Last week, Obama rescinded the ban to use federal tax dollars on the bereft of results, embryonic stem cell research with a declaration to 'shield to science from politics'.
Charles Krauthammer, once again, expertly dismantles Obama's amoral, dissonant eloquence and pronounces it bankrupt:
"Obama's address was morally unserious in the extreme. It was populated, as his didactic discourses always are, with a forest of straw men. Such as his admonition that we must resist the "false choice between sound science and moral values." Yet, exactly 2 minutes and 12 seconds later he went on to declare that he would never open the door to the "use of cloning for human reproduction."
Does he not think that a cloned human would be of extraordinary scientific interest? And yet he banned it.
Is he so obtuse not to see that he had just made a choice of ethics over science? Yet, unlike President Bush, who painstakingly explained the balance of ethical and scientific goods he was trying to achieve, Obama did not even pretend to make the case why some practices are morally permissible and others not.
This is not just intellectual laziness. It is the moral arrogance of a man who continuously dismisses his critics as ideological while he is guided exclusively by pragmatism (in economics, social policy, foreign policy) and science in medical ethics."
That's gonna leave a mark.
The truly alarming part of Krauthammer's expert dismantling is the realization that Obama's amoral dissonance does not exist in a vacuum. It's an almost imperative need from many in the stratosphere of academia that reaches far into our children's educational system - and the ballot box.