Saturday, March 28, 2009

Keep Drugs Illegal

Ms Christine Flowers has a lovely little article defending the continued illegal status of Marijuana and other currently illegal drugs. This has been a somewhat pet issue with me for some time. Allow me to expand in bullet point fashion. Ms. Flowers’ article is l

-This is my greatest beef with Libertarians…it doesn’t hurt me, let them do what they want to themselves. Hemingway and Donne both explained it well…’For Whom [does] the Bell Toll’? ‘It Tolls for Thee.’ Everytime a member of our league, that is humanity, is lost we all lose something. As father Klein once said…if he is still addicted to drugs or alcohol then you don’t really have him back…meaning that someone who is addicted to such controlling substances is not free to be a part of society. They may be high functioning at times, but an addicted soul is not a free soul. A man who is always acting under the spell or compulsion of drugs is not himself. If someone is addicted to drugs then it is a long slow toll of the bell for thee!

-Let’s say the congress legalized marijuana…that’s commonly accepted as the least dangerous drug on the list. How many people can drink a beer and then safely drive a forklift…I ‘d wager most all of us. How many can smoke one joint and then safely drive a forklift…it’s not a bet I want to take, though neither is prudent. A considerable amount of my research activities in DC at the think tank/lobby group FRC were dedicated to the issue of medical marijuana. I think people need to keep in mind that current strains of the plant yield more than 30% of the active ingredient THC, while the stuff the “hippies” were smoking in the 60’s averaged only around 3 to 5%. If you are an old hippie, or just from that age, or foolishly romantic about that age, then you should be very aware of the new state of the plant and its wildly expanded potency!

-If you want to use THC as a drug…make a pill. Actually a suppository is quicker in delivering the active ingredient than is inhaling the smoke…which one coroner told me is significantly more damaging to lungs than is simple cigarette smoke-and just think of the bans states have place on cig. Smoke! It’s not like states are legalizing opium production for the diseased and disabled the way CA and others have done with ‘medical cannibis.’ Why? That’s my next point.

-Recall the Opium Wars of the history books…Imagine something like 8 of every 10 people in the country being addicted to a drug…that was China at one time. Britain defended their right to engage in free trade (read: selling addictive drugs) to the people of China and militarily defeated China’s government to preserve this ‘right.’ How much harm was done to China by doing so? I’ve read that entire villages ceased to function…as everyone hung out in the Opium Den all day. Gangs of thugs roamed the streets to get money for the legal ‘goods.’ And gangs sent by merchants prowled the streets to lure more customers…image the billboards that would be on the freeway to recruit your kids like a cool-hip new rendition of the Marlboro man with a syringe wedged in his hat bank-sure such a comic lure would be made illegal, but there would undoubtedly be advertising. Even well-raised kids with everything going for them would find it tough to resist peer pressure when it is legal. Some kids would certainly resist, but how many good kids have experimented with alcohol and then turned away…you can’t just turn away so easily with highly addictive stuff.

-Some argue that a more cleanly refined product would be less dangerous…but morphine is exactly that, well-refined opium…it remains one of the most addictive substances on earth. The body physically craves the stuff forever, once it is tried. Imagine legally experimenting with the stuff, just for kicks when you’re young…The rest of your life could be a constant struggle to fight addiction.

-The documents, articles, and figures, I read and reviewed at FRC about eight years ago as regards the Netherlands’ experiments with drug legalization were severely disturbing…they tried and continue with a narrow legalization, all is ‘fare’ and legal in the red light district. Drugs of all shapes, sizes, potencies, and qualities were legalized in one small area so that those who do it anyway would be clear of the rest of society. The story that disturbed me above all others: prostitutes, all addicted to heroin, lined the streets, sat in a chair behind a clear glass door, naked for the world to use. To think that drug use and addiction doesn’t lead to sexual exploitation of young women who experimented and became addicts is preposterous. Drug experimentation, especially if it is legal and thereby more common, will lead to junkies who are incapable of functioning…imagine your sister or daughter, addicted to drugs because of foolish college experimentation being abused by prostitution so that she can get the next dose she craves. Now imagine the source of that addiction was legal and you hand no recourse to intervene for her good and for her life.

-Some time back PBS did interviews with drug addicts in Europe, who, thanks to their society’s permiscuous goodwill gave them clean needles and cleanly refined heroin. Though they were no longer in the same danger they were in in the streets from gangs and unclean product, they were still addicts, incapable of being the people they were raised and capable of being.

-I was shocked to see that Pat Buchannon even endorsed drug legalization. Of course Buchannon also argued that the US would eventually bring in Quebec as the 51st state, and Greenland as well. Good grief. Of course, if the US thinks it is well and good to allow mothers to abort, or terminate, the lives of their young, forming children then allowing profit maximizing companies to peddle addictive, mind-altering drugs is not unreasonable.

Thursday, March 26, 2009

Monday's press conference and how Oh, bama "wrestles" with ethics

Below is a portion of the transcript from Obama's press conference from Tuesday March 24th.  Obama's remarks on stem cell funding and ethical wrestling seems to have received no coverage based on my searches.  I've inserted my commentary in bold print throughout the text of the transcript. 

OK. John Ward, Washington Times? Where's John?

Question: Thank you, sir.

Obama: There you go.

Question: Thank you, Mr. President.

Obama: Sure.

Question: In your remarks on stem cell research earlier this month, you talked about a majority consensus in determining whether or not this is the right thing to do, to federally fund embryonic stem cell research.

I'm just wondering, though, how much you personally wrestled with the morality or ethics of federally funding this kind of research, especially given the fact that science so far has shown a lot of progress with adult stem cells, but not a lot with embryonic?

Obama: OK. No, I think it's a legitimate question. I wrestle with these issues every day.

As I mentioned to -- I think in an interview a couple of days ago, by the time an issue reaches my desk, it's a hard issue. If it was an easy issue, somebody else would have solved it and it wouldn't have reached me.We disagree.  If you are certain of a hard and fast rule, such as ‘murder is wrong’ or ‘organic is good,’ then on all questions that relate to those foundation principles a decision is easy.  If you have a solid core of beliefs, if you believe in absolutes, then moral questions are rarely mind boggling. 

Look, I believe that it is very important for us to have strong moral guidelines, ethical guidelines,what are those guidelines?—are they more than just popular consensus? when it comes to stem cell research or anything that touches on, you know, the issues of possible cloning or issues related to, you know, the human life sciences.

I think those issues are all critical, and I've said so before. I wrestle with it on stem cell; I wrestle with it on issues like abortion. But every vote you have ever cast sides against conservatives.  Every social policy you promote seems one-sided.  The Mexico City Policy, calling abortion a “right” while campaigning, saying your daughter could be “punished by a pregnancy,” rescinding the conscience protections Bush signed into law, and now using tax money to do research on stem cells from aborted (murdered) children.  Your record shows no sign of any wrestling…you have the highest rating NARAL can give…clearly they don’t see you wrestling with this either. Perhaps you do wrestle, but the decision always seems to be the same.

I think that the guidelines that we provided meet that ethical test.What Ethical test?  I’m yet to see where you identified the grounds, rubrics, or criteria of any test? I know of no anti-abortion advocates you've included in your abortion advocacy your litmus test?  Do you think an anti-abortion judge could ever be fit for you to nominate to the Supreme Court?   What we have said is that, for embryos that are typically -- about to be discarded, for us to be able to use those in order to find cures for Parkinson's or for Alzheimer's or, you know, all sorts of other debilitating diseases, juvenile diabetes, that it is the right thing to do.  If you saw the child from which the stem cells were extracted as a murder victim, then you would likely have a problem with how they were acquired…so, do you have a problem with how the stem cells are acquired?  If you’re ok with abortion then I don’t see why you would need to wrestle with the issue of funding stem cell research, as you said before.  If abortion is murder, then no one should have these stem cells in the first place.  (miscarriage would be a completely separate issue)

And that's not just my opinion. That is the opinion of a number of people who are also against abortion. I’m curious to hear names.  And, again, is consensus the criteria, is pragmatically making the greatest number of people happy your criteria?  It’s not a matter of how many people hold the opinion.  What reasoning, logic, teleology (ends/means thinking) do YOU use to draw these conclusions?

Now, I am glad to see progress is being made in adult stem cells. And if the science determines that we can completely avoid a set of ethical questions or political disputes, then that's great.When do you think all scientists could ever agree on that?  How can science prove that stem cells could never be useful for some scientific experiment.  Science can’t prove that.  Some scientist will always want to tinker with stem cells.  The question remains: what is the morality of acquiring the stem cells in the first place? 

I have no investment in causing controversy. I'm happy to avoid it if that's where the science leads us. But what I don't want to do is predetermine this based on a very rigid ideological approach (this is code for???), and that's what I think is reflected in the executive order that I signed.How is a matter of moral reasoning labeled as mere ideology?  I’m more than ever inclined to believe that you hold no absolutes.  Is there one action which is forever wrong under any and all circumstances no matter where or when you live? 

Question: I meant to ask -- just to follow up -- do you think that scientific consensus is enough to tell us what we can and cannot do?

Obama: No. I think there's always an ethical and a moral element that has to be a part of this. Again, what is that line of  ethical and moral reasoning?  What are your philosophical/ethical/moral premises that lead you to this conclusion?  And so, as I said, I don't take decisions like this lightly. They're ones that I take seriously, and I respect people who have different opinions on this issue. (like those you labeled as people who “cling to guns and relgion?”

But I think that this was the right thing to do and the ethical thing to do.Again, why do you think this?  On what grounds?  And as I said before, my hope is, is that we can find a mechanism, ultimately, to cure these diseases in a way that gains 100 percent consensus. And we certainly haven't achieved that yet, (do you honestly think that that is in any way possible in your life time?) but I think on balance this was the right step to take.  Is a balance of good and bad your standard?  If it is only a little bit evil then is it ok?  What is your balanced criteria? 

A tragedy for sure

Family of Irving 'Bud' Feldkamp, Owner of the Nation's Largest Privately Owned Abortion Chain, Dies in Montana Plane Crash

Contact: Gingi Edmonds,, 559-772-7911

MEDIA ADVISORY, Mar. 24 /Christian Newswire/ -- Some of you may have seen the major news story of the private plane that crashed into a Montana cemetery, killing 7 children and 7 adults. 

But what the news sources fail to mention is that the Catholic Holy Cross Cemetery owned by Resurrection Cemetery Association in Butte - contains a memorial for local residents to pray the rosary, at the 'Tomb of the Unborn'. This memorial, located a short distance west of the church, was erected as a dedication to all babies who have died because of abortion.

What else is the mainstream news not telling you? The family who died in the crash near the location of the abortion victim's memorial, is the family of Irving 'Bud' Feldkamp, owner of the largest for-profit abortion chain in the nation. 

Family Planning Associates was purchased four years ago by Irving Moore "Bud" Feldkamp III, owner of Allcare and Hospitality Dental Associates and CEO of Glen Helen Raceway Park in San Bernardino. The 17 California Family Planning clinics perform more abortions in the state than any other abortion provider - Planned Parenthood included - and they perform abortions through the first five months of pregnancy. 

Although Feldkamp is not an abortionist, he reaps profits of blood money from the tens of thousands of babies that are killed through abortions performed every year at the clinics he owns. His business in the abortion industry was what enabled him to afford the private plane that was carrying his family to their week-long vacation at The Yellowstone Club, a millionaires-only ski resort.

The plane went down on Sunday, killing two of Feldkamp's daughters, two sons-in-law and five grandchildren along with the pilot and four family friends. The plane, a single-engine turboprop flown by Bud Summerfield of Highland, crashed into the Catholic cemetery and burst into flames, only 500 ft. from its landing destination. All aboard were killed.

The cause of the crash is a mystery. The pilot, who was a former military flier who logged over 2,000 miles, gave no indication to air traffic controllers that the aircraft was experiencing difficulty when he asked to divert to an airport in Butte. Witnesses report that the plane suddenly nosedived toward the ground with no apparent signs of a struggle. There was neither a cockpit voice recorder nor a flight data recorder onboard, and no radar clues into the planes final moments because the Butte airport is not equipped with a radar facility. Some speculate that the crash was due to ice on the wings, but this particular plane model has been tested for icy weather and experts have stated that ice being the cause is unlikely.

In my time working for Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust, I helped organize and conduct a weekly campaign where youth activists stood outside of Feldkamp's mini-mansion in Redlands holding fetal development signs and raising community awareness regarding Feldkamp's dealings in child murder for profit. Every Thursday afternoon we called upon Bud and his wife Pam to repent, seek God's blessing and separate themselves from the practice of child killing. 

We warned him, for his children's sake, to wash his hands of the innocent blood he assisted in spilling because, as Scripture warns, if "you did not hate bloodshed, bloodshed will pursue you". (Ezekiel 35:6)

A news source states that Bud Feldkamp visited the site of the crash with his wife and their two surviving children on Monday. As they stood near the twisted and charred debris talking with investigators, light snow fell on the tarps that covered the remains of their children.

I don't want to turn this tragic event into some creepy spiritual 'I told you so' moment, but I think of the time spent outside of Feldkamp's - Pam Feldkamp laughing at the fetal development signs, Bud Feldkamp trying not to make eye contact as he got into his car with a small child in tow - and I think of the haunting words, 'Think of your children.' I wonder if those words were haunting Feldkamp as well as he stood in the snow among the remains of loved ones, just feet from the 'Tomb of the Unborn'?

I only hope and pray that in the face of this tragedy, Feldkamp recognizes his need for repentance and reformation. I pray that God will use this unfortunate catastrophe to soften the hearts of Bud and Pam and that they will draw close to the Lord and wash their hands of the blood of thousands of innocent children, each as precious and irreplaceable as their own.

"I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. Choose life, then." (Deut. 30:19)

Gingi Edmonds is a freelance pro-life activist, writer and photographer based out of Hanford, California. Gingi writes a bi-monthly ProLife Opinion Column and is available for pro-life presentations and speaking engagements. for more information.