What could a petri dish have to do with national security? A whole lot, according to U.S. intelligence officials. As far as our top spy, James Clapper, is concerned, that’s where the world may be building the latest weapon of mass destruction (WMD). Like most technology, genetic engineering is a blessing in the right hands — and a threat in the wrong ones. Nuclear energy is a perfect example. On one hand, it gives us the power to heat our homes — and on the other, the capability to destroy millions of others’.

The same is true of modifying DNA. Rewriting genes can cure people of terrible diseases, but it can also, as Clapper points out, give our adversaries a lethal way to terrorize the world. That’s becoming an even greater possibility now with the breakthrough of the CRISPR, one of the simplest and most inexpensive ways to edit genes. “Easy to use,” MIT’s Technology Review explains, “Hard to control.” With “do-it-yourself” kits as cheap as $700 (“includes everything you’ll need to ‘bend DNA to your will!’) experts are worried that this science is the biggest menace no one knows about. The intelligence community is hoping to change that by including the technology as a WMD in its yearly threat assessment report. "Given the broad distribution, low cost, and accelerated pace of development of this dual-use technology, its deliberate or unintentional misuse might lead to far-reaching economic and national security implications,” officials points out.

The science is included in a handful of more “conventional” threats, like Syria’s chemical weapons or Russia’s cruise missiles. “Clapper didn’t lay out any particular bioweapons scenarios,” MIT explained, “but scientists have previously speculated about whether CRISPR could be used to make ‘killer mosquitoes,’ plagues that wipe out staple crops, or even a virus that snips at people’s DNA.” These are the very real risks in a world where what once seemed impossible moves into the realm of the realistic. One look at the international headlines, and it’s obvious that the intelligence director’s concerns are valid ones. As we’ve seen in North Korea and Iran, once the technology exists, it will eventually be used by people with nefarious purposes.

Of course, there is an upside to this kind of research, which is that scientists are using it to treat patients for liver disease and other illness. “It’s still early days, but the ability to tweak DNA more precisely is going to revolutionize gene therapy, the idea of installing healthy, working genes in adults and children with devastating genetic diseases like hemophilia.” But, like stem cell research, this gets into muddy waters ethically when scientists use the method to “rewrite” human embryos — by killing one to create another or building a made-to-order baby.

As former FRCer Dr. David Prentice pointed out, “At a recent Washington, D.C. conference, instead of thoroughly debating the ethical concerns, American, British, and Chinese genetic engineers discussed the "glorious potential” of gene-modified humans seeking ways to further, not hinder, experimentation. The headlong rush ignores concerns for safety, ethics, alternatives, and public dialog.“

In one of the few positive (and least talked about) stories from last December’s omnibus bill, Congress managed to put the brakes on hair-raising experiments like human-animal chimeras and three-parent embryos in the Agriculture part of the spending bill. FRC and Susan B. Anthony List worked extensively on the amendment to make that protection a reality. Thanks to pro-lifer Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-Ala.), language barring the genetic manipulation of these tiny humans passed — giving Congress more time to debate and weigh the consequences of these advances. Let’s hope members come the same conclusion we do before this science becomes another kind of threat — to humanity.

Originally published here.

Giving Credit When Credit Is Due…

The Treasury Department takes charge — especially VISA and MasterCard! Those are just two ways the U.S. government is accepting donations to pay down the $19,012,827,698,400 debt it owes as of February 1. (If you think that number’s scary, wait until you see the interest!) Last year, Americans gave more than $3 million to the effort, which is just a drop in the IOU bucket at the rate Congress is spending.

Now, in historic borrowing trouble, the U.S. will need a lot more than people’s charity to steer the country away from insolvency. Unfortunately, the crisis doesn’t seem to faze President Obama, who’s setting records (and not the good kind) by presiding over the single greatest debt increase in U.S. history. Remember when Barack Obama said it was "unpatriotic” and “irresponsible” for his predecessor to add $4 trillion to the national debt? Well, I wonder what it’s called when you add double that with a year to go? And here’s the kicker: the White House’s latest budget proposal would dig the hole $8 trillion deeper over the next 10 years if it passed (which, thank goodness, it never will). House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) could only shake his head. “President Obama will leave office having never proposed a budget that balances — ever.”

But let’s be honest: Congress is as much to blame for this mess as Obama. It was a Republican House, after all, that agreed to suspend the debt limit until 2017, giving the government a blank check to borrow whatever it wants! Add that to the millions in drunk monkey studies, talking urinal cakes, IRS popcorn machines, and the waste will have you crying more than the Vidalia onion promotion campaign. Now, a couple of months after rushing a $1.1 trillion omnibus out the door, some Republicans are grumbling that they didn’t tackle the spending crisis when they had the chance.

With serious budget talks getting underway — and the possibility of debating these issues under “regular order” — some members are regretting that Speaker Boehner didn’t fight harder for more responsible budget caps. As a result, Rep. Rick Mulvaney (R-S.C.) pointed out, “We are being asked right now to vote for a budget… at a level of spending none of us support.” That’s the problem. Unlike Rep. Mulvaney, some did support it. And it will take a concentrated effort to undo the damage that years of compromise has done. Budgeting in an open, sensible, and transparent process will help. But not as much as making the time and painful choices necessary to pass the kind of fiscal reform the country needs — and our children deserve.

Originally published here.

‘The Time of Choosing Is Now’

As much as the media would like to debate it, Christians have as much impact sitting out a presidential race as they can have in it. Americans need only look back four years to 2012 to see the advantage Barack Obama gained over Mitt Romney when 26 million evangelical voters stayed home. That’s a very clear and present danger this year, depending on who the final GOP nominee is. As voters come to grips with a candidate that represents their values best, some unfortunate political realities are getting in the way.

For a field that was stacked with principled candidates, primary decisions have been difficult for a lot of Christians. After several disappointing years, it’s almost been an embarrassment of riches for conservatives, as several solid men and women of conviction duke it out for the top spot on the Republican ticket. But, looking ahead, as the field winnows, commentators like Erick Erickson are warning that if evangelicals don’t coalesce around a candidate now, the writing is on the wall: neither Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) will be the nominee. As a friend of both senators, Erick knows how difficult that advice may be, especially for younger Christians.

“Many new evangelical leaders have hitched their wagon to Marco Rubio because he seems to be the evangelical who does not drag his faith into politics,” Erick wrote on his Resurgent blog. “They look at Ted Cruz and bristle with contempt because of his courting of the old guard who the new evangelicals think are outmoded and harmful to the kingdom’s cause. These evangelicals are about to be confronted with a reality that three to four Supreme Court justices are on the line, Rubio is floundering, and if Trump wins South Carolina he could pick up enough momentum to sweep the primaries and gain the Republican nomination. From what we know already about Trump’s judicial thoughts, he views his pro-abortion activist sister as an ideal Supreme Court pick. Until recently, Trump declared himself fully pro-abortion and supported late-term abortion… Each day that Rubio gains ground and drags the race out in South Carolina and beyond is a day that Trump maintains his grip.”

The time of choosing, he says, is now. “Do they walk away, rally to Cruz, or ride it out to the bitter end with Rubio? … The ticking clock must be answered.”

DISCLAIMER: Tony Perkins has made an endorsement in his individual and personal capacity only, and it should not be construed or interpreted in any way as the endorsement of FRC, FRC Action, or any affiliated entity.

Originally published here.