Not, of course, that we should be surprised by such things – but it is impossible to reconcile the “unshackling of science” by funding fetal stem cell research with this position, which could be seen as equally “anti-science”.

President Barack Obama says human cloning is "dangerous, profoundly wrong" and has no place in society.

Obama made the comments as he was signing an executive order that will allow federal spending on embryonic stem cell research.

Some critics say the research can lead to human cloning. Obama said the government will develop strict guidelines for the research because misuse or abuse is unacceptable.

He said he would ensure that the government never opens the door to the use of cloning for human reproduction.

Why shouldn’t we clone? Moreover, why should government restrict cloning? After all, isn’t that a question better left to science and not politics, just like experimentation on fetal stem cells? And if not, why not – and how do you differentiate between the two sorts of scientific experimentation?

Posted by: Greg at 04:38 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 182 words, total size 1 kb.

Rather than smoothing over relations with one of our closest ally, Barack Obama has managed to insult the UK, not to mention British PM Gordon Brown personally.

Sources close to the White House say Mr Obama and his staff have been "overwhelmed" by the economic meltdown and have voiced concerns that the new president is not getting enough rest.

British officials, meanwhile, admit that the White House and US State Department staff were utterly bemused by complaints that the Prime Minister should have been granted full-blown press conference and a formal dinner, as has been customary. They concede that Obama aides seemed unfamiliar with the expectations that surround a major visit by a British prime minister.

But Washington figures with access to Mr Obama's inner circle explained the slight by saying that those high up in the administration have had little time to deal with international matters, let alone the diplomatic niceties of the special relationship.

Allies of Mr Obama say his weary appearance in the Oval Office with Mr Brown illustrates the strain he is now under, and the president's surprise at the sheer volume of business that crosses his desk.

A well-connected Washington figure, who is close to members of Mr Obama's inner circle, expressed concern that Mr Obama had failed so far to "even fake an interest in foreign policy".

Yeah, you read that right -- the Obamateur is surprised that he actually has work to do as president, and he is therefore overwhelmed and exhausted by it less than two months into his presidency. What's more, his aides don't know what to do and apparently don't care -- therefore insulting a major world leader.

As I asked earlier in a different post -- will there be a United States worthy of the name in 46 1/2 months when the next president is scheduled to be sworn in?

Posted by: Greg at 04:44 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 329 words, total size 3 kb.

Maria Conchita Alonso about her former co-star, Sean Penn:

"He's an amazing actor. I can't take that away from him," she said of Penn, who worked with her on the 1988 cop film Colors. "It's just that he has no clue at all what's going on in Venezuela. He's been praising Hugo Chavez, who is a dictator and a killer. He should shut up about what he doesn't know."

Will Sean Penn listen to an actual Venezuelan about the nature of the Venezuelan dictator? Or will he and the rest of the Hollywood Left continue to figuratively fellate the man who has made Venezuela less free?

Posted by: Greg at 04:14 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 114 words, total size 1 kb.

Well, it certainly seems that way to me.

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.

While Barry Hussein may think that this is just like what was done in Iraq (by the way -- didn't he argue that we lost in Iraq?), thee is a big difference. In Iraq, the Sunni militias were not the major enemy we faced -- our nation's major concern by that time was with the al-Qaeda forces there -- and our president declared that we were in it to win it.

But in this case, the commander-in-chief has come out and said that the US is losing the war and wants to reach some sort of agreement with the very group we are fighting -- the very group that harbored Osama bin Laden and appointed them the head of their military at the same time he was preparing to attack the US on 9/11. In other words, this IS negotiating with the major enemy to end a war that he has publicly stated we are losing. That, my friends, indicates that Barack Hussein Obama is preparing to negotiate from a position of weakness with those who side with al-Qaeda -- and presumably end our involvement in Afghanistan on their terms. That constitutes surrender.

So, my friends, I must ask -- will there be a United States worthy of the name in 46 1/2 months when the next president is scheduled to be sworn in?

Posted by: Greg at 04:00 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 292 words, total size 2 kb.

This time it is Rachel MadCow.

RACHEL MADDOW: "It is one thing to say, ‘I hope that this guy's proposed policies don't pass. I hope those don't become the policies of our country.’ But once they become the policies of the country, and they are designed to save us from this economic collapse, you ought to hope they succeed, unless you are hoping for your country to suffer worse in an economic collapse. I mean, actually rooting for the failure of your own federal government is pretty creepy."

Oddly enough, this was not her view when the president was George W. Bush. She actively rooted for him to fail – especially in Iraq. Now she wants to deny others the very right she claimed for herself not too long ago – the right to be viewed as more patriotic because of one’s opposition to the policies and personnel of the president.

Oh, and on a related note, God bless Ari Fleischer for this zinger.

Are you going after Democrat members of Congress for why they aren't distancing themselves from Keith Olbermann?

That would never happen – such a denunciation would kill any Democrat’s chances among the crucial “tin-foil hat” constituency of the Democrat Party.

But we’ve seen that before – one local Democrat Party official and liberal blogger publicly wished for the execution of our nation’s elected leaders, urged the lynching of Ari Fleischer AND received a long suspension from his NASA job over his violations of the Hatch Act, but is still embraced by his fellow Democrat leaders and local elected officials. I guess the standard is different when you are a liberal – after all, you are presumptively such a good person that illegal activity and calling for the murder of your political opponents is simply seen as exuberance rather than anything to be condemned.

Posted by: Greg at 01:49 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 325 words, total size 2 kb.

Once Obama’s inflationary policies kick in, your wages may increase dramatically. Unfortunately, your purchasing power may not – and may drop. But you’ll still be rich according to Dear Leader Obama. Here’s why.

With a guarantee that only those making more than $250,000 a year will see a tax increase it is probably a good time to talk about something that has not been a problem for decades: Bracket Creep.

Bracket creep is the result of a progressive tax system in an inflationary environment. In a progressive tax system the rate at which income (or whatever the basis for taxation is, but for this discussion it is income) is taxed at a greater rate as income goes up. The increases are incremental in a discreet number of brackets, of which there are currently six. The net effect is that the last dollar earned is taxed at a greater rate than the first dollar earned as long as enough is earned to advance out of the lowest bracket.

So don’t worry – your rising salary will make you rich. And your government will therefore be able to take a large bite of your paycheck.

Posted by: Greg at 01:46 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 203 words, total size 1 kb.

If bishops carry through on this, will it lead to the repeal of a law designed to force participation in abortion by religious groups and medical professionals morally opposed to the taking of innocent human life?

A proposed bill promising major changes in the U.S. abortion landscape has Roman Catholic bishops threatening to close Catholic hospitals if the Democratic Congress and White House make it law.

The Freedom of Choice Act failed to get out of subcommittee in 2004, but its sponsor is poised to refile it now that former Senate co-sponsor Barack Obama occupies the Oval Office.

A spokesman for Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., said the legislation "is among the congressman's priorities. We expect to reintroduce it sooner rather than later."

FOCA, as the bill is known, would make federal law out of the abortion protections established in 1973 by the U.S. Supreme Court's Roe vs. Wade ruling.

The legislation has some Roman Catholic bishops threatening to shutter the country's 624 Catholic hospitals — including 11 in the Archdiocese of St. Louis — rather than comply.

Speaking in Baltimore in November at the bishops' fall meeting, Bishop Thomas Paprocki, a Chicago auxiliary bishop, took up the issue of what to do with Catholic hospitals if FOCA became law. "It would not be sufficient to withdraw our sponsorship or to sell them to someone who would perform abortions," he said. "That would be a morally unacceptable cooperation in evil."

Bishop Paprocki is a top-notch canonist with a firm grasp of the nuances of moral theology. He is exactly correct on this point.

But if 13% of all hospitals in the country close down, meaning that the 1/6 of Americans who use them are forced to fall back upon pubic or other private hospitals, that might just force the repeal of a law that is, in part, designed to force hospitals that donÂ’t provide baby-slaying services to do so.

I’ve long urged that Catholic bishops and religious orders (as well as non-Catholic Christian schools) do something similar to move the country forward on the issue of school choice. Simply announce failure to provide students with their fair share of the tax funds designated for their education will result in the closure of their schools – and the resultant flood of these students into the public schools. The shortage of space and increased costs associated with accommodating these students would quickly lead to the public demanding voucher programs for all students as the cheapest and easiest way to deal with the issue. Likewise, the closure of all these hospitals will make the policy choice crystal clear – allow religious groups to operate hospitals in accordance with their religious principles or accept the financial burden that goes along with driving them from the field.

More At Clayton Cramer's Blog, Hot Air. Athanasios Christian Ministries, Southern Appeal

Posted by: Greg at 01:42 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 491 words, total size 4 kb.

Yep, itÂ’s Wexler, taking illegal donations from non-citizens to finance his campaign.

After he proposed to expand the visas available to foreign models so they can work in New York, Rep. Anthony Weiner's mayoral campaign took contributions from some cat walkers from abroad.

Problem is, the models aren't allowed to donate because they're not US citizens or permanent resi dents.

Remember – compliance with the law is the responsibility of the campaign.

But what is particularly interesting is that at least one of the donors has no recollection of making a contribution at all. DidnÂ’t stuff like this happen in New York City during HillaryÂ’s campaign?

Posted by: Greg at 01:38 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 120 words, total size 1 kb.

IÂ’m not a huge fan of Joe the Plumber, but W3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUUT">this is certainly one lawsuit that I whole-heartedly support.

A conservative group has filed a lawsuit on behalf of "Joe the Plumber," accusing three former Ohio officials of violating his privacy and right to free expression when they gathered his personal information in a records search.

The federal lawsuit filed Thursday by Washington-based Judicial Watch says Samuel J. Wurzelbacher suffered emotional distress, harassment and embarrassment as a result of the search. It seeks unspecified punitive damages.

The lawsuit names Helen Jones-Kelley, who resigned in December as director of the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, and two assistants.

Given that the state investigation already found that Jones-Kelley and her minions acted inappropriately, this should be an open-and-shut case. I wonder whether or not the suit references the Ku Klux Klan Act, given that these three public officials acted “under color of law” to violate the rights of Wurzelbacher to exercise his rights under the Constitution to speak freely and participate in the political process?

Posted by: Greg at 01:29 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 179 words, total size 1 kb.

And donÂ’t tell me you canÂ’t see the resemblance.

Word is that he may have finally ‘fessed-up to the dying Elizabeth Edwards.

Posted by: Greg at 09:18 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 34 words, total size 1 kb.

Coming soon to a radio near you in the event that the Obama Regime ever manages to bring back some form of the so-called Fairness Doctrine.

First, this bit from no-talent actress, no-brain talk host Roseanne Barr.

ohlmert you lie:

you say that twelve rockets were fired into israel since the end of the "war" (ethnic cleansing). Not one Israeli was hurt or killed by these rockets, and now you say you are going to go back and kill more palestinians to teach them a lesson!!!

I think rockets are being fired by your own sources, since less than ten israelis have been killed by them. You are bullshitting the world as you pocket money made from arms sales, along with bibi and your agents in Hamas. step down all men in power!

What this stupid cow doesn’t recognize is that the terrorists from Ham-Ass have taken credit for the attacks themselves. So not only is she a rabid anti-Semite, but she is also frighteningly ignorant – which is why the Left adores her.

And then there is this Leftist, who has now decided that dissent is most definitely not Patriotic in the Age of Obama – and makes it clear how dissenters should be dealt with when the president has a D after his name.

STEPHANIE MILLER, LIBERAL TALK RADIO HOST: I guess that is what Nancy and her friends want. As long as you have a place to listen Rush on the radio -- if he fails we all fail.

LARRY KING: If his policies fail, he fails, right?

MILLER: Exactly. To me that seems treasonous. [...]

* * *

If I could say something tonight that gets me that kind of attention, like maybe Rush Limbaugh should be executed for treason. How about that?

Interestingly enough, Larry king had nothing to say in response to these comments – so it would appear that the suppression of dissent against Obama is just peachy keen in his book, too.

It actually makes liberal talk moron Ed Schultz look rather restrained by comparison.

Now if you watch Limbaugh with the sound down, the drugster, he looks like Adolf Hitler! His animation is amazing! It's, the parallel is so striking.

That’s right – don’t listen to the words, just watch the pictures in silence. That will let you confirm your pre-conceived notions. But as an experiment, you might try something similar with the sermons of your average black preacher – the animation is equally amazing. But of course, it would be completely unfair to make a comparison to Hitler on such a basis – just as Schultz’s comparison is unfair.

Posted by: Greg at 09:15 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 452 words, total size 3 kb.

The people have spoken – and the California Legislature has now said that they don’t give a rat’s ass what the people have to say.

Both houses of the state Legislature passed resolutions Monday endorsing the legal effort to overturn California's same-sex marriage ban, just days before the issue goes to the state Supreme Court.

The resolutions passed along party lines, 18-14 in the Senate and 45-27 in the Assembly, with several members absent in both chambers.

The evidence that certain officeholders in the state are clearly not in sync with the voters – or with the basic principle of popular sovereignty that underlies the entire American system of government.

"We're talking about a radical revision to our Constitution," said Sen. Mark Leno, the San Francisco Democrat who sponsored the Senate resolution. "Do we have a constitutional democracy in California or do we have mob rule, where a majority of Californians can change the Constitution at any time?"

Excuse me, Senator Leno, but I’d like to remind you that the at the very heart of the notion of constitutional democracy is the belief that the power of government comes from the people, and that their grant of power to the government comes in the form of a constitution. The people have a right – indeed, they have an obligation – to alter or abolish a particular constitutional framework so as to establish a government that is responsive to their will so as to secure their essential liberties. To argue that permitting Californians to change their constitution at any time is antithetical to constitutional democracy is itself antithetical to constitutional democracy, as it places that document and the government it establishes above the people – essentially arguing that the people are the creature of the document and the institutions it establishes rather than the other way around.

Let me say this – reasonable people may disagree about the relative merits of gay marriage and Proposition 8. Reasonable people may even disagree about the question of revision vs. amendment under the California Constitution. However, no person can agree with Senator Leno’s words unless they fundamentally reject the words of Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, . . . — That. . . Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it. . . .

I’ve excerpted this quote in this form to provide the reminder that among the truths declared to be self-evident by the founding generation of the Republic was that the people are the only valid source of government power, and that it is the height of constitutionalism for the people to change a constitution, not a rejection of that principle. To argue otherwise is anti-constitutional – and, dare I say it, approaches being un-American.

Posted by: Greg at 09:37 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 525 words, total size 3 kb.

And another example of a story of unethical behavior by a politician that will lead to absolute silence from the Houston area's local self-appointed ethics watchdog because the perp, Ron Kirk, is a Democrat (and one that he supported for high office).

Ron Kirk, nominated as U.S. Trade Representative in the Obama administration, owes an estimated $10,000 in back taxes from earlier in the decade and has agreed to make his payments, the Senate Finance Committee said Monday.

The committee said the taxes arise from KirkÂ’s handling of speaking fees that he donated to his alma mater, and for his deduction of the full cost of season tickets to the Dallas Mavericks professional basketball team.

The disclosure made the former Dallas mayor the latest in a string of top-level Obama administration appointees found to have underpaid their taxes, following Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and Tom Daschle, who withdrew as candidate for Health and Human Services secretary. Nancy Killefer, ObamaÂ’s pick for chief performance officer, also bowed out amid tax problems.

It might be easy to give Ron Kirk the benefit of the doubt if this was not one more example of a pattern of unpaid taxes by a prominent Democrat appointed by Barack Obama to high office. And given the high ethics standards that Obama claimed he was going to bring to the executive branch, I don't see how Kirk can be allowed to survive.

But then again, after putting a blatant tax cheat like Tim Geithner in charge at the Treasury Department, I guess anything is possible.

Posted by: Greg at 09:21 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 272 words, total size 2 kb.

If you want an example of how "hate crime" laws make for unequal protection of the law, here is a perfect example.

Assemblywoman Pat Eddington (D-Medford) is introducing legislation that would require law enforcement to treat any crime committed by a man against a woman as a potential hate crime.

Backed by fellow legislators and advocates for women's groups such as the National Organization of Women, Eddington said that recent reports of especially brutal crimes against women — including a Buffalo-area woman allegedly beheaded by her estranged husband — call out for for more prosecutions that make use of the gender category of New York's hate crimes law.

Eddington's legislation would mandate that officials apply the hate crime standard, which comes with harsher sentencing guidelines, before lesser charges.

Got that? ANY crime committed by a man against a woman. They will start out with the assumption of a hate crime.

Notice -- crimes by women against men will not get that assumption.

What next? Any crime committed against a minority by a white will be presumed a hate crime until proven otherwise?

Such legislation creates a two-tiered justice system. Thanks to Assemblywoman Pat Eddington for making the matter crystal clear.

Posted by: Greg at 09:08 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 212 words, total size 1 kb.