THE LOCAL AREA WATCH

STEM CELL GROUP IS A FRAUD

The non-profit corporation, Michigan Citizens for Stem Cell Research and Cures, puts itself out as an organization dedicated to the education of Michiganders on the pros and cons of various types of stem cell research.  On its website, MCSCRC makes this public statement about itself:

Michigan Citizens for Stem Cell Research & Cures (MCSCRC) was created with the long-term goal of educating citizens about stem cell research. We will present the facts necessary so each individual can form her/his own opinion about stem cell research. As a 501(c)(3) nonprofit charitable organization MCSCRC does not and cannot express support for any piece of legislation or political petition related to stem cell research.  [Our emphasis.]

MCSCRC’s status as a 501(c)(3) organization under the tax code is no small thing.  That means the donations people make to it are tax deductible.  If it becomes involved in political campaigns, it loses that status –- and donors lose their tax deductions.  So MCSCRC must keep its nose clean in this regard.  Indeed, its corporate by-laws prohibit the organization from engaging in propaganda and political campaigns.  Thus, the good folks at MCSCRC present themselves as earnest people sincerely trying to provide all the information Michigan voters need to make decisions on pending legislation and ballot initiatives concerning stem cell research.

Striking a disinterested posture vis-à-vis any particular proposed law is a good way for MCSCRC to gain the public’s trust as an objective voice on the issues underlying that law.  Of course, that trust is abused if, in fact, MCSCRC is not disinterested in the passage of a law –- let's say, the Cure Michigan ballot initiative to end restrictions on harvesting stem cells from embryonic human beings -– and wants to surreptitiously persuade voters to support it.  And that, unfortunately, is the case with MCSCRC.  Its pose as an honest broker in the embryonic stem cell debate is a fraud.

Cure Michigan, the sponsor of the initiative that will now likely appear on ballot this November, is entirely funded by Stem Cell Research B.Q.C.  In turn, Stem Cell Research is a non-profit corporation controlled by MCSCRC.  Under Stem Cell Research’s by-laws MCSCRC appoints its board of directors and upon its dissolution (probably after the November election) all of its assets go to MCSCRC.  Furthermore, Marcia Baum, the executive director of MCSCRC, is also the spokesman for Stem Cell Research and Cure Michigan.  Therefore, the person operating the allegedly disinterested educational group is also actively advocating the passage of a law that the educational group cannot lawfully express support for.

So despite the propaganda to the contrary, Cure Michigan is not a grassroots effort.  It is the creature of Stem Cell Research, which in turn is the creature of MCSCRC.  So little wonder that MCSCRC’s “education” of voters on stem cell research just happens to support the claims of the Cure Michigan ballot initiative.  That is why MCSCRC is a fraud.  Its mission to publicly provide disinterested and objective information on stem cell research is anything but that.  With this sort of falsity in the very bones of MCSCRC/Stem Cell Research/Cure Michigan, let’s not be shocked if falsehood substitutes for fact in the campaign for the Cure Michigan ballot initiative (or that Big Sister is one of its leaders).

IT IS BIG SISTER'S PROPOSAL

A reader e-mailed us that the headline of our previous article, "Big Sister's Slice-and-Dice-the-Babies-for-Science Proposal Nearly on Ballot", was deceptive.  The reason?  The appearance of Big Sister a.k.a. G.R. Mayor George Heartwell at a conference last fall promoting the ballot proposal doesn't make it HIS proposal.  Perhaps, but Big Sister did more than appear at an event hosted by the Michigan Citizens for Stem Cell Research and Cures.  MCSCRC is the force behind the November ballot proposal to legalize the destruction of embryonic human beings by researchers, and Big Sister sits on the organization's Board of Directors.  So, it is his proposal.

P.S. Nick DeLeeuw reports that Big Sister's proposal has gotten enough petition signatures to put on this November's statewide ballot.  Now we'll see in a few months' time whether obfuscations, lies, and utilitarianism hold greater sway with the voters than commonsense, truth, and respect for human dignity.

BIG SISTER'S SLICE-AND-DICE-THE-BABIES-FOR-SCIENCE PROPOSAL NEARLY ON THE BALLOT

OK, OK.  I'll admit the headline is a little loaded, but it got your attention, right?

Our thanks to Nick DeLeeuw of RightMichigan.com for staying on top of the Michigan Citizens for Stem Cell Research and Cures (MCSCRC) ballot initiative that would allow researchers to vivisect, mutilate, and kill embryonic human beings to harvest their stem cells.  Nick covers all the solid facts that people have no excuse for not knowing on such a fundamental issue -- excepting, of course, the so-called progressives like MCSCRC who never let a fact get in the way of their plans to run/ruin our lives -- so we invite you to check out his article on the moral, scientific, and policy arguments against the MCSCRC initiative.

Nick's update on this initiative ties in with the story we broke last fall about Big Sister a.k.a. Grand Rapids Mayor George Heartwell stumping for the MCSCRC cause.  We took note of Heartwell's speech before the group, because he had made a show during his re-election campaign of staying silent on abortion and the other life issues.  He had claimed his silence was a consequence of the irrelevance of these issues to the office of mayor, when in fact it was a crass political calculation to keep his pro-abortion position under wraps to suppress the turn-out for his pro-life challenger in the mayoral primary race.  However, once that strategy worked to win the election, Heartwell used the prestige and influence of his "irrelevant" mayoral office to support the MCSCRC initiative.

But then Heartwell is the most advanced sort of progressive.  Not only does he not let the facts get in the way of his political agenda, he doesn't let integrity get in the way either.

HARD LEFT AND CLUELESS

I know the folks over at Media Mouse, River City's progressive local media critic, are earnest in their endeavors (which is one reason why we provide a link to their website).  But the trouble with the leftist take on society is that your Big Idea about how the world is supposed to work trumps the facts instead of letting the facts inform your ideas about what really drives things.  If this penchant for rationalism doesn't lead to an out-and-out detachment from reality, it can manifest a certain cluelessness.

For example, this recent Media Mouse notice that Obama has rejected public financing for his presidential campaign:

Last week, Democratic Party presidential candidate Barack Obama announced that he will not be participating in the public financing system for his campaign. Instead, Obama will be able to raise an unlimited amount of money. However, much of the discussion on his decision has missed larger issues--why does it cost so much money to run for president and why do media corporations profit so much from elections?

The larger issue is the very thing that Obama ditched, the public financing system for presidential campaigns.  Why is it that the bedrock freedom of political speech is confounded, constrained, and controlled by campaign financing restrictions that leave many a candidate no choice but to run for office on the public dole under the dictates of federal election commissars?  Why is it that the so-called progressives who decry entrenched power and extoll the voice of the people are enamored with the bureaucratic bean-counting of the size and frequency of campaign contributions that favors incumbents and the super-rich at the expense of dark horses and ordinary citizens in political races?  That is the fundamental issue.

The larger issue certainly is not:  "Why does it cost so much money to run for president?"  It doesn't.  Americans spend a pittance on the publication of campaign speech compared to the advertising dollars that we pour into pushing mundane products like laundry detergent, fast-food burgers, and the latest amazing gadget for only $19.95 plus shipping and handling.  For presidential candidates to spend what amounts to at most only a few bucks per voter every four years to get their messages out to the public is hardly a scandal.  Indeed, stack that up to what pornographers spend to ply their putrid wares (which so-called progressives are so quick to defend under the free speech banner), and one wonders about the bad wiring in the heads of those who link arms with the flesh peddlars while sanctimoniously denouncing the few dollars spent on getting political speech on the air, on the internet, and in print.

Nor is the larger issue:  "Why do media corporations profit so much from elections?"  Is this really a head-scratcher for our progressive friends?  The answer is obvious.  The [shudder] "media corporations" own soapboxes that candidates want to rent to get their message out to the readers, viewers, and listeners of those companies.  Meanwhile, all the other businesses and organizations that still need to advertise in the ordinary course of business don't go away.  So demand goes up while the supply of space and minutes available for advertising remains about the same.  Hence, the price for advertising laundry detergent and campaign slogans goes up.  Nothing sinister.  Economics 101.

If the leftists think the solution is to force the evil media corporations to hold their prices, just who do you think is going to get the limited supply of advertising available?  Those customers of the media corporations placing ads day in and day out, or the fellow that comes along once every four years to get ink or air for a couple of months ahead of the election?  Now if those leftist wheels are really turning, no doubt the solution to this is to force media corporations to ration ads to candidates -- and steamroll over the freedom of the press in the process.

All of which is to demonstrate that if our progressive friends put the facts first rather than their pet ideas, they might not wring their hands over things that are a problem only because they do not fit into the tidy world of their Big Idea.