The Rabid Conservative

Think Right, Act Right, Be Right.

Posts Tagged ‘clinton

Random Lobbing of the Bricks

leave a comment »

Every once in a while, we write one of these – just a random smattering of news stories that are barely worth a full blog post, but when put them all together, it makes enough of one.  A long time ago, a fellow brick-throwing blogger started a tradition and I think it’s high time to let tradition have its due – again. 

` Chelsea Clinton returns to the media spotlight as a journalist.  – Oh goodie.  Another reason not to watch NBC.  Why the heck is this even in the news?  What relevance does the young Ms. Clinton have anyway?  The sad part of this article is that the writer talks about the young Clinton running for Congress.  That’s a face-palm moment there.

Obama: It really doesn’t matter who the GOP nominates – of course it doesn’t, because any Republican with a pulse can beat you, Mr. President.  Your socialistically driven nonsense, wasted cronyism spending, and lack of leadership has made it so that any Republican could beat you.  And you are right, Mr. President, most all Republicans have a different vision than you – one where less government and lower taxes with reduced government spending rule the day.

Now this is just funny – turns out that General Hossein "Salami" is saying that Iran won’t return the drone that they captured from the US, boasting about their intelligence program.  Actually, that would be classified as a stroke of luck because for that one that malfunctioned and you found, there are about twenty more taking pictures of those mud-shacks you call houses.  Of course, any military that has a person called "salami" as a General only invites additional ridicule – after all, I guess when a guy’s entire family is named after a sandwich meat, one must resort to silly saber-rattling in order to get some respect. 

Salami with sharp cheddar cheese and a glass of tea….yum.

Of course, General, if you keep up with all this “hostile act” talk, you might find yourself much like “Baghdad Bob”.

That’s enough for now…more to toss later, as I read more nonsensical news.

Written by Rick

December 11, 2011 at 8:22 pm

Posted in Nonsensical

Tagged with , , ,

The Conservative Underground – Liberals vs. Embryos

with 2 comments

The one question that liberals simply will not answer – the one in which they fear: “When does life begin?”

As many of you have read, somberly, President Obama signed an Executive Order to reallocate federal funding for Embryonic Stem Cell (ESCR) research.  It’s a sad day because now the human embryos who are being held in frozen stasis will be used for experimentation in hopes of bringing a cure to Type 1 Diabetes, cancer, or the like.  Essentially, as far as this Rabid Conservative is concerned, ESCR is nothing short of murder.

Now before the haters start going all in a tizzy, I’m not against stem cell research. I’m against harvesting embryos for it. In fact, there is a wealth of information out there that reports the advantages of adult stem cells over their embryonic counterparts. Read this article to understand more: The Case for Adult Stem Cell Research.

Anyway, my point here today is not to do the comparative but rather, to talk about the reason why liberals have to have embryonic stem cells. Liberals aren’t looking at the research about adult stem cells because, to the liberals, the subject of stem cells isn’t about saving lives, curing disease, or relieving infirmity; it’s about maintaining some sort of precedent with respect to the legal status of an embryo.  From all the rhetoric, I’ve been able to boil down to two fundamental reasons why liberals are determined to maintain ESCR:

  1. Losing the ESCR war would lead to a serious undermining of the entire abortion issue as far as liberalism is concerned.
  2. The embryo is not a human being and not entitled to rights or protections.  As such, the embryo can be used for things for which a regular human being with legal protection cannot be used.

ESC is Linked to Abortion

You see, abortion and ESC research are linked.  If the liberals get disproven that an embryo is, truly, a human life, they have to concede that an embryo in a womb is also a human life, which then, causes the abortion issue to fall apart.

Many people who argue over the abortion issue do so without a clear understanding of science – it’s all emotionalism to them.  To liberals, the question of abortion is ‘doing what is right in one’s own eyes’, never once considering the destruction of humans as embryos in favor of sexual freedom.

One of the little known aspects of Roe v. Wade is the challenge provision. Basically, Roe v. Wade was passed because the court could not fully agree on when, exactly, life begins – or more appropriate to legal precedent, no definitive recognition in the eyes of the law that life begins at conception.  Because of this, abortion was allowed by the High Court.

Recently, in North Dakota, the state House voted to declare that a fertilized egg is indeed human life and deserves the same protections under the law.  This is significant because, if the ND Senate votes passage, North Dakota will be the first state in the Union to effectively bring a challenge against Roe v. Wade.  Proponents against the measure whined that they ‘didn’t want to drag North Dakota into a legal fight with Roe v. Wade’.  This tells me  that the ND House liberals just don’t want to touch the issue in fear of losing their position on it.

And then, we get an interview like this with Der Schlick-meister that, once again, doesn’t seem to understand the fundamentals of basic reproductive biology.

 

Dude, an embryo is a fertilized egg.  So, by your very own statement here, it’s a ‘little baby’.  If that’s truly the case in your ‘more-than-once’ stated opinion, killing a fertilized egg is something that we do not want to do because it would grow to be a little baby or a human being, which is why they are ‘embryos’.

Again, Bill, embryos ‘are’ fertilized already.

Embryos Are Not Human (or Human Enough to be Protected)

One thing that Slickster does make in distinction, that somewhere along the way, there is a point when a human embryo is not a human being.  He says twice – grow into a little baby/human being.  Liberals must agree on this point so that they aren’t forced to concede to admit the humanity of an embryo.

The thing is, it stands in the face of sensible logic.  For example, even a liberal couple that is desirous to have a baby will become pregnant – and what will they call that which grows within the mother?  Will they say how proud they are of their ‘fetus’ or ‘embryo’?

“Hey Denise, you look great! When is your fetus due?”

Or, more somberly, if the couple loses the child to miscarriage or something, they don’t talk about losing the ‘embryo’; they lost the baby.

But yet, when the same is within a mother that doesn’t want to have the child, it’s not a baby – it’s not even considered human. It gets labeled as a fetus or embryo so the mother and doctor don’t have to deal with the moral implications of destroying a human life.

By not affording protection to the human embryo, what effectively is being said here is that embryos are not human, or human enough, and as such, justifies the using of these embryos for scientific research.

So When Does Life Begin

If you’re a man or woman of faith, life begins at conception, was created by God, and deserves to be protected like any other innocent life. However, I can also work with a secular definition, since many things occur in early gestation that have legal precedent for defining life.

For example, brain activity can be defined as a start of life.  It can be argued that the human mind is encased in the human brain.  If we go back and remember the case of Terri Schaivo, we remember that liberals clamored on about how she was not alive, because she was clinically brain dead.  So, if we take that assumption that brain death is the cessation of life, then life must begin at the first signs of neurological activity.  And if that is the case, any embryo greater than 24 days in age would have to be considered a life.

Perhaps the point in which life begins is when the baby can survive outside of the womb without the mother. Well, if we take that point, life would begin somewhere around, say age five. Previous to that, a toddler cannot last very long without intervention by a parent. And thinking along those lines, there are plenty of people who cannot survive without some sort of assistance. Does that mean they aren’t alive?

Summary

The one question that liberals simply will not answer – the one in which they fear: “When does life begin?”  Liberals in support of abortion, ESCR, and the like avoid this question because to make a definitive statement of when life begins would cause them to give up something, in order to remain consistent.  With a relative definition of when life starts, liberals can slide things around to fit the theory in which they are holding in order to permit the activity that they decide is right at the time.

The sad truth is that pro-choice liberals avoid even the accountability associated with changing the rules all the time.  And with all rule changing, human embryos are the ones caught in the middle, and doomed to have their lives taken before ever getting the chance to live.

Written by Rick

March 14, 2009 at 10:54 pm

In Short – Hillary’s Appointment as SecState may Violate Constitution

with 2 comments

Hey folks -

Here’s something to chew on while you’re enjoying your Thanksgiving turkey.

I quote Article 1 Section 6 of the US Constitution:

No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office … which shall have … the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time;

Emolument – The product of employment, namely salary and/or fees

According to 5 USC Section 5303, the salary of government employees is automatically increased each year unless the President deems it’s inappropriate to do so. This includes the pay for the Secretary of State. Since salary (emolument) is automatically increased during the term of Senator Clinton, she could not serve until the end of the 112th congress.

Now the Founders wanted a provision to prevent legislators from voting cushy pay increases in the executive branch should a friendly president get voted into office that might select them for that post.

However, we’re also dealing with an automatic pay increase – something that Senator Clinton didn’t specifically vote for. The constitution doesn’t read that way, but rather, says, if salaries go up for a civil while a senator is in office, that senator cannot be appointed to that position.

There were other instances where this came into play. At first, William B. Saxbe was to be appointed by Nixon to be Attorney General. Instead, the fix, called the Saxbe fix, was to decrease the salary to the level that it was before Saxbe became a Senator. Interestingly, this came into play during the Taft Administration. Later, it came into play under Carter and Bush 41.

In order for Clinton to be eligible, the Saxbe Fix would have to be applied and more than likely to pre-2006 levels, even though there’s precedent that fix would go back to pre-2000 levels when Clinton first came into office.

However, the Saxbe fix itself has one key problem: such a reparation is that an increase and offsetting decrease is still unconstitutional, even though the common interpretation that has traditionally carried the majority is that the legislative intent was that net increases are what’s important.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Have a great Thanksgiving!

Written by Rick

November 26, 2008 at 5:35 pm

The Conservative Underground – Day 16

leave a comment »

…deep within the super-secret bunker, codenamed Zion…

During the campaigns, Barack Obama made the statements that you can’t do the same things and get the same results. Yet he’s picked back up the old Democrat playbook from the ’90′s in hopes of reversing the Bush years.

I would have been a little more optimistic had Obama gone outside of the Washington Democrat inner circle (or just Washington in general) to find people for his cabinet and key advisor cadre. Yet his current trend of selections shows that aspiration of change may be in as sharp of a decline as the Dow Jones Industrial Average (which today closed 444.99 points lower to 7552.29, the lowest it’s been since March 2003 – interestingly but unrelatedly the month the US invaded Iraq).

Here’s a quick look at the first round draft picks for Team Obama:

Rahm Emanuel – White House Chief of Staff – Emanuel was part of the Clinton White House and is not really known for being a nice guy. In fact, this guy has got a reputation for being a nasty customer. One time, he got upset at a Democrat pollster and mailed him a big dead fish. Then, during a dinner party, he started in on what he called ‘disloyal’ Democrats and started stabbing the table with his dinner knife, shouting, “Dead!”.

Emanuel got demoted during Clinton’s second term from political director to policy adviser. One time, he blasted a reporter in his office, red-faced, finger-wagging. As he let the reporter out, he said, loudly, “And, dear sir, the horse you rode in on.”

Did we forget that Emanuel was Board Director of Freddie Mac during their accounting fraud? Turns out when Freddie Mac was deceiving investors between 2000 and 2002 (SEC complaint), he, with the rest of his board, missed all the red-flags. He bailed on Freddie Mac in 2001 to run for Congress.

The New York Times and the AP *forgot* to tell us all that the guy that Obama picked to be a key part of discussions relating to the failing house and mortgage markets failed to see failures in Freddie Mac, failures that contributed significantly to the market collapse.

Hillary Clinton – Secretary of State – We all know this seasoned lib lady isn’t about changing the attitude in Washington because of what she used as campaign rhetoric during the Primaries. One wonders if this appointment is the consolation prize in exchange for her cooperation after Obama beat her out for the Democrat ticket. How one can say the things she did about Obama, not name her as the Veep candidate, and not give her something for her trouble, well, let’s say to not think so is clearly suspension of disbelief. Hillary clearly would have rained on Obama’s party in ways that only a Clinton could.

I swear, Democrats are apt to eat their own young if they don’t get what they want.

Tom Daschle – Health Secretary – This guy was ousted from his Senate seat in 2004 when John Thune handed him a defeat. He’s been hanging out in South Dakota, working for lobby firm Alston & Bird, whose clients are health care interests like CVS Caremark, the National Association of Home Care and Hospice, Abbott Laboratories, and HealthSouth.

One startling thing that Daschle wrote in a book, “Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis” which is no less scary than his time as Senate Minority Leader, “The next president should act immediately to capitalize on the goodwill that greets any incoming administration. If that means attaching a health-care plan to the federal budget, so be it…this issue is too important to be stalled by Senate protocol.”

So Daschle is willing to put the brakes on the federal budget if he doesn’t get his health-care plan, which is what we, as conservatives really see as bad news, European-style socialized medicine that puts government bureaucrats in charge of personal health decisions and government forms by the ton to get a physical. I guess this is all part of the unwritten right to health care that the Founding Fathers failed to put in the constitution. It should have been written, Right to Life (only if you aren’t a fetus), Liberty (as long as you do what we want), and pursuit of happiness (so long as it doesn’t involve serving God publically)…and health care too!

Well, perhaps that provision is a good thing – because if the Government can’t pass the budget, it shuts down, which might be good considering the orgy of spending and, now, bailouts, that has been going on.

Eric Holder – Attorney General – Holder was the No. 2 guy during the Clinton administration. Holder is a scary pick because he saw the pardons of Susan Rosenberg and Linda Sue Evans, part of the Weather Underground (the same group that Bill Ayers was a part of). He also oversaw the siezure of Elian Gonzales (remember the kid from Cuba?) and Marc Rich, who was indicted on charges of tax evasion and illegal trading with Iran during the Iranian Hostage Crisis. Rich held up in Switzerland and stayed on the FBI’s Most Wanted List. Clinton pardoned Rich. Holder made that happen.

So basically, when looking at Eric Holder, we see Janet Reno – with a big mustache. (or a bigger mustache).

So, Change We All Can Believe In begins with old faces, which means their old ideas and old rhetoric. Of course, the people who voted for Obama don’t have a clue about this – or don’t care. They just wanted to keep McCain (read: McSame) out of the center seat.

And we take one failed group of policies and replace it with another.

Hold on to your wallets, people. The libs are back in town.

Written by Rick

November 20, 2008 at 4:44 pm

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 59 other followers

%d bloggers like this: