From BBC News:
US President Barack Obama has lifted restrictions on federal funding for research on new stem cell lines. Mr Obama signed an executive order in a major reversal of US policy, pledging to "vigorously support" new research. Ex-President George W Bush blocked the use of any government money to fund research on human embryonic stem cell lines created after 9 August 2001.

Scientists say stem cell research will lead to medical breakthroughs, but many religious groups oppose the research. Announcing the new policy, Mr Obama said he was authorising a change "so many scientists and researchers and doctors and innovators, patients and loved ones have hoped for and fought for these past eight years".

Opinion polls suggest most Americans support stem cell research, reports the BBC's Richard Lister, in Washington, but the National Right to Life Committee described the move as a "slippery slope". It has also been condemned by the Vatican.

"At this moment the full promise of stem cell research remains unknown and it should not be overstated," Mr Obama said. "But scientists believe these tiny cells may have the potential to help us understand and possibly cure some of our most devastating diseases and conditions." He invoked the example of the late Superman actor Christopher Reeve, who became a staunch advocate of stem cell research after being paralysed in a horse-riding accident.

Analysts say Mr Obama's decision could also lead Congress to overturn a ban on spending tax dollars to create embryos. That ban, known as the Dickey-Wicker amendment, has been in place since 1996 and renewed every year by Congress. But Democrat Congresswoman Diana DeGette told the New York Times newspaper that several anti-abortion colleagues were open to the possibility of reversing the ban if this was necessary to help research.

Before signing the executive order, Mr Obama said he hoped Congress would act on a bipartisan basis "to further support this research".

Stem cells are cells with the capacity to turn into any other type of human cell, be it bone, muscle or nerve cell. One embryo can provide a limitless supply because the cell lines can be grown indefinitely. But the use of human embryonic stem cells in research is controversial with some campaigners saying it is unethical. The practice of creating embryos is routine in private clinics, but the ban put constraints on federal researchers even before the restrictions imposed by former President Bush, forcing them to use embryos left over from fertility treatments.

Correspondents say the policy change is part of President Obama's pledge to make clear that his administration wants scientific research to be free from political interference. Announcing his development, he described himself as a man of faith who had carefully weighed the implications of the decision, and said moving forward required a "delicate balance". Like Mr Bush, President Obama has profound Christian beliefs but he has defined the issue in terms of integrity. To that end, he also signed a memorandum directing the White House's science and technology office to develop a strategy for restoring scientific integrity to government. And he vowed that only research meeting strict ethical guidelines would be allowed, stressing that under no circumstances would stem cells be used for research into human cloning.

"It is dangerous, profoundly wrong, and has no place in our society, or any society," Mr Obama said.

Researchers 'freed'
The move to lift the ban on federal funding was welcomed by stem cell researchers but criticised by opponents and social conservatives. Peter Wilderotter, president of the Christopher and Dana Foundation, praised Mr Obama for "removing politics from science" and freeing researchers.

President Bush and other social conservatives argued that the embryos are human life and therefore should not be destroyed. Mr Bush twice vetoed congressional attempts to have the ban lifted. Following Mr Obama's announcement, John Boehner, the Republican leader in the House of Representatives, said the president had undermined "protections for innocent life, further dividing our nation at a time when we need greater unity to tackle the challenges before us".
---

In response to this line: "many religious groups oppose the research", I'd like to say the following: "So what?!" When you can prove to me that your religious beliefs actually mirror the creator of the universe, THEN I'll take you seriously. Until then, your religious beliefs are just as mad as a patient in a mental asylum, though you've certainly got the numbers on your side.

Seriously, what's more important to humanity?
1. That we cure the most dreadful debilitating diseases currently affecting millions people around the world, and thus end their suffering allowing them to live a full life without pain and discomfort? 2. That we make sure a collection of 150 cells feels no pain?

Bear in mind that this blastocyst has no nervous system and thus is incapable of feeling pain. Also, you should probably take a moment to understand what happens to a blastocyst at this stage. If you're going to say the embryo has a soul at this point, perhaps you should figure out what happens to that soul when the blastocyst merges with another. Is this two souls becoming one? What happened to the other one? They can also split, so is this one soul becoming two? Face it, you don't know what you're talking about. You are basing your objections to this ground-breaking research on a book written centuries ago by people who had NO idea about the world and knew NOTHING of cells.

How do you KNOW for a fact that the creator of the universe didn't give us stem cells as a means of advancing humanity and our understanding of disease? How do you KNOW for a fact that it is the will of your creator to step in the way of this research? You don't. You just THINK you do. Your beliefs are holding up important research.

Well done, Mr. Obama. After all the idiotic lunacy you're attempting with negotiating with terrorists - sorry, I mean, the Muslim world... - this is one step you should be applauded for.

From Daily Mail:
The Crown Prosecution Service has decided that anyone who attacks Scientology can be prosecuted under faith hate laws. The move will for the first time provide the controversial Church of Scientology – described by some as a cult – the same protection as other mainstream religions.

Critics of the organisation, whose members include Tom Cruise and John Travolta, attacked the decision last night, saying it would encourage Scientologists to push for official recognition in Britain.

The Mail on Sunday understands the CPS passed down the guidance after it received legal advice from the Treasury Counsel to regard the group as a religion alongside Christianity, Judaism and Islam. It means that any alleged offenders who ‘abuse’ or ‘threaten’ the Church of Scientology can be charged under the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006.

It is understood the decision was made this month after the Police Diversity Directorate asked the CPS to clarify its position on the organisation.

It follows the arrest last summer of a 15-year-old boy for calling Scientology a ‘dangerous cult’ during a demonstration outside the Church’s £23million headquarters in London.

Scientology, which was founded by the sci-fi author L. Ron Hubbard in the Fifties and teaches that humans are immortal spiritual beings known as Thetans, has long been accused of using dubious methods to recruit members. As far back as July 1968, it was described in Parliament by a Government Minister as an organisation that has ‘authoritarian principles and practices that are a ‘potential menace to the personality and wellbeing of those so deluded as to become its followers’.

Ian Harris, founder of the Cult Information Centre, said last night: ‘Scientology has always wanted to be recognised as a religion but it doesn’t even have a God. This decision is news to me and it is frankly quite upsetting and shocking. ‘The Church of Scientology will be delighted and will want to use this to give themselves more credibility.’

A CPS spokesman said: ‘It is ultimately for the courts to decide how to interpret legislation.’

Graeme Wilson, public affairs director for The Church of Scientology in the UK, said last night: ‘Scientology is the chosen religion of millions of people around the world, a point which has been recognised by numerous governmental bodies.’
---

As someone who isn't gullible enough to fall for any religion, I would like my own non-beliefs recognised as a valid stance in the UK. I would therefore like the Racial And Religious Hatred Act to protect me against the religious mutterings of every religious person.

I should be protected against being told I'm going to 'hell' for not believing in any particular god. I would like to be protected against having to hear someone screeching some incomprehensible nonsense through a loudspeaker at 5am every morning.

I would like to be protected against having religious types knocking on my door offering me 'the path to salvation'.

If religious people can be protected against being told their beliefs are a load of trash, then why can't I be protected from them telling me my non-beliefs are wrong?

If the 'Church' of Scientology gets legal recognition, then I will start my own religion of non-belief and demand the same protections as everyone else. Anyone want to join?

From Jhad Watch:
The David Horowitz Freedom Center is calling upon all supporters of freedom of speech and of Israel to join in its protest against Facebook, the Internet social networking site. Facebook has allowed a group of hackers who openly support the terrorist group Hizballah to take over and destroy what was once the largest pro-Israel site on Facebook. In a blunt act of internet censorship, Facebook added insult to injury by disabling the account of that site’s creator, 14-year-old Todd Snider.

Snider established the Facebook group called “I Wonder How Quickly I Can Find 1,000,000 People Who Support Israel,” in July 2008. By February 2009 it was Facebook’s largest pro-Israel site, with over 180,000 members.

But on February 15, 2009, Snider’s Facebook group was hacked and destroyed by a pro-Hizballah group calling itself “Lebanese Shee’a Hackers.” The hackers completely erased the original site content and replaced it with threatening, obscenity-laced pro-jihad, anti-Israel propaganda datelined Bint Jbeil, South Lebanon: “DEAR ADMINS, DON’T WASTE MY AND YOUR TIME , LEAVE THIS GROUP ITS BETTER FOR BOTH THIS IS THE LAST TIME ILL EDIT YOU INFO , NEXT TIME…”

Facebook allowed the hackers to destroy Snider’s site, answering his repeated entreaties for help with blandly evasive form letters.

And now, after the appearance on March 6 of an article about the incident in FrontPageMagazine.com (“Facebook Jihad” by Robert Spencer), Facebook has taken the additional step of disabling Snider’s account altogether, capitulating to the jihadi hackers and accusing Snider himself of “misusing” Facebook’s “features.”

Facebook’s outrageous action is not only an assault on free speech and internet freedom and a breach of its own social networking protocols, but also appeasement of a group of hackers who have invaded Facebook’s space and who openly avow their support for the jihad terrorist group Hizballah.

We therefore urge all Facebook members who oppose Islamist terror and internet censorship to contact the site administrators through the Facebook contact form, and all others to join us in protesting against Facebook’s outrageous behavior by writing to abuse@facebook.com.

David Horowitz
Robert Spencer

I will be asking other prominent bloggers, writers, media figures, lovers of freedom, to join their names to ours in this, and will be adding them. And all bloggers who see this are welcome to post it on your own sites.

I signed a petition on the UK's e-petitions website that goes as follows:
“We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to create a Bank Holiday on Charles Darwins Birthday (12th February).

“Charles Darwin is a truly remarkable scientist. His research into, and writings on, evolution deserve to be honoured in some way. Making his birthday (12th February) would be a simple way of doing this.”
---

Naturally, the government didn't bother answering the petition, and instead came back with the usual tripe of "hey, look how great we are. Here's some legislation we're introducing to do x, y and z." Pathetic. Here's their response.

From the page: "[there are] ongoing activities to decide how best we can celebrate and commemorate the nature of our citizenship and national identity in the UK". Having a Bank holiday has nothing to do with celebrating our national identity. Charles Darwin has undoubtedly done more for this country and the entire world than most other people. Given that this request is made so often, why can't the rubbish government simply acknowledge it and do something about it? Why do we need "inclusive debates" about this? They don't have inclusive debates when they decide to sell off our gold reserves, or when they sign us up to pointless, restrictive legislation from the unelected tools in the EU. We don't have as many public holidays as most of the countries in Europe.

What part of this requires "an inclusive debate"? If our Neo-Labour government wanted to include everyone they'd have one person of every belief system, ideology, background, employment etc. in the group. And naturally, this will include more muslims than non-religious folk (despite the number of non-religious outnumbering muslims by ten to one). I suggest the government include ONLY UK citizens. Immigrants and the multiple wives of polygamous men need not apply. Not a UK citizen, then stay out of our debates on bank holidays!

Oh, and don't go bleating on about having a day to celebrate the 'prophet' Mo (inventor of the world's most violent and intolerant religion). Muslims are not in the majority here. There are more non-religious people in the UK than muslims. Muslim demands need to be much further down the 'To Do' list than those of other minority groups, such as atheists and agnostics.

Why can't the government simply answer the questions put to them, instead of their sidestepping?

UPDATE: He'll serve only 18 days of his sentence. So, he's basically got away with this? His actions resulted in someone's death. You don't text while driving. It's that simple. When you do, things like this happen. Spineless justice system.

Lord (for how long?) Ahmed JAILED for 12 weeks! RESULT!!!
From BBC News:
A Labour peer who sent and received text messages minutes before he was involved in a fatal crash on the M1 has been jailed for 12 weeks.

Lord Ahmed, 51, was driving his Jaguar when he hit a stationary car in the outside lane of the motorway - Martyn Gombar, 28, was killed. Lord Ahmed, of Rotherham, had admitted driving dangerously.

Mr Justice Wilkie said: "It's clear the dangerous driving had no causal link to the accident."

The peer also faces expulsion from the Labour Party following his jail sentence. A Labour Party spokesman said: "The Labour Party does not comment on individual cases, but under the party's rules any member who receives a custodial sentence is subject to automatic exclusion."

The crash happened near junction 35 of the southbound carriageway at Rotherham on Christmas Day 2007. Mr Gombar, who was Slovakian, was living in Leigh, Greater Manchester, at the time of his death. He had crashed into the central reservation, leaving his Audi facing the wrong way in the third lane of the motorway. One motorist had already clipped his car and another had to take evasive action to avoid it.

The court had heard how Lord Ahmed sent and received a series of five text messages while driving in the dark at speeds of, and above, 60mph along a 17-mile stretch of the motorway. Mr Justice Wilkie made clear the texting incident had no bearing on the fatal collision.

Sentence 'nothing'
But he added: "It is of the greatest importance that people realise what a serious offence dangerous driving of this type is. I have come to the conclusion that by reason of the prolonged, deliberate, repeated and highly dangerous driving for which you have pleaded guilty, only an immediate custodial sentence can be justified."

Earlier, Jeremy Baker QC, defending Lord Ahmed, put a series of points of mitigation to the judge including the peer's years of service to the community and the country. The barrister also pointed to Lord Ahmed's attempts to help Mr Gombar and how he took it upon himself to warn other motorists about the incident at some personal risk to himself.

Lord Ahmed will serve half of his sentence in jail and half on licence. He was also banned from driving for a year and ordered to pay £500 prosecution costs. Outside court Lord Ahmed's solicitor, Steve Smith, said he thought his client had been used as a "scapegoat" by those attempting to drive home the message about not using a mobile phone while at the wheel. He said he was launching an immediate appeal against the sentence. He said: "I've been with him. He's very philosophical. He's approaching it with great dignity."

Members of Mr Gombar's family said they were not happy with the sentence. His cousin, David Cicak, said he was hoping for a long prison term. "He could be out in six weeks, that's nothing."

Lord Ahmed's barrister Jeremy Baker QC, described how the defendant came to Britain as a child speaking no English but built up a successful business and political career before he was made a life peer. The barrister said his client provided an important function for the country both nationally and internationally, particularly in the field of inter-faith relations.
---

This is good news, but to be honest, why only 12 weeks? Dangerous driving that led to the death of a man should not be treated as 'dangerous driving'. It should be treated as 'death by dangerous driving'.

Mr. Ahmed plead guilty to the charges, and he's launching an appeal? What a waste of time. What a waste of money. Just spend your time in prison and be done with it. Don't try to appeal against a sentence that you practically asked for!!!

For his lawyer to have brought up his years of service to the country and community, is banal and completely pointless. If a Catholic priest spends 50 years in service of the community, but is found guilty of molesting young boys, should his sentence be reduced? No, of course not. Jeffrey Archer got 4 years for perjury. He had spent years in service of the country, so why didn't he get a reduced sentence? Jeffrey Archer's crime didn't kill anyone. Mr. Ahmed's did. If he hadn't hit that car, Martyn Gombar would likely still be alive.

Golden Brown has invited the Pope to visit the UK.

The Pope has previously caused outrage for muslims by calling Muhammad "evil and inhuman". (Those muslims, by the way, went on to kill a few people for this outrage, yet no one was outraged at those actions.)

The Pope is invited to the UK, but Geert Wilders is denied entry?

Double standards?

Anti-gay preachers banned from UK
From BBC News:
A father and daughter from a US church which preaches hatred of homosexuals have been banned from entering the UK. Fred Phelps and his daughter Shirley Phelps-Roper from the Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) had urged protests against a play being put on in Hampshire. Queen Mary's College in Basingstoke is staging The Laramie Project, a play about a man killed for being gay.

Mrs Phelps-Roper told BBC News Online the decision would "bring great wrath upon your heads".

She warned other members of the church, who are not as well known to the authorities, will be trying to get into the UK to protest. "There are members of WBC that are not named Phelps," she added. "So they [the authorities] might have their work cut out for them. Unless they intend to begin checking the bare backsides of every person coming into that country to find that tattoo that says 'Property of WBC' - they will have no way of identifying who is from WBC." She called the British government "filthy" for thinking they have the power "to keep the word of God from coming into her borders".

The UK Border Agency said it opposed "extremism in all its forms". A spokesman added: "Both these individuals have engaged in unacceptable behaviour by inciting hatred against a number of communities. We will continue to stop those who want to spread extremism, hatred and violent messages in our communities from coming to our country. The exclusions policy is targeted at all those who seek to stir up tension and provoke others to violence regardless of their origins and beliefs."

'Amazed and disturbed'
The Westboro church's website advertised the picket which was set to take place on Friday, proclaiming: "In merry old England they plan to further enrage the living God by putting on the farce known commonly as The Laramie Project. "We will picket them, and see if they actually believe those lies they tell about how tolerant and accepting Brits are."

Hampshire Police said they were aware of the planned protest and officers were monitoring the situation. Stephen Sheedy, principle at Queen Mary's College, said: "I have been amazed and disturbed by what has happened this week. "[The church's views] are such a gross abuse of Christianity and a gross misreading. The show is being put on by a production company, not by our students, but we support it fully and hope it goes ahead without any problems." He does not expect any picket by the Westboro church but thought the coverage could actually spark a counter protest against them.

Members of the group - based in Topeka, Kansas - have denounced homosexuality for years and have in the past targeted the funerals of Aids victims. In 2007, the church was told to pay $10.9m (£5.2m) after its members cheered a soldier's death as "punishment" for US tolerance of homosexuality.
---

"Isn't he dead yet?"
No, unfortunately not. He's still able to spread his disgusting views around the world, just not in the UK now. Hooray! Wacky Jacqui Smith gets something right at last!

Seriously, this bunch of whacked-out crazy rednecks need to stop what they're doing. They are a bunch of hateful little idiots.

The decision will bring "great wrath upon our heads"? What?! Banning a pair of hateful little pillocks from this country will bring 'god's' wrath down upon us? Well, excuse us while we all sit back and laugh. If their god existed, it could simply transport them here in an instant. Has it? No. Will it? No. Can it? What's "it"?

Pricks. Shouldn't they be spending the air fare on that enormous fine?

From BBC News:
A two-year-old boy has been "married" to a dog in eastern India to "ward off evil spirits and bad luck".

The "marriage" took place in a village in Jajpur district on Monday.

The "groom", Sagula Munda, was taken to the house of the dog, called Jyoti, in a highly decorated rickshaw and priests solemnised the ceremony. The boy's father said such "marriages" were a tradition and would help ease the bad omen of the tooth rooted in Sagula's upper gum.

Tribal deity
The "marriage" was in the tribal-dominated Patarpur village. Like in every Hindu marriage, the priests chanted Sankrit prayers and hymns and there was an accompanying feast.

The boy's father, Sanrumula Munda, said of the wedding: "Tribals not only in this state but also in neighbouring Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand, observe such practices to keep the evil spirits away." Arranging "marriages" with dogs kept children protected from ghosts and bad luck, he said. The parents of Sagula and other local people consider the biological tooth defect a bad omen both for the family and neighbours.

The "bride's" father, Parakrama Munda, said: "This is just a ceremony to please the tribal deity - in the great epic Mahabharat a dog helped the Pandavas reach heaven." He said it was a superstition, like wearing a stone or a talisman.

One attending resident, Dushmant Rout, said the "bride" had spent a few hours at the "groom's" house "but not inside the room... she stayed on the verandah".
---

Hey, hey, hey, that's no way to talk about his new wife. Oh, wait, it really is a dog.

Wait a second! The kid is TWO YEARS OLD?! Why are they marrying a two year old boy and a dog?! What is going through their minds?

Oh, I see... It's to ward off evil spirits and bad luck. Oh, well that's all right then. For a moment there, I thought I was crazy.

From BBC News:
The Law Lords have given the go-ahead for the deportation from the UK of the radical cleric Abu Qatada.

Five Lords unanimously threw out his appeal against returning to Jordan where he faces jail for terrorism.

Qatada had alleged that his conviction in Jordan was based on evidence extracted by torture.

The 48-year-old cleric is one of Europe's most influential extremists and is currently in Belmarsh high security prison.

The BBC is reporting on a story about how some 200 religious scholars and clerics met with senior Hamas officials in Istanbul to plot a new jihad centred on Gaza.

Now, isn't Hamas a terrorist organisation according to the EU and the UN? If so, to hold this meeting in Turkey really isn't going to help their attempts at becoming part of the EU. Anyway, I digress...

So, they were basically saying how there must be a massive jihad against Israel, and they'll supply weapons etc. Handy. Now, I'm constantly being told that 'jihad' means 'inner struggle', and not 'holy war'. Perhaps someone should tell these 200 clerics and scholars. Given that, in the entirety of islamic scriptures, the context in which jihad means 'inner struggle' is only 3%, and the context in which it means to 'fight a holy war against the unbelievers' is 97%, which would you believe? I'm throwing in with the 97%.

So, there we have it. These aren't even 'radical' clerics (I'm sure the BBC would've mentioned that); they are mainstream. The fact that 200 of them were able to gather for this meeting just to call for war against Israel kinda makes you wonder exactly where all the moderate muslims are...

Oh, and this is a screenshot of the BBC's website at the bottom of that story:


I guess they'll be calling for an 'inner struggle' against the BBC for daring to put a muslim's face next to a PIGGY bank?