Sunday, March 29, 2009

"You have a Marvelous Virgin"

Can we get a reset button now please? This administration is just one long blooper reel. Now, don't get me wrong, I don't expect someone not raised in the faith to have a complete understanding of all of the ins and outs of Catholics and their beliefs. HOWEVER, I do expect the staff around the woman to do their FREAKING homework at the very least GOOGLE the places you are going to visit. It is their job to make this woman NOT look stupid...for crying out loud, is it too much to ask that the staff of the Secretary of State be able to use a search engine...ok...this is turning into another rant. Enough said.

[CNA] During her recent visit to Mexico, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made an unexpected stop at the Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe and left a bouquet of white flowers “on behalf of the American people,” after asking who painted the famous image.
The image of Our Lady of Guadalupe was miraculously imprinted by Mary on the tilma, or cloak, of St. Juan Diego in 1531. The image has numerous unexplainable phenomena, such as the appearance on Mary’s eyes of those present in the room when the tilma was opened and the image’s lack of decay.Mrs. Clinton was received on Thursday at 8:15 a.m. by the rector of the Basilica, Msgr. Diego Monroy.

Msgr. Monroy took Mrs. Clinton to the famous image of Our Lady of Guadalupe, which had been previously lowered from its usual altar for the occasion.After observing it for a while, Mrs. Clinton asked “who painted it?” to which Msgr. Monroy responded “God!”

Clinton then told Msgr. Monroy that she had previously visited the old Basilica in 1979, when the new one was still under construction. After placing a bouquet of white flowers by the image, Mrs. Clinton went to the quemador –the open air area at the Basilica where the faithful light candles- and lit a green candle.

Leaving the basilica half an hour later, Mrs. Clinton told some of the Mexicans gathered outside to greet her, “you have a marvelous virgin!”

This evening Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is set to receive the highest award given by Planned Parenthood Federation of America -- the Margaret Sanger Award, named for the organization's founder, a noted eugenicist. The award will be presented at a gala event in Houston, Texas.

Friday, March 27, 2009

Irony and Feeling Bitchy.

Irony. Remember when BO said the surge in Iraq wouldn't work. Even after coming face to face with the fact that the surge did work, he still couldn't bring himself to admit the surge worked. Now, dear leader has decided to give it a go in Afghanistan. Will I be breaking any laws if I call the POTUS a dumbass? I mean, I still have the right to my opinions, don't I? Er...well given that maybe only two or three (four if my brother happens to stop by) might read my comments and all threeish probably agree, I think I am safe for now.

This whole Obama-trauma has left me feeling ...bitchy for lack of a better term. I know it has only been what...two slow torturous months and already I feel like I'm drowning in new policies, new laws, a new f'in crisis every day, a new f'in bailout, congress is either unwilling or unable to stop the madness. Every day we move one step closer to totalitarianism, does that sound melodramatic? I keep telling people what is happening and beg them to call, write, do SOMETHING to slow down this f'in nightmare freight train...and some listen, some call(but I have to hand them the damned number). Why are so many people so complacent? Is it something in the f'in water?

But, to tell the truth, I think most of my family thinks I have gone off the deep end. Or maybe they are just as weary of hearing about this as I am. I am so scared my country is going to disappear. I feel like it is disappearing before my eyes and I am grabbing at straws trying desperately to keep it from fading away. I am haunted by the quote from Reagan "We are indeed, and we are today, the last best hope of man on earth." There is no where else to go. This is it. There is no where for us to escape to, as so many others have done around the world. And where did they flee? They came to America because they knew what Ronald Reagan knew. America is the last best hope of man on earth...but my hope is fading fast.


Mike Allen quotes an administration official on Obama's new Afghanistan policy to be announced tomorrow:
President Barack Obama plans to announce an escalation in Afghanistan in a speech at the White House on Friday morning, committing 4,200 more troops and hundreds more civilians, and embracing a new system of benchmarks to measure progress.

“He’s gone all in,” said an official briefed on the plan. “This is Obama’s war. He’s pushed all the chips to the center of the table.”

Some progressives will try and claim that this approach is exactly what they've counseled. The more honest among them will attack the president for escalating the war. But it's clear that the "all in" approach is not what they wanted. Earlier this week Ilan Goldenberg, the policy director at the progressive National Security Network, offered this analysis at the Huffington Post:

The "all in" approach, best exemplified by John McCain and Joe Lieberman's op-ed in the Washington Post, argues for "victory" through a full scale commitment of undetermined length at an undetermined cost. It is supported by hawks like McCain and Lieberman who generally believe that America must "win" any war no matter the cost.

Goldenberg conceded that most progressives and realists favored a "minimalist approach," though he predicted that the administration would pursue a "middle approach" that involves "doing what we can to help the people of Afghanistan, while limiting our military commitment and recognizing that America's ability to influence events in far off unstable states such as Afghanistan is incredibly limited."

I'm struck by a couple of things, but none more so than the fact that the administration's left-wing supporters don't seem to have any real insight into what's going on inside the administration--because the progressives have no real relationship with the "realists" who are making policy. Otherwise Goldenberg wouldn't have offered speculation that was so clearly off-base. Neither would Joe Klein have written just last week:

The Obama plan, I am told, will not immediately add to the 17,000 additional U.S. troops that the President has already approved. And this is the fight that McCain, Lieberman and the neocons are itching for...

The president is going "all in" and adding more troops to the fight. His most vocal supporters on the left had no idea this was coming and if you'd asked them yesterday what they thought of such a plan they would have said it was neocon fanaticism. Now watch how they fall into line. But this policy announcement shows just how little influence, and how little insight, the progressives have right now on this administration.

Posted by Michael Goldfarb on March 26, 2009 06:59 PM

Wednesday, March 25, 2009

Speak not Ill of Thy Islamic Jihadis, Ye Infidels!

From American Thinker today

What a huge load of camel dung. If it becomes illegal to be critical of Islamic jackals, then what will I do for amusement? Heck, IBA might go out of business...nah.

It seems that using rape to "entice" women to become suicide bombers, "marrying" 9 year old girls, hacking off heads, stoning women to death, and various other activities is NOT a "serious affront to human dignity", just criticism of Islam is a "serious affront to human dignity". Stupid.

Islamic States Push to Criminalize 'Defamation of Islam'By Peter C Glover

A powerful bloc of 57 Islamic states is again pushing for the UN to make it a criminal offense to criticise or ‘defame' Islam. In a new resolution circulated at a session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva on March 11, a paper entitled "Combating Defamation of Religions" was circulated ahead of the Council's next meeting on March 26-27, when the resolution will be voted on.

Though the 57 nations of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), a bloc which also dominates the UN's Human Rights Council, have been lobbying for the move since 1999, the signs this time are that the resolution could well be made binding. While the resolution calls for protection against "defamation" of all religions, it only mentions Islam by name.

The resolution deems offending Islamic sensitivities a "serious affront to human dignity" which could lead to "social disharmony", "violations of human rights" and "incitement to religious hatred in general and against Islam in particular". If passed, the resulting binding resolution would find its way into various UN documents all of which would require that UN member states at "local, national and international levels" start restricting the free speech of citizens to prevent public criticism of religious beliefs, particularly Islamic belief.

Such is the domination of the UN HRC by Islamic states, backed by non-democratic members including Russia and Cuba, that the human rights agency UN Watch believes the "adoption of the regressive resolution is a foregone conclusion".

Last December, Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch told Radio Free Europe that Islamic states were pursuing "the diplomatic battle with a vengeance" because of the post 9/11 war on terror and the issue of the Danish depictions of the prophet Mohammed. As Neuer pointed out, "The resolutions pose a major threat to the premises and principles of international human rights laws and harm Muslims as much as non-Muslims." Neuer went on to cite the failure of the Islamic states to address human rights violations in Muslim countries. He also pointed out that the latest resolution is "not really trying to protect individuals from harm" but is attempting "to shield a set of beliefs from question or debate."

The resolution's use of the phrase ‘defamation of religion' is also misleading. Under the terms of human rights law there is no such legal concept. Laws on defamation, in most Western countries, exist to protect the reputation of individuals, not belief systems or religions.

UN Watch's Neuer describes the resolution's text as "Orwellian" and warns that it distorts the meaning of human rights, free speech and religious freedom. He also points out that a binding resolution would first target "moderate Muslims" and that: "Next to suffer from the UN-sanctioned McCarthyism will be writers and journalists in the democratic West." The text singles out the freedom of the Western media which allows for ‘deliberate stereotyping of religions, their adherents and sacred persons.'

The vote, at the end of March, comes ahead of the UN's World Conference Against Racism in Geneva, April 20-24. This conference is due to be a follow-up ‘review' of the UN's infamous Durban conference in 2001 which Islamists deteriorated into a attack on Israel which many participants viewed as antisemitic in tone.

Fears are rife that April's ‘Durban 2' will simply provide the same Arab states with yet another global platform from which to launch a similar attack on Israel. Canada has already withdrawn because of the antisemitic tone of key documents. Australia is threatening to withdraw for the same reason. Italy, France, Germany and others have all notified their misgivings to the UNCHR. The United States, which walked out with the Israelis at Durban in 2001 when a resolution compared Zionism with racism, is also threatening to withdraw. The Israelis, not surprisingly, will not be attending.

Perversely, the very forum being sponsored by the UN's Human Rights Council to work for improved human rights and against racism, has and is providing Islamic nations, many of whom have some of the worst records of human rights abuses in the world, with a global platform which openly espouses perjorative and racist anti-Semitic language against Israel's Jewish population. If the UN Human Rights Council does go ahead and endorse the resolution, aimed at criminalizing ‘defamation of Islam', at the end of March and the April conference it will amount to a major blow against free speech and as a further appeasement to Islamist bigotry.

Just as good in terms of ‘promoting better global relations', how about taking up US TV commentator Lou Dobbs suggestion that we, "bulldoze the large piece of real estate on the east side of Manhattan (UN Plaza) - and build something useful". Or would that too deny Islamists their most effective weapon in the Jihad against Western free speech?

Peter C Glover is the British author of The Politics of Faith and writer on international affairs. For more go to

Monday, March 23, 2009

Last Week in Obamanation

I feel like I am living a very bizarre episode of "The Twilight Zone" with a script that goes something like this:

Inspite millions of the protests of millions of Americans, Congress indulged in a porkgasm that our grandchildren will have to pay for, volumes have already been written on the size, so I won't go there.

Then somewhere in the last few weeks or so, Congress gave themselves a 4% pay raise, no kidding. Then come the TARP bailouts and millions of dollars are sent overseas to "honor the contracts" with the foreign banks. Then it was AIG's turn at the trough.

Somewhere in there, roughly $200 million was promised in bonuses(from a contract that was created back in May 08). The public got wind of the bonuses and what began as a dull rumble became a full throated roar of outrage, with Barry as our Cheerleader in Chief of Outrage. Then we find out that his boy Timmy the TaxCheat had alot more to do with writing in those bonuses than even the Cheeleader in Chief knew(or so the MSM reports). Enter Barney Frankinosense who raved that it was outrageous that out of all those millions of dollars going to overseas banks and porcine projects back home that those executives would "dare" to collect those bonuses--I'm guessing it was less than 1%(of the bailout funds) give or take a few million, but whats a few million, right?

Why the hubris of those knaves! Off with their heads, Barney shouted to the approval of those in Congress who should have known better than to advocate targeting a specific group of private citizens (that pesky Constitution again), then demanded the names of those knaves so they could send Timmy the TaxCheat's little buddies to collect those ill-gotten bonuses.

But, wait, what did you say Doddering Dodd the soon to be Doorman? You said you knew about those bonuses when you voted for the bailout? You didn't? No, wait, you did? Well which is it, man? So, you and your posse knew all along about those bonuses,did you? Well now, that might explain in part why so many Republicans refused to vote for the Porkulus spending bill. The Dems just keep writing the Repubs campaign commercials, very nice of them I must say.

When the Cheerleader in Chief realized he had struck a thinly stretched chord with the "chattering classes" of Upchucky's derision and scorn, he decided to scoot out of town and let the hired help handle the rest of the week, for you see, Cheerleaders in Chief must remain spotless when the stuff starts getting flung against the wall. And fling they did. In voices(and jowls) quivering with affected affront they whipped up the chattering classes with their rhetoric and venom against those employees who refused to return their hard earned bonuses. Then in fiendish delight they passed legislation which would snatch back the bonuses in the form of exorbitant taxation--that's what you get for nay-saying the tyrants, you foolish knaves.

Then in a final disquieting display of avarice and class-envy a community organizing group( AKA Connecticut Working Families Party, not at all surprisingly, a branch of ACORN) organized(it's what they do) a bus tour through the neighborhoods of some of those greedy knaves, in order to gawk and grumble about what the greedy knaves have and the chattering classes do not have.

Nevermind it was a legally binding contract! HUSH, you cannot speak the truth in this episode, truth no longer exists. Truth was crushed beneath the bootheel of the tyranical jowl-wavers and her sister Freedom wept.

All of this brouhaha was merely a smoke screen you know. To keep us from seeing the real story of 1 trillion dollars being printed by our government to pay our government, because China will not buy anymore debt from us, neither will the rest of the world. We are now printing more money than it is worth.


And in the dark shadows the jittery jihadis wait and watch.
Take a Tour of the Tour Organizers--its only fair

Saturday, March 21, 2009

My Response to Disappointed Catholics

"He garnered the majority of Catholic votes in the 2008 election, but a number of Catholic groups now say President Obama is showing a complete lack of regard for their beliefs."

Oh Reaaally? You stupid, STUPID, selfish Catholics who thought you could vote for a man who demonstrated a complete lack of regard for YOUR beliefs when he blatantly refused to help babies who survive abortion attempts are NOW surprised that he ...what somehow hasn't magically changed into the One of your dreams? Ohhh get thee behind me O foolish ones!! And now, he has signed off on embryonic stem cell research, erased conscience protection for healthcare workers, and is going to push through FOCA and you are just NOW disappointed? When Catholic hospitals close across the nation, you disappointed Catholics who voted for this man will bear that responsibility.

I have no patience at all for your handwringing and bellybutton gazing. How many of your fellow Catholic brothers and sisters begged and pleaded with you to pay attention to the facts and stop "feeling" that he would make a difference? How many times did our POPE remind you--vote for life. "America--Choose LIFE!" Pope Benedict said to us when he visited and you didn't listen, because you were so wrapped up in your self importance that you were unable to realize that the evil one was whipering into your ear..."pay no attention to that old man, you know better than he does."

"President Obama has already reached out and won the Catholic vote," Jon O'Brien, president of Catholics for Choice, said.
"That's what happened in the last election in spite of the very loud voices of some extreme uber-Catholics who really want to paint this black and white picture -- to engage us in this endless culture war," he said."

Jon O'Brien, why do you still call yourself a Catholic? Obama did not win my vote, but I guess according to you, you pathetic sycophant of evil, that I am an extreme uber-Catholic. Well, guess are either Catholic or you aren't, there is NO middle ground. You either stand against the intrinsic evil of murdering innocent children or you enable the evil to continue. There is NO middle ground.

I really pray for all of my Catholic brothers and sisters--and I personally know quite a few and I pray for the person who drives that damned car with the OBAMA bumper sicker on it that I pass every Sunday in the parking lot.

I pray that you will come to realize what a grave injustice you helped bring about through your votes last fall and then step up to your responsibility to work as hard to correct the injustice as you did to create it.

The blood of thousands of slaughtered innocents demands it.

Thursday, March 19, 2009

Something Wicked This Way Comes

While we are all distracted by the AIG bailout and the TARP fiasco, MO's sleek arms, and the dazzling BO parties at the White House...this is happening

ACORN will help with 2010 census

Missouri police keep an "eye" on conservatives

BO recruiting an army of obamites

"We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded."
Barack Hussein Obama, on the campaign trail, summer of 08

Wednesday, March 18, 2009

Exclusive: Are Somali Jihadists in Nashville?

Family Sercurity MattersMarch 17, 2009

Pinched from my ever vigilant friends over at IBA
Dave GaubatzFor a few days in February and March of this year, my field counterterrorism researchers and I visited Nashville, Tennessee. I had obtained information in Richmond, Virginia, that a group of Muslims originally from Somalia had relocated to Nashville. Additionally, there were several media organizations (conservative and liberal) and individuals reporting concerns for our national security in regards to some Somali nationals missing from various U.S. cities and likely organizing to commit Jihadist activity against America.

During my counterterrorism lectures and training, I have often said the truth is somewhere in the middle. Never focus solely on what organizations slanted to the extreme right or extreme left inform the American public. More importantly, I advocate only using first-hand intelligence and do not rely on open source intelligence.

The only method to determine if Muslims from Somalia were advocating Islamic Jihadist ideologies in America was to conduct research in predominately Somalian Islamic Centers. The Al-Farooq Islamic Center in Nashville was selected as a start.My research was coordinated with law enforcement authorities who also expressed concerns on groups of Somalian Muslims possibly being involved in Jihadist activity.

My researchers and I visited Al-Farooq several times in February and March. We attended prayers, lectures, and Islamic study programs. Based on my knowledge of Islamic Jihadist mindset, ideology, materials used to advocate young people to commit violence against innocent people, and by studying from many Muslims themselves who have first-hand experiences with Islamic jihadist organizations, I provided my professional assessment of Al-Farooq.

In short, I opine the leadership of Al-Farooq in Nashville advocates Islamic Jihadist activity against America and innocent people.

My analysis is based on the following:
1. Material (lectures, books, and manuals) by convicted terrorist supporters such as Ali al-Timimi and others is available and provided to worshippers (to include children).
2. Worshippers advocate Sharia law in its entirety.
3. A child informed my female researcher the Islamic teachers “hit” them during Islamic studies, and “her leg hurts.”
4. Worshippers advised polygamy is being practiced by some men of the mosque.
5. My female researcher was escorted by an Al-Farooq worshipper to a Somalian store “hidden” in a section of Nashville that could only be located if taken there. The worshipper informed my researcher the “store” had moved because of “government problems.” “Bootleg” copies of Islamic lectures/films were being provided at the store (observed by my researcher) and this store was involved in financial transactions such as sending money from America to Somalia/other locations.
6. I reviewed many of the materials distributed by the mosque and there are statements advocating killing people and destroying countries who do not live their lives under Sharia law and who oppress Islam/Muslims.
7. Sedition and treasonous activity is being advocated through the distribution of Islamic Jihadist materials.

Any of the above should justify law enforcement authorities to conduct a formal investigation.

Contrary to this, they advised the activities are not illegal in Tennessee, and/or are covered under the First Amendment to our U.S. Constitution, and they had reservations about being involved because they may be sued by such organizations as CAIR.In addition they required “hard evidence” to investigate.

My further analysis concludes law enforcement authorities are not properly trained in Nashville to understand the complexities of Sharia law and appear to be more devoted to “Interfaith” dialogue with Islamic leaders than protecting the citizens of Nashville, to include innocent Muslims and non Muslims who do not adhere to the Islamic Jihadist ideology.

Also, although they do not realize it, by cowering to CAIR, they themselves are being “terrorized” by the threats of such organizations.It is my professional opinion the people (Muslim and non-Muslim) of Nashville face potential violence being advocated by the leadership of Al-Farooq, and a “slow and calculated” implementation of Sharia law.

The authorities should be more concerned by lawsuits by innocent Americans against them for failing to fulfill the duties taxpayers are paying for than by organizations such as CAIR.Until concerned American citizens demand our law enforcement and elected officials to perform their jobs and protect our country and children, we (America) will likely suffer another terrorist attack far worse than 9/11.

This attack was ‘hard evidence’ Islamic Jihadist are better trained than our law enforcement and will utilize all tactics (to include deception) to destroy America and Israel.Readers may go to my website – – to further review information about Al-Farooq in Nashville, including video of the “library” containing Jihadist material. Contributing Editor Dave Gaubatz spent 20 years as an active duty USAF (Special Agent/OSI), 3.5 years as a civilian 1811 Federal Agent, trained by the U.S. State Department in Arabic, and was the first U.S. Federal Agent to enter Iraq in 2003.

He is also a counterterrorism counterintelligence officer. Gaubatz currently owns "Wahhabi CT Publications" and conducts CT Research on behalf of high profile non-profit organizations. His website is here, and he can be reached at

The President Wants Wounded Warriors to Pay

The president has a great new idea to raise $540 million. He wants to force our military men and women to pay for their service connected injuries and disabilities through private insurance. I am sure that will be a marvelous recruiting slogan “Join the Army, Serve your nation… just don’t get hurt because then you will be on your own for healthcare.”

Doesn’t anyone in Obama’s inner circle say stuff like –“Sir, this is a really bad, bad idea.”? Or maybe, “Wow, you want men and women to volunteer to place themselves in harm’s way, AND pay for their medical care, good luck with that one sir.”

Surely, we can find another place to get money besides out of our service member’s pockets when we already ask them to bear an enormous load both physically and emotionally. Oh, hey! I know, how about we take back saaaay....around $540 million back from the AIG bunch instead?


Contact: Craig Roberts of The American Legion, +1-202-263-2982 Office, +1-202-406-0887 Cell

WASHINGTON, March 16 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The leader of the nation's largest veterans organization says he is "deeply disappointed and concerned" after a meeting with President Obama today to discuss a proposal to force private insurance companies to pay for the treatment of military veterans who have suffered service-connected disabilities and injuries. The Obama administration recently revealed a plan to require private insurance carriers to reimburse the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in such cases.

"It became apparent during our discussion today that the President intends to move forward with this unreasonable plan," said Commander David K. Rehbein of The American Legion. "He says he is looking to generate $540-million by this method, but refused to hear arguments about the moral and government-avowed obligations that would be compromised by it."

The Commander, clearly angered as he emerged from the session said, "This reimbursement plan would be inconsistent with the mandate ' to care for him who shall have borne the battle' given that the United States government sent members of the armed forces into harm's way, and not private insurance companies. I say again that The American Legion does not and will not support any plan that seeks to bill a veteran for treatment of a service connected disability at the very agency that was created to treat the unique need of America's veterans!"

Tuesday, March 17, 2009

Yes We Can, No We Can't, uhmm..We Can't??

File this one under O for OMG are you kidding me? How fortunate for us right wing wackos who oppose using human beings for research, how unfortunate for President Barry and his troupe of (badly) performing clowns
- On Wednesday, only two days after he lifted President Bush’s executive order banning federal funding of stem cell research that requires the destruction of human embryos, President Barack Obama signed a law that explicilty bans federal funding of any "research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death."

The provision was buried in the 465-page omnibus appropriations bill that Obama signed Wednesday. Known as the Dickey-Wicker amendment, it has been included in the annual appropriations bill for the Department of Health and Human Services every fiscal year since 1996.

The amendment says, in part: "None of the funds made available in this Act may be used for—(1) the creation of a human embryo or embryos for research purposes; or (2) research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death."

Found in Section 509 of Title V of the omnibus bill (at page 280 of the 465-page document), the federal funding ban not only prohibits the government from providing tax dollars to support research that kills or risks injury to a human embryo, it also mandates that the government use an all-inclusive definition of “human embryo” that encompasses any nascent human life from the moment that life comes into being, even if created in a laboratory through cloning, in vitro fertilization or any other means.

“For the purposes of this section,” says the law, “the term ‘human embryo or embryos’ includes any organism … that is derived by fertilization, parthenogenesis, cloning, or any other means from one or more human gametes or human diploid cells.” (The entire verbatim text of Section 509 of the omnibus spending law is reprinted at the bottom of this article.)

At a widely publicized White House ceremony on Monday, President Obama signed his own executive order lifting an executive order that President Bush had signed in 2001. While allowing federal funding of research involving embryonic stem cell lines that had already been created from embryos that had already been destroyed, Bush's 2001 order denied federal funding to research that required the killing of any additional embryos.

“For the past 8 years, the authority of the Department of Health and Human Services, including the National Institutes of Health (NIH), to fund and conduct human embryonic stem cell research has been limited by Presidential actions,” said the order that President Obama signed Monday. “The purpose of this order is to remove these limitations on scientific inquiry, to expand NIH support for the exploration of human stem cell research, and in so doing to enhance the contribution of America's scientists to important new discoveries and new therapies for the benefit of humankind.”

The order went on to say: “The Secretary of Health and Human Services (Secretary), through the Director of NIH, may support and conduct responsible, scientifically worthy human stem cell research, including human embryonic stem cell research, to the extent permitted by law.”

Thanks to the Dickey-Wicker language in Section 509 of the omnibus bill, the "extent permitted by law" will continue to forbid federal funding of research that even puts embryos at risk.

Close observers on both sides of the embryonic stem cell issue were well aware of the Dickey-Wicker amendment, and understood that it would pose a legal obstacle to federal funding of embryo-killing research even if President Obama issued an executive order reversing President Bush's administrative policy denying federal funding to that research.

Rep. Diana DeGette (D.-Colo.) sponsored the House version of a bill--vetoed by President Bush--that would have legalized federal funding of stem cell research that destroys so-called “spare” human embryos taken from in vitro fertilization clinics. On Monday, she told The New York Times she had already approached what she called “several pro-life Democrats” about the possibility of repealing Dickey-Wicker.

“Dickey-Wicker is 13 years old now, and I think we need to review these policies,'' The Times quoted DeGette as saying. “I’ve already talked to several pro-life Democrats about Dickey-Wicker, and they seemed open to the concept of reversing the policy if we could show that it was necessary to foster this research.”

Rep. Mike Castle (R.-Del.), who co-sponsored Rep. DeGette’s bill, similarly stated this week that Dickey-Wicker should be revisited.

"Certainly, the Dickey-Wicker amendment . . . is something we need to look at," Castle told Congressional Quarterly Today on Monday. "That was passed in 1996, before we realized the full potential of embryonic stem cell research. Some researchers are telling us now that that needs to be reversed."

Douglas Johnson, spokesman for the National Right to Life Committee, said in a press release Monday that President Obama’s executive order lifting the ban on federal funding for embryo-destroying stem cell research “set the stage” for an effort to repeal Dickey-Wicker.

“This sets the stage for an attack on the Dickey-Wicker law, which since 1995 has been a provision of the annual appropriations bills for federal health programs,” said Johnson. “Any member of Congress who votes for legislation to repeal this law is voting to allow federal funding of human embryo farms, created through the use of human cloning.”

In the remarks he made Monday when announcing the executive order, President Obama said he wanted to close the door to “the use” of cloning for human reproduction but not for other purposes.

“And we will ensure that our government never opens the door to the use of cloning for human reproduction. It is dangerous, profoundly wrong and has no place in our society, or any society,” said Obama.

A bill sponsored in the last Congress by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D.-Calif.) and Sen. Orrin Hatch (R- Utah) would specifically permit federal funding of research using human embryos that are created by cloning and kept alive for no more than 14 days so that their stem cells can be extracted. Federal funding of this type of research is prohibited by Dickey-Wicker.

Researchers are interested in cloning human embryos for prospective stem cell therapies because it might help overcome the problem posed by a patient's immune system, which rejects stem cells derived from another person but might accept stem cells if they are taken from an embryo cloned from the patient himself.

On Tuesday morning, The New York Times carried an editorial calling on Congress to repeal Dickey-Wicker.

“Other important embryonic research is still being hobbled by the so-called Dickey-Wicker amendment,” The Times editorialized. “The amendment, which is regularly attached to appropriations bills for the Department of Health and Human Services, prohibits the use of federal funds to support scientific work that involves the destruction of human embryos (as happens when stem cells are extracted) or the creation of embryos for research purposes.”

“Congress should follow Mr. Obama's lead and lift this prohibition so such important work can benefit from an infusion of federal dollars,” The Times said.

The next day, President Obama signed H.R. 1105, the “Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009,” which includes the Dickey-Wicker language. Unless Congress passes and President Obama signs new legislation to repeal Dickey-Wicker, it will now be the law of the land at least through September 30, when this fiscal year ends.

The text of Section 509 of the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009, reads as follows:

SEC. 509. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act may be used for—(1) the creation of a human embryo or embryos for research purposes; or (2) research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death greater than that allowed for research on fetuses in utero under 45 CFR 46.204(b) and section 498(b) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 289g(b)). (b) For purposes of this section, the term ‘‘human embryo or embryos’’ includes any organism, not protected as a human subject under 45 CFR 46 as of the date of the enactment of this Act, that is derived by fertilization, parthenogenesis, cloning, or any other means from one or more human gametes or human diploid cells.

Michael W. Chapman contributed to this report.

Monday, March 16, 2009

Iraqi Prime Minister to Obama--"Not without my permission"

Oh really Mr. Maliki? You informed BO? You are CinC now? Since when does the Iraqi prime minister tell the United States when we can leave? Did he get permission from Pelosi and Reid before he decided that OUR troops would stay everything is 100% secure? News flash for Maliki: until you get rid of the radical jihadi jackels your nation is not going to be 100% secure. Where's my shoe...


BAGHDAD (AP) -- Iraq's prime minister says U.S. troops will not be withdrawn from areas of the country that are not completely secure.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki tells The Associated Press in an interview that he has informed President Barack Obama and other top U.S. officials that the Iraqi government must agree to any withdrawals "and must be linked to the security situation."

Al-Maliki says that he does not want U.S. troops taken out of any area unless it is "considered 100 percent secure and under control." Otherwise, withdrawals will be postponed.

The prime minister spoke aboard his plane traveling from Australia to Baghdad.

How about a little motivation to get your country 100% secure. hmm??

Saturday, March 14, 2009

When a President doesn't know the difference

Sometimes I feel like I am living in an alternate universe, in which stupidity and blind ignorance are taking the place of common sense and knowledge. Bill Clinton apparently missed the memo that embryos are embryos because they have been fertilized...God help us, please...

Friday, March 13, 2009

Sometimes In Life You Have to Take a Stand

I snagged this from my friends over at Infidel Bloggers Alliance

Paging All Moderate Talibanis. Please Come to Customer Service, Your Party Is Waiting

Earlier this week our ever evolving brilliant Constitutional lawyer President declared he was going to "reach out to moderate elements of the Taliban. Now, when I discussed this story with my son, who is 14, he said "The only moderate Taliban are the dead ones." If a 14 year old gets it, why oh why can't BO just understand? I mean, is it too much to ask for, that the POTUS is at least as smart as a 14 year old??? What a doofus...

"President Obama declared in an interview that the United States was not winning the war in Afghanistan and opened the door to a reconciliation process in which the American military would reach out to moderate elements of the Taliban, much as it did with Sunni militias in Iraq

Their response pretty much echoed the response from every other semi-sane person on the planet...

"This does not require any response or reaction for this is illogical," Qari Mohammad Yousuf, a purported spokesman for the insurgent group, told Reuters when asked if its top leader Mullah Mohammad Omar would make any comment about Obama's proposal.

"The Taliban are united, have one leader, one aim, one policy...I do not know why they are talking about moderate Taliban and what it means?"

Nice one Barry, I can hardly wait til next weeks edition of humiliate America on the worldwide stage.

Hehehe...and this is how it should be.

You Iranian jackasses want to screw with the US, we can blow you out of the sky all day long...

From Gateway Pundit:

The US shot down an Iranian spy drone flying over Iraq last month.
Blog Wired reported, via LGF:

An American fighter jet shot down an Iranian drone as it was flying over Iraq, U.S. military sources in Baghdad tell Danger Room.

Details of the previously-unreported shoot-down, which occurred last month, are still sketchy. But we do know that American commanders have long accused Tehran of supplying weapons and training to all sorts of Iraqi militant groups. Shi'ite militias fired Iranian rockets at U.S. troops in Iraq, according to the American military; Sunni militias allegedly used Iranian armor-piercing bombs to reduce U.S. vehicles to ribbons.

In early 2008, however, the torrent of Iranian weapons into Iraq slowed to a trickle, the U.S. said. And now, the new Obama administration is looking for ways to reach out to the Tehran regime -- dangling invitations to international conferences, and offering promises of renewed relations.

Which means the drone incident comes at a particularly sensitive time.

Iran has built an array of unmanned aerial vehicles, or UAVs. The pneumatically launched Ababil ("Swallow") has a wingspan of more than 10 feet, and cruises at 160 knots, according to The Mohajer or Misrad ("Migrant") drone is a bit smaller, and slower-flying.

Iran has supplied Hezbollah, the Lebanese terror group, with both models. Misrad drones flew reconnaissance missions in both November 2004 and April 2005. Then, in 2006, during Hezbollah's war with Israel, the group operated both Misrads and Ababils over Israel's skies. At least one was shot down by Israeli fighter jets.
Last month the Iranian Regime claimed to have built a long-range drone.

Tuesday, March 10, 2009

In Case We Elect a Moron...

I posted this picture before, but it still works here...even more so, sadly.
In case you can't read the caption it says "I keep thinking we should include something in the Constitution in case teh people elect a fucking moron." Exactly.

Uhm...ahh..Just one...ahh..Thing I ..uhh...was...uhh..uhh thinking about...

When you have to call BACK and explain why you aren't a socialist again, maybe you really are a socialist in the first place. Come on Barry, admitting you have a problem is always the first step in any 12 step recovery program. You can do it. I have faith in you...ok, well..maybe not so much.

"It was hard for me to believe that you were entirely serious about that socialist question," he told reporters, who had interviewed the president aboard Air Force One on Friday.

Opening the unusual presidential call to reporters by saying that there was "just one thing I was thinking about as I was getting on the copter," he said it wasn't he who started the federal government's intervention into the nation's financial system.

"I did think it might be useful to point out that it wasn’t under me that we started buying a bunch of shares of banks. It wasn’t on my watch. And it wasn’t on my watch that we passed a massive new entitlement -– the prescription drug plan -- without a source of funding. And so I think it’s important just to note when you start hearing folks throw these words around that we’ve actually been operating in a way that has been entirely consistent with free-market principles and that some of the same folks who are throwing the word 'socialist' around can’t say the same."

The New York Times asked, "So whose watch are we talking about here?" but Obama wouldn't name names.

"Well, I just think it’s clear by the time we got here, there already had been an enormous infusion of taxpayer money into the financial system. And the thing I constantly try to emphasize to people if that coming in, the market was doing fine, nobody would be happier than me to stay out of it. I have more than enough to do without having to worry the financial system. The fact that we’ve had to take these extraordinary measures and intervene is not an indication of my ideological preference, but an indication of the degree to which lax regulation and extravagant risk taking has precipitated a crisis."

He concluded the brief call by saying, "I think that covers it."

The phone call came after the president was asked aboard his plane: "Are you a socialist as some people have suggested?"

He was clear in his first answer: "You know, let’s take a look at the budget – the answer would be no."

"Is there anything wrong with saying, 'Yes'?" a Times reporter pressed.

"Let’s just take a look at what we’ve done," Obama said, ticking off efforts his administration has made to stabilize the economy. But he acknowledged that, as he told Joe the Plumber, he plans to try to spread the wealth around.


Wednesday, March 4, 2009

I Don't Want to Get Mad-Dog Mean

"Now remember, things look bad and it looks like you're not gonna make it, then you gotta get mean. I mean plumb, mad-dog mean. 'Cause if you lose your head and you give up then you neither live nor win. That's just the way it is." - The Outlaw Josey Wales

This quote opens an article by C. Edmund Wright. He speaks to a growing sense of unease that is spreading throughout the United States these days. America as we know and love is disappearing under the onslaught of new legislation this new administration is force-feeding us.

I don't want to be forced into a corner and left with the choice of submit or die. I don't want to get plumb, mad-dog mean, not because I am afraid to, but because that is no way to live. I don't want to fight, I just want to be left alone to live in my nation and not be forced to support 50% of the rest of the population through huge tax burdens. I don't want to be forced to support murdering unborn children by tax-payer funded abortions.

But, every day as I read about one more piece of legislation, one more presidential decree that is signed that rips and tears at the very fabric of this nation, the greatest nation in the history of mankind, I realize they are pushing me to fight that fight. I will fight, not because I want to, but because I have to. Right now I am fighting in the most civil way I know how, because that is who I am. But, do not mistake civility for passivity. Do not mistake courtesy for weakness.

"In short, provisions in the stimulus and the new budget bills take away freedom to make money, to spend money and even to give away money. And it's all done for one purpose. To give the government more control to make, spend and distribute money."

Does anyone care to take a guess why the government wants more control over every one of us? The people now running our government do not believe you or I are smart enough to run our own lives, they want to mandate for us how to do it instead, that means liberals too by the way.

Take nationalized healthcare for instance, if the government gets to decide which treatment or no treatment is most cost effective, do you honestly believe that will apply only to conservatives? No, it will apply to everyone, except for the elitists who will have ready access to anything they desire. The changes that are coming to this nation WILL affect all of us, liberals, conservatives, democrats, republicans, independents.

I don't want to get mad-dog mean...but, I will.