doofuses . . .
Fri, 01/23/2009 - 19:45 ET by CKA in Red State USA. . . including those with or without higher edumacation or education, whichever combination applies, employ when referring to Christians who actually believe in Christ and try to follow Him, and who may or do oppose things such as embryonic-stem-cell research or abortion or other such things the secular humanists and moral agnostics, in particular, support.
Me, I don't support this research. But against cornea transplansts and, for women undergoing childbirth, anesthesia?
Please. I've never heard another Christian suggest this.
But then, to be fair, I'm way way behind in completing my interviews with all two or so billion Christians on this planet.
Even so, it's ignorance of people like the person who CNN interviewed that one hopes can be cured.
Actually, there is a cure for ignorance. But not for stupidity.
Actually, CKA...
Fri, 01/23/2009 - 23:44 ET by Indiana Joe... there IS a cure for stupidity. As Ron White says, you can't fix stupid. But you CAN cure it, from a societal standpoint.
But it's illegal.
"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss..." - The Who
There was religious
Sat, 01/24/2009 - 07:51 ET by GrannyGrump42There was religious opposition to childbirth anesthesia, because it was believed to be unbiblical. Remember "In pain shalt thou bring forth children" from Genesis?
But that was over a hundred years ago. And note how they ignore the fact that many (if not the majority) of hospitals were founded and operated by -- CHRISTIANS!
Not to dig here, but this
Mon, 01/26/2009 - 12:51 ET by AshleeNot to dig here, but this is the kind of stuff I was refering to in the past when I talk of 'selective following' of the Bible. Now, I'm merely asking, but when you say 'but that was over a hundred years ago...' are you stating that, because a century has passed, that somehow that decree should not be held as important to society as say the condemnation of homosexuality? Again, many are going to probably flip and claim I'm trying to start something, but I truely simply want to know...
How is it that we can, seemingly easily, pass on a biblical decree such as "In pain shalt thou bring forth children," and claim it is merely outdated, yet we so veheminently oppose homosexuality and so strongly rush to support the condemnation of it?
The people should not fear their Government,
The Government should fear the people.
Standard I suppose...
Fri, 01/30/2009 - 11:53 ET by AshleeAlmost a week and still no one responds to my point...
I am not trying to simply stir the pot, but again, you can't just ignore questions that you don't like or points that might reveal that hypocrisy does indeed extend across all of us. Even those who consider themselves devout followers of the Word....
The people should not fear their Government,
The Government should fear the people.
Ashlee, the thread had
Fri, 01/30/2009 - 12:48 ET by lotrAshlee, the thread had grown stale by the time you had posted, else I'm sure you would've gotten replies (including one from me).
Briefly, in response to your points:
1. I have doubts that there were any formalized Catholic pronouncements forbidding "pain management" for women in labor. That's not to say that Catholic theology doesn't promote personal suffering united to Christ's passion as a means to salvation, which still holds true. But Catholic teaching does not hold as a matter of doctrine that a woman cannot seek pain relief during childbirth.
2. Homosexual behavior, on the other hand, has always been considered a sin, as a matter of doctrine, by all Christian churches up until only the past 30 or so years (a blink of the eye in terms of Judeo-Christian history).
3. The biblical basis for this, when taken as an integrated whole, is overwhelming. Rather than repeat myself, I refer you to an earlier post on this subject.
And one by one dropped the revellers in the blood-bedewed halls of their revel, and died each in the despairing posture of his fall. -- Edgar Allan Poe
There are currently
Fri, 01/23/2009 - 22:02 ET by GrannyGrump42There are currently successful treatments for spinal cord injuries, using the patients' own stem cells, going on in China, Russia, Portugal, and I believe Brazil that I can recall. It leaves the patient with a long haul back, but it's progress.
All embryonic stem cells have ever produced are tremors, tumors, and dead lab rats.
But frankly, this is one where the people signing up for these treatments are likely to get just what they deserve --even greater permanent incapacitation, because they were willing to kill fellow human beings just for the slimmest chance of a slight improvement in their own lot.
GG42,
Fri, 01/23/2009 - 23:54 ET by Indiana Joe"...even greater permanent incapacitation, because they were willing to kill fellow human beings just for the slimmest chance of a slight improvement in their own lot."
The Hindus call that "karma." You gotta wonder, would these same people accept a blood transfusion from an infant if it would kill the infant but save them? I'm sure they'd say they wouldn't. But, alas, they see a "difference."
And, as I post above, adult stem cells are being used in this country more and more often, with great results. Actually, I can submit myself as an example. So, if they're being used for spinal injuries anywhere, I wouldn't be surprised if they were being used here.
Thanks for the info, I hadn't heard specifically about that. But, I know who I can ask. ;^)
"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss..." - The Who
I don't know of anyplace in
Sat, 01/24/2009 - 07:55 ET by GrannyGrump42I don't know of anyplace in the US that uses adult stem cells for spinal cord injuries, but I believe the University of Minnesota gives a nod and a wink to the treatments in Portugal and Russia. They'll do preparatory physical therapy, and set up the patient's recovery PT when he or she returns home, while filling their paperwork with disclaimers about how they can't refer for these treatments or admit that they help.
Don Ho had to go to Thailand to get the stem cell treatment for his heart, not, as Paul Harvey claimed, because of the mean old Christians who want to deny him such care here. He had to go to Thailand because US researchers are hoping for a bigger cash cow with patentable embryonic stem cell treatments.
http://realchoice.blogspot.com/2006/03/paul-harvey-displays-ignorance.html
Follow the money.
Thanks
Fri, 01/23/2009 - 23:18 ET by Mike76Thanks for the posters who filled in the blanks for me on stem-cell research. I didn't know what was going on with that, and now I have a better grasp of the subject.
To recap, it sounds like Obama wants the government to spend massive amounts of time and money on a therapy that does not have a track record of working at all, or very little. At the same time, it'll divert time and effort away from a therapy that IS working, or can work, and is much more humane, as it won't pit human against human.
Very succintly put, Mike,
Sat, 01/24/2009 - 02:14 ET by Indiana JoeYou have a fine grasp of the matter. Regular (adult) stem cell research and therapy is going forward with plenty of success, and very little bally-hoo, even though some of these procedures are over ten years old. Wonder why that is?
Probably because it works, and doesn't contribute to anyone's agenda. Except, of course, the people actually interested in results.
"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss..." - The Who
Mike, nuff said.........
Sat, 01/24/2009 - 06:27 ET by old cro"Obama wants the government to spend massive amounts of time and money"
Nothing magical about embryonic stem cells
Fri, 01/23/2009 - 23:56 ET by nkviking75These people talk as if there is something magical about embryonic stem cells. Research with adult stem cells is already producing results and doesn't carry the ethical baggage.
Here's a fact sheet on stem cells from the Christian Medical and Dental Association. Please note the 42 footnotes to back up the points in a one page position paper.
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
Correct -- adult stems
Sat, 01/24/2009 - 09:01 ET by lotrCorrect -- adult stems cells are far more promising because they are easier to control. If it is difficult to forecast a chaotic system like weather, how much more so for "forecasting" an infinitely more complicated system like an embryonic stem cell.
However, this "inconvenient truth" is conveniently omitted in any discussion in the pop-media. I believe there is a more sinister force at play behind the embryonic stem cell agenda, namely the deliberate undermining of the pro-life movement. Most people, including those who might identify as "anti-abortion," do sympathize with Christopher Reeve, Michael J. Fox, and perhaps people suffering in their own families, and thus, in light of the "promise of stem cells," begin to question whether there are situations whereby an embryo can be killed morally. The problem is that once you admit that there are mitigating situations then you can no longer claim it to be "intrinsically evil," and thus the moral basis to oppose abortion also evaporates (for a woman with an unplanned pregnancy may also qualify as one of those "situations").
No, it is wrong to deliberately kill a human being, even in the embryonic stage of development, to "harvest" it, no matter who benefits from the harvest. Period.
And one by one dropped the revellers in the blood-bedewed halls of their revel, and died each in the despairing posture of his fall. -- Edgar Allan Poe
Researchers have made great
Sat, 01/24/2009 - 03:52 ET by RR GOPResearchers have made great advances using stem cell research. I am only opposed to purposely 'harvesting' (aborting) embryos for that express purpose. If the embryos would normally be tossed in the bin due to miscarriage, or from fertility treatments then that would be even more of a waste of human (potential) life.
But the other stuff-sounds more like Scientology or Jehovah's Witness beliefs to me.
One of the 24% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 89% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory.
Even if you consider an
Sat, 01/24/2009 - 07:58 ET by GrannyGrump42Even if you consider an abandoned embryo just so much material for the recycling bin, you can at least care enough about the patients to not want to sell them quackery.
The only result they ever got when they put embryonic cells into human patients was devastating tremors and tumors. Whereas there are currently SEVENTY THREE successful ADULT stem cell therapies available.
And frankly, the whole, "Why just throw those embryos away? Let's use them for medical experiments!" reminds me of the old joke:
Q: What did Jeffrey Dahmer say to Lorena Bobbit?
A: You gonna eat that?
Waste not, want not, eh?
I just want out. I don't
Sat, 01/24/2009 - 04:16 ET by danebramageI just want out. I don't want to live with these people. I don't want to talk to them. I don't want to have to deal with their perversions. I want to live in a country of (reasonably) good, Christian people again.
Let us separate. Now. Today. Let the blues dwell amongst themselves and kill each other, sodomize each other, worship the devil...I don't care. I want them away from me and my children. Please. Let us divide this country and go our separate ways.
We need a national referendum on this subject called, pronto.
I hear ya, danebramage
Sat, 01/24/2009 - 21:57 ET by Mike76I don't want anything to do with them either anymore. You're referring to some sort of secession, and it may be coming soon. Let the parasites drown in their self-made sea of filth and horror. Any society that doesn't honer it's elderly, or value it's children, is a society that doesn't deserve to live
I'm ready, or getting ready, spiritually and psychologically, for the upheaval, and hopefully, seperation, that is sure to come. My primitive, warrior side is coming more and more to the surface these days.
If nothing else, I sure don't want to end up in "The Home For Old Crackers" getting "put to sleep" by my Guatemalian "caregiver," because it's been determined that I'm no longer "valuable to the community" and it's time to turn me into "Soylent Green."
Then again, the Republicans haven't been much better than the Democrats really, they just run the country off the cliff at a somewhat slower rate of speed.
This whole Obama ascension came about so quickly, the dust hasn't settled yet. But I predict when the truth begins filtering through about this man, we'll find such a trail of dirt and corruption, it'll make the Clinton Administration seem like a boy scout meeting.
Back to the subject; It seems Obama wants to force embryotic stem cell ssue, which sounds unethical, high priced, and doesn't work. That could sum up any of the "programs" this jug-eared mutant has in store for the country. I was no fan of Bush, but now, he doesn't seem as bad.
Sorry for veering off topic, but I had to get that off my chest.
Okarma
Sat, 01/24/2009 - 09:37 ET by NorthCoasterYou are living in a fantasy world!
Embryonic stem cell use for this reasearch is all about the destruction of a potential life. The same issue exists when the religious right talks about abortion.
The cornea transplant and anesthesia issues come from the very far ends of both left and right who want only "natural" interventions to occur. The left's people are living in tune with Nature and the right's people are only living with what God provided. Both are far fringe ideas!