I submitted this to The Oklahoman, which seems to have passed on it, so here it is
The Oklahoman published my thoughts on The Flaming Lips Flap:

I learned something in the last couple of weeks. I learned that one Oklahoma band likes the Communist party. I also learned that some Oklahomans like bands that like the Communist party, as well as that the State House does not. Most importantly, I learned that when the State House “snubs” a band that likes the Communist party, we have a governor that will swoop in and save them. Sadly, that same governor is sympathetic to those who like to destroy human life in the name of economic growth. Maybe if we wrap those embryos in the Hammer and Sickle our fine governor could be bothered to protect them.

Priests for Life have a short, yet pretty compelling video up on their site. Before watching it, though, you should be warned that some may considered it a bit gruesome.

Yesterday, President Obama rescinded President Bush’s ban on federal funding for expanded embryonic stem cell research. Adam Keiper, in a post on The Corner, made some really interesting points regarding the policy shift. One of the most interesting parts of the analysis was this question that Keiper asks of the President:

What counts as a purely “scientific decision”? What issues can we possibly decide on scientific grounds alone — that is, without also inquiring after the kinds of important ethical, political, and economic concerns that President Obama denigrates as mere “ideology”? On what future issues will the president claim that science dictates a policy and trumps all other concerns?

If we’re not going to let ideology play a role in determining what happens in the name of science, why not allow unrestrained animal — or even human — testing? Is vivisection on the table then (no pun intended)? History has clearly shown that restraints must be put in place, or some very cruel, and, yes, evil people will push that laissez faire attitude as far as they can. If Obama envisions a scientific world untethered by any sort of ideology, whence comes morality in some respects, then he’s opening a Pandora’s Box that we will rue for decades.

Stem cells can cure a lot of things, just not the stem cells the President is pushing. Given the success of adult stem cells and the resounding lack of success of embryonic stem cells, the President’s decision is anything but non-ideological. It’s misguided, deluded, and infanticidal.

Interesting article on National Review Online today. It begins:

“For the first time since Jimmy Carter ran for the White House in 1976, large numbers of evangelical and Catholic voters pulled the Democratic lever in a presidential election. Last week, Pres. Barack Obama decided to reverse a policy that prohibits U.S. tax dollars from funding abortion providers overseas.”

“How to square the two? Some younger Christians probably saw it coming: Obama’s campaign emphasized social-justice issues like overcoming racism, combating poverty, and tackling global issues like AIDS, and for them, this agenda trumped abortion. For others, however, the new policy is a betrayal: While courting the evangelical and Catholic vote on the campaign trail, Obama also promised to reduce the number of abortions.”

Though I chose to start out neutral and/or favorable to him, this one major policy switch (and the disloyalty to his campaign rhetoric it represents) is why I cannot in good conscience approve of the job Obama is doing. Read more of the piece here.

Thanks to Ross Douthat for this link:

In a not quite accurately titled article (I would expect the top pro-abortion moment to be Obama’s election ; ), American Life League has an interesting, if not depressing, run down of some the more appalling quotes from pro-abortion advocates in 2008. You can see the whole list here, but I’d like to point one out in particular:

Comedian Doug Stanhope

These are not empty words. I, Doug Stanhope, am offering you, Bristol Palin, the sum of $25,000 so that you can abort your child and move out of that draconian home. I have also set up a PayPal link so that others around the world can help increase this amount to ease the burden of starting out on your own at such an early age.

While it’s a pretty despicable comment, what I find interesting is how he phrased things: “..abort your unborn child…” In making the statement, he seems to be implicitly accepting the pro-life stance that the unborn is indeed a human child, but still offers to pay to kill it. Pretty chilling.

Two years after a failed attempt to protect the lives of pre-born babies in South Dakota, pro-life advocates in the state are trying again, this time fixing some of the wording that caused the bill to fail the first time.  As can be expected, pro-abortion advocates are vowing a fight.  Those on both sides of the issue are watching this measure closely, as its passage will likely send the question to the Supreme Court.  If Obama wins, though, the chances that it would be upheld are slim as Obama believes that “Roe was decided correctly.”  Get the full story here, and pray.

Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and Director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University, has the story.

As you’ve likely heard by now, John McCain has chosen a running mate, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.  You’ve also likely heard that she has several children, the youngest of which, Trig Palin, has Down’s Syndrome.  Have you heard, though, the new depths to which the main stream media (MSM) have gone to tear down Gov. Palin?  James Taranto has, and he’s not happy:

Fowler uses Palin’s motherhood to disparage her accomplishments, an obvious betrayal of the principle of women’s equality. And although proponents of permissive abortion laws nearly always claim to support not abortion but “a woman’s right to choose,” here we have three of them rebuking Palin for choosing not to abort her baby.

So a woman has the right to choose, as long as she chooses to abort her baby.  Their true colors finally shine.