Thursday, October 12, 2006

Missouri Nickname to Change to "The Snow-Me" State?

Credit for this observation goes to Jeff Miller (The Curt Jester) who posted this the other day: Trying to Make It the "Snow Me" State

Such would be one of the results of the proposed Cloning Amendment (Amendment 2) being touted as a panacea by the likes of "Jack" Danforth, the Stowers Institute, and others wishing to have unrestricted access to public funds for diabolic research.

Who can adequately answer Jill Stanek's question?

Why would Show Me State voters – of all voters in the land – agree to drastically alter their own Constitution to ends no one can predict, all to force speculative science experiments on themselves forever? Even without knowing Amendment Two's specifics, doing so would seem schizophrenic.

Well, if one actually looks at Amendment 2, it is "loaded" with language which one would rightly expect from an individual with schizophrenic tendencies. And Jill nails it for what it is:

Amendment Two is full of lies. Here are four whoppers:

1. "No person may clone or attempt to clone a human being."

In actuality, Amendment Two would force cloning on Missourians.

Crafters knew people overwhelmingly oppose cloning. So to authorize cloning while maintaining they were not, they simply changed the definition of cloning to say a clone isn't a clone unless implanted in a mother's uterus.

This is like saying you are not you unless you are in your house...This is like banning the killing of humans but endorsing the killing of Homo sapiens.

So why the push to pass this proposed Amendment? Jill lists three of many - the three most likely to be the real driving force behind this deceitful effort:
Amendment Two paves the way for Missouri public funding of embryonic stem cell/cloning research. This would:

1. Let researchers keep patents for themselves, which they would have to share with private investors;

2. Eliminate the need for results, which private investors demand (and is why they're not investing), and force accountability for wild promises;

3. Let researchers keep any profits for themselves, which they would have to share with private investors.

Amendment Two also forbids legislators from overturning it.
Are we to really believe that those promoting the passage of Amendment 2 are really overcome with such altruism when these facts are staring us in the face? Are we to really believe them when every effort seems to have been made to deceive the voting public of the true facts of this amendment?

We all know that some people will do anything for money, especially if that money can be obtained from the public trough absent any and all oversight and governance.

Hopefully, despite the efforts of Danforth and his cronies, the people of Missouri won't be buying the "snake oil" these people are trying to sell.

Hopefully, Missouri voters will remind us all that we are still from the "Show Me" state, not the "Snow Me" (*) state.

(*) Credit to Jeff Miller for his valuable insight for the "Some Me State" reference.

No comments: