Stem cells over easy

What does Senator Shaheen's March 9th press release, on Obama's executive order to allow new federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, reveal about her true motivations?

“Today, President Obama took a major step in restoring America’s role as a leader in science and medicine by lifting the ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. For the millions of patients and families impacted by conditions such as diabetes, Parkinson’s, multiple sclerosis, and spinal cord injuries, among many others, there is now greater hope for breakthrough treatments and even cures.

“I’ve long been an advocate for encouraging researchers and scientists to look to stem cells. But in my family, this issue became personal a couple years ago when my eldest granddaughter, Elle, was diagnosed withType 1 diabetes. I am so proud she was at the White House today as President Obama signed this important executive order to ensure Elle and kids just like her in New Hampshire and across the country can receive the very best medical care we can give them.”

First, with all due respect Senator, scientists have been "looking at stem cells" for a long time, even the embryonic kind--which received 25 million in funding even under President Bush.  Adult stem cells got over 200 million, and millions more in private funding.  But that's not the part that interests me most.

Grandma knew enough to troll her diabetic granddaughter out for the press coverage, but clearly had no idea that way back in April 2007 the Times of London reported that a study in the American Journal of Medicine had already produced significant success with Type I diabetics using stem cell treatments with the patients own stem cells.  A study conducted in part by some of the same Americans whose role the Senator questions in her press release.

So a cure for Type I diabetes had already been in human trials using non-embryonic cells almost two years before the still diabetic Elle, along with Mr. Obama, swept away those old fashioned moral restrictions against government funding of embryonic stem cell research--which had been holding us back all these years...from what exactly?

It kind of puts a damper on the whole "greater hope of breakthrough cures" argument, don't you think?

It might come as a surprise to Granny Shaheen and her press release that there are already treatments for spinal cord injuries, Parkinson's, and some 70 other ailments, all using adult stem cell therapies.  Could Embryonic stem cells help?  They haven't yet but that doesn't mean an ethical approach should be ruled out, or even funded by taxpayers.

We know there are ways to harvest the same embryonic cells without destroying embryo's, (assuming the other kinds still just wont do) yet our president, and NH Senator (who campaigned heavily on the topic), have just approved a host of embryo destroying techniques that are completely unnecessary to achieve the stated goals of the research.

Mr. Obama's plan allows for every kind of destruction in the embryonic stem cell quiver--including cloning--as long as cloned embryo's do not accidentally find their way into a human uterus.    Is that really necessary? 

This sends a very strong message that the cures are not nearly as important as how must find them.  That the destruction itself is the objective and not the research.

It almost seems obvious that science has nothing at all to do with it, even  for the good Senator who otherwise should have known about a potential treatment already in development for her granddaughter as far back as  2007. 

So just how disingenuous is it to make a cause worthy for the wrong reasons, even more so when the results advance a completely different agenda--that is to secure future campaign funding from pro-abortion groups who have already spent millions to get you elected so you could shape public perception for them based on a lie?

AIG BS

Chris Dodd's amendment to the Bailout that capped compensation to executives of companies getting federal money included an exception for any contractually obligated bonus payment arranged prior to February 11th of 2009. (page 569-570)

 The bonus and compensation restrictions...

(i) shall not be construed to prohibit any bonus payment required to be paid pursuant to a written employment contract executed on or before February 11, 2009, as such valid employment contracts are determined by the Secretary or the designee of the Secretary.

Well, maybe the Secretary is objecting?  Did we hear anything prior to this weekend? Should this improved climate of regulation and oversight have managed the situation in advance of the whirlwind blame-fest that has ensued, torches and pitchforks in hand?

The AIG bonuses under current scrutiny were apparently a matter of public record long before TARP or any stimulus funds were even imagined let alone released.  AIG posted the bonus schedule months before TARP I.  So any well managed regulatory effort should have included an understanding of the bonuses and their relationship to the amendmnet in the law passed to manage them.

Since the most recent pile of cash distributed to AIG, by Obama and Geithner, was on March 2nd 2009 (30 Billion I believe) if there's a problem with how taxpayer money is being mis-used the buck should stop with the treasury secretary and his boss, Mr. Obama.

Obama is feigning outrage.  Or does he not know of the exclusion his Senate banking buddy added?  Probably not, Dodd doesn't even remember it and its his amendment.  He's calling for a 90% tax on the AIG bonus his amendment states are legitimate expenditures.

As usual congress is blowing hard in the wrong direction.  The now livid congress voted for and passed the language that excludes these payments from the federal scrutiny and Obama signed it into law.  (Maybe they should read these things first?) Further, since the federal government practically owns AIG andappointed the CEO, it seems that this new culture of regulation should have managed a scheduled compensation package with more adeptness, unless that was never the point.  

Where does that leave us?

With ample proof that the fools on the Hill, and the king of the Bailout Ball--regulation and law in hand--are blind and dumb.  Government can't do anything better, and the more they try the more obvious this becomes.  But the Obama Democrats continue to use government as the promise of salvation for every manufactured ill.

Can we expect the same 'incompetence' if they get their hands on the power grid or health care.  yes we can.

Obama give the Teamsters something they want--we pay

The 2009 Omnibus bill, like everything in Washington with 1000 pages that no one reads, is loaded with secrets.  One of them was a gift to the International Brotherhood of Teamsters.

And it's going to cost us because Mexico has retaliated.

The bill provisions prohibit Mexican Truckers from traveling across the border to deliver products or pick up materials.  NAFTA had permitted the foreign counterparts to exceed the 25 mile limit which had previously allowed them to drop shipments at transfer facilities where US truckers would then haul the goods.  This change reintroduces the more expensive (older) restrictions.

Given all the turmoil along the border, plenty of you will argue that this is just a good idea.  That it will prevent drug cartels and radicals from south of the border riding up into the country under the cover of NAFTA.  But remember, this is Obama and the democrats.  They want more illegals in the country, so their thinking has to move along a different route.  Besides, this was never their preffered route of entry.

The Teamsters have been fighting the Mexican truck driver rules since the Clinton years because they want that work transferred to US haulers at the border.  The NAFTA rules made imports from Mexico less expensive leaving more money in the pockets of US businesses and millions of consumers.  Money that will no longer be there, because Mexico has responded by adding tariffs to 90 agricultural and manufacturing products from 40 US States.

The democrats new rule probably violates NAFTA.  It will make existing shipments into the country cost more, and reduce exports to Mexico from 40 states. (Our European and Asian friends will be taking advantage of this opportunity just as they did when the Democrats refused to pass the Trade agreement with COlumbia last year).

That mean less prouction and higher costs, which means fewer American jobs, in a downward economy.

Jeanne Shaheen channels John McCain?

 Some things are in the weekend Union Leader are so funny they belong in the comics.

SHAHEEN THE CENTRIST? A Congressional Quarterlystory this week contends Democrat Jeanne Shaheen is part of a "centrist" coalition in the U.S. Senate that's "forcing congressional leaders to moderate the majority's liberal agenda."

It reports that Shaheen was among 15 senators who met with Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh last week to "plot their strategy."

Problem is, Shaheen voted for the $410 billion omnibus spending bill this week, while Bayh did not. With the notable exception of the original TARP bill, she has backed President Barack Obama and the Democratic leadership since taking office.

Shaheen spokesman Alex Reese said his boss "looks at every bill on a case-by-case basis and casts her vote based on what she thinks is best for New Hampshire."

She looks at every Bil, or she reads every bill?  We know she's not a centrist (just look at her campaign) so can we assume the "look at every bill line is a load of TARP?) Did she read all the zillions of pages in the Stimulus?  How about the Budget Bill?  Is she reading Obama's 3.6 trillion dollar budget, the one that over-projects revenue estimates to support excessive spending...

...wait a minute.  Where have I seen that tactic used before?

NH Dem Delegation violates Constitution (surprised?)

Courtesy of NRO and the Chicago Tribune comes some more details, these incorporated into the text of the stimulus bill pre-designed to thwart governors like Bobby Jindal who might refuse some or all of the money.

"If funds provided to any State in any division of this Act are not accepted for use by the Governor, then acceptance by the State legislature, by means of the adoption of a concurrent resolution, shall be sufficient to provide funding to such State."

So congress is writing and passing bills that empower state legislatures to override governors on federal authority?

If a states law or the state constitution does not allow for a state legislature to override a governors decision to refuse federal dollars, where does congress find the authority to give them that power? 

It doesn't, and the Trib article covers why. 

It's a blatant abuse of federal power, its a significant abuse of the people's power, and its only a matter of time before this part at least hits the courts.  The article entertains notions of what affect that has on the legislation itself.

But what I find a more enticing morsel is that Senator Shaheen, and Reps Shea-Porter and Hodes all voted in favor of a bill that clearly violates the US constitution they swore to protect, and documented that violation (subsection 1607(b)) for us.

I'm just guessing here, but maybe they didn't bother to read the Constitution either?