Stem Cells Fast Facts | CNN



CNN
 — 

Here is some background information about stem cells.

Scientists believe that stem cell research can be used to treat medical conditions including Parkinson’s disease, spinal cord injury, stroke, burns, heart disease, diabetes, osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis.

Sources: National Institutes of Health, Mayo Clinic

Stem cell research focuses on embryonic stem cells and adult stem cells.

Stem cells have two characteristics that differentiate them from other types of cells:

– They are unspecialized cells that can replicate themselves through cell division over long periods of time.

– Stem cells can be manipulated, under certain conditions, to become mature cells with special functions, such as the beating cells of the heart muscle or insulin-producing cells of the pancreas.

There are many different types of stem cells, including: pluripotent stem cells and adult stem cells.
Pluripotent stem cells (ex: embryonic stem cells) can give rise to any type of cell in the body. These cells are like blank slates, and they have the potential to turn into any type of cell.
Adult stem cells can give rise to multiple types of cells, but are more limited compared with embryonic stem cells. They are more likely to generate within a particular tissue, organ or physiological system. (Ex: blood-forming stem cells/bone marrow cells, sometimes referred to as multipotent stem cells)

Embryonic stem cells are harvested from four to six-day-old embryos. These embryos are either leftover embryos in fertility clinics or embryos created specifically for harvesting stem cells by therapeutic cloning. Only South Korean scientists claim to have successfully created human embryos via therapeutic cloning and have harvested stem cells from them.

Adult stem cells are already designated for a certain organ or tissue. Some adult stem cells can be coaxed into or be reprogrammed into turning into a different type of specialized cell within the tissue type – for example, a heart stem cell can give rise to a functional heart muscle cell, but it is still unclear whether they can give rise to all different cell types of the body.

The primary role of adult stem cells is to maintain and repair the tissue in which they are found.

Regenerative medicine uses cell-based therapies to treat disease.

Scientists who research stem cells are trying to identify how undifferentiated stem cells become differentiated as serious medical conditions, such as cancer and birth defects, are due to abnormal cell division and differentiation.

Scientists believe stem cells can be used to generate cells and tissues that could be used for cell-based therapies as the need for donated organs and tissues outweighs the supply.

Stem cells, directed to differentiate into specific cell types, offer the possibility of a renewable source of replacement cells and tissues to treat diseases, including Alzheimer’s diseases.

Cloning human embryos for stem cells is very controversial.

The goal of therapeutic cloning research is not to make babies, but to make embryonic stem cells, which can be harvested and used for cell-based therapies.

Using fertilized eggs left over at fertility clinics is also controversial because removing the stem cells destroys them.

Questions of ethics arise because embryos are destroyed as the cells are extracted, such as: When does human life begin? What is the moral status of the human embryo?

1998 – President Bill Clinton requests a National Bioethics Advisory Commission to study the question of stem cell research.

1999 – The National Bioethics Advisory Commission recommends that the government allow federal funds to be used to support research on human embryonic stem cells.

2000 – During his campaign, George W. Bush says he opposes any research that involves the destruction of embryos.

2000 – The National Institutes of Health (NIH) issues guidelines for the use of embryonic stem cells in research, specifying that scientists receiving federal funds can use only extra embryos that would otherwise be discarded. President Clinton approves federal funding for stem cell research but Congress does not fund it.

August 9, 2001 – President Bush announces he will allow federal funding for about 60 existing stem cell lines created before this date.

January 18, 2002 – A panel of experts at the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) recommends a complete ban on human reproductive cloning, but supports so-called therapeutic cloning for medical purposes.

February 27, 2002 – For the second time in two years, the House passes a ban on all cloning of human embryos.

July 11, 2002 – The President’s Council on Bioethics recommends a four-year ban on cloning for medical research to allow time for debate.

February 2005 – South Korean scientist Hwang Woo Suk publishes a study in Science announcing he has successfully created stem cell lines using therapeutic cloning.

December 2005 – Experts from Seoul National University accuse Hwang of faking some of his research. Hwang asks to have his paper withdrawn while his work is being investigated and resigns his post.

January 10, 2006 – An investigative panel from Seoul National University accuses Hwang of faking his research.

July 18, 2006 – The Senate votes 63-37 to loosen President Bush’s limits on federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research.

July 19, 2006 – President Bush vetoes the embryonic stem-cell research bill passed by the Senate (the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005), his first veto since taking office.

June 20, 2007 – President Bush vetoes the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007.

January 23, 2009 – The FDA approves a request from Geron Corp. to test embryonic stem cells on eight to 10 patients with severe spinal cord injuries. This will be the world’s first test in humans of a therapy derived from human embryonic stem cells. The tests will use stem cells cultured from embryos left over in fertility clinics.

March 9, 2009 – President Barack Obama signs an executive order overturning an order signed by President Bush in August 2001 that barred the NIH from funding research on embryonic stem cells beyond using 60 cell lines that existed at that time.

August 23, 2010 – US District Judge Royce C. Lamberth issues a preliminary injunction that prohibits the federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.

September 9, 2010 – A three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit grants a request from the Justice Department to lift a temporary injunction that blocked federal funding of stem cell research.

September 28, 2010 – The US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit lifts an injunction imposed by a federal judge, thereby allowing federally funded embryonic stem-cell research to continue while the Obama Administration appeals the judge’s original ruling against use of public funds in such research.

October 8, 2010 – The first human is injected with cells from human embryonic stem cells in a clinical trial sponsored by Geron Corp.

November 22, 2010 – William Caldwell, CEO of Advanced Cell Technology, tells CNN that the FDA has granted approval for his company to start a clinical trial using cells grown from human embryonic stem cells. The treatment will be for an inherited degenerative eye disease.

April 29, 2011 – The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia lifts an injunction, imposed last year, banning the Obama administration from funding embryonic stem-cell research.

May 11, 2011 – Stem cell therapy in sports medicine is spotlighted after New York Yankees pitcher Bartolo Colon is revealed to have had fat and bone marrow stem cells injected into his injured elbow and shoulder while in the Dominican Republic.

July 27, 2011 – Judge Lamberth dismisses a lawsuit that tried to block funding of stem cell research on human embryos.

February 13, 2012 – Early research published by scientists at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center and Johns Hopkins University shows that a patient’s own stem cells can be used to regenerate heart tissue and help undo damage caused by a heart attack. It is the first instance of therapeutic regeneration.

May 2013 – Scientists make the first embryonic stem cell from human skin cells by reprogramming human skin cells back to their embryonic state, according to a study published in the journal, Cell.

April 2014 – For the first time scientists are able to use cloning technologies to generate stem cells that are genetically matched to adult patients,according to a study published in the journal, Cell Stem Cell.

October 2014 – Researchers say that human embryonic stem cells have restored the sight of several nearly blind patients – and that their latest study shows the cells are safe to use long-term. According to a report published in The Lancet, the researchers transplanted stem cells into 18 patients with severe vision loss as a result of two types of macular degeneration.

May 2, 2018 – The science journal Nature reports that scientists have created a structure like a blastocyst – an early embryo – using mouse stem cells instead of the usual sperm and egg.

June 4, 2018 – The University of California reports that the first in utero stem cell transplant trial has led to the live birth of an infant that had been diagnosed in utero with alpha thalassemia, a blood disorder that is usually fatal for fetuses.

January 13, 2020 – In a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, researchers announce they have created the world’s first living, self-healing robots using stem cells from frogs. Named xenobots after the African clawed frog (Xenopus laevis), the machines are less than a millimeter (0.04 inches) wide, small enough to travel inside human bodies. Less than two years later, scientists announce that these robots can now reproduce.

February 15, 2022 – A US woman becomes the third known person to go into HIV remission, and the first mixed-race woman, thanks to a transplant of stem cells from umbilical cord blood, according to research presented at a scientific conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections.

November 7, 2022 – Scientists announce they have transfused lab-made red blood cells grown from stem cells into a human volunteer in a world-first trial that experts say has major potential for people with hard-to-match blood types or conditions such as sickle cell disease.

Source link

#Stem #Cells #Fast #Facts #CNN

State leaders targeting climate investing have quiet stakes in the fossil fuel industry

In October, Scott Fitzpatrick, then-treasurer of Missouri, announced his state would pull $500 million out of pension funds managed by BlackRock.

He said he would move Missouri’s money away from the asset manager because it was “prioritizing” environmental, social and governance investing over shareholder returns. Fitzpatrick, a Republican who won election as the state’s auditor in November, used his office as treasurer to target BlackRock after years of criticizing Wall Street for a perceived turn toward investing focused on climate and social issues.

As he homed in on BlackRock, Fitzpatrick quietly held a financial stake in a massive fossil fuel company that could suffer from the broader adoption of alternative energy. Fitzpatrick and his wife owned a more than $10,000 stake in Chevron during both of 2022 and 2021, according to his latest financial disclosures filed with the state.

Fitzpatrick is among a group of powerful Republican state leaders who have waged similar fights against environmentally conscious investing as they held personal investments in, or saw political support from, the fossil fuel industry.

A handful of state financial officers who have similarly attacked ESG practices owned stock or bonds in oil, gas or other fossil fuel companies in recent years, according to the latest state financial disclosure reports reviewed by CNBC. Some of the state officials have received campaign donations from fossil fuel companies or their executives.

Climate activists with Stop the Money Pipeline hold a rally in New York City to urge companies to end their support for the proposed Line 3 pipeline project and stop funding fossil fuels and forest destruction, April 17, 2021.

Erik McGregor | LightRocket | Getty Images

State leaders face possible conflicts of interest when they have a chance to see financial gains from the fossil fuel industry as they use their offices to defend the sector — or in some cases move their state’s dollars away from clean-energy investments, government ethics experts told CNBC. As the officials ramp up their criticism of Wall Street investment practices, a lack of state laws requiring regular stock disclosures makes it difficult for the public to monitor what personal stake their representatives could have in the actions they take in office.

Brandon Alexander, the chief of staff to the Missouri auditor’s office, told CNBC in an emailed statement that Fitzpatrick’s publicly traded securities are either in a trust or qualified retirement accounts that are managed by a financial advisor.

“Other than employer sponsored retirement accounts (the entirety of which are invested in target date funds over which he has no control), all of Auditor Fitzpatrick’s publicly traded securities, are held in a trust or in qualified retirement accounts which are actively managed by a financial advisor to whom he gives no direction,” Alexander said. “He has never ‘had private briefings tied back to the fossil fuel industry’ nor does he personally direct or execute trades himself. Auditor Fitzpatrick stands by his criticism of the ESG movement, especially as it relates to the application of ESG standards in the management of public funds.”

Unlike members of Congress, state financial officers in many cases only have to disclose their stock ownership once a year. In some states, they do not have to divulge their investments at all. In contrast with federal lawmakers, they also do not have to file regular records disclosing their new trades.

None of the officials mentioned in this story engaged in illegal conduct. But the fact that they have investments that could be helped by their high-profile campaigns against ESG investing may create trust issues with the people they represent, says ethics experts.

“This is a problem that we have elected officials at the federal and state level that are simply not willing to avoid personal financial conflicts of interest,” Richard Painter, who was the chief White House ethics lawyer in the George W. Bush administration, told CNBC in an interview. “You could have someone own stock in a company and pursue policy that could benefit that company. What’s good for Exxon Mobil’s stock is not necessarily good for America.”

Painter said that owning such stock is not illegal for state based leaders. Congressional lawmakers are also allowed to own stock but the 2012 STOCK Act disallows members of Congress to use non-public information to gain a profit and prohibits insider trading.

Another government ethics expert also cited an appearance of conflict as an issue for public officials.

“If an official has a financial interest in a company or an industry, it is reasonable to question whether that interest impacts how they approach their government work,” Donald Sherman, a senior vice president and chief counsel for watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, told CNBC in an interview.

The fight against ESG investment standards has become a core issue for some Republicans at the federal and state level. Many of those officials have used their positions to target companies they believe are too politically active or, in some cases, are hurting certain industries, such as fossil fuels.

In the case of state financial officers, they have the power to shift public assets or pension funds away from certain firms and to other institutions.

Vocal ESG critics have fossil fuel ties

Georgia’s state treasurer, Steve McCoy, was appointed by Republican Gov. Brian Kemp in 2020. He was among state financial officers, including Fitzpatrick in Missouri, who last year co-signed a letter to President Joe Biden opposing policies that promote ESG. The Biden administration has promoted environmentally conscious investing, and the president used his first veto on a measure that would have shot down a Labor Department rule that promoted ESG policies.

The letter said the state officials “believe the White House should be spearheading a call to invest in American energy instead of pursuing ESG initiatives that divide American energy businesses and discourage investment in these reliable energy industries.” The group went on to say that “freedom is the key to addressing climate change. The depth and breadth of American innovation is unparalleled globally, including the development of green technologies. However, oil, gas, coal, and nuclear are currently the most reliable and plentiful baseload power sources for America and much of the rest of the world.”

McCoy is one of the state financial officers who held an investment in fossil fuels. He had a stake in the industry as recently as 2020 — though changes in disclosure rules mean he has not had to disclose his assets more recently.

McCoy disclosed in 2020 that he owns bonds in fracking company Halliburton and a stake in the U.S. Oil Fund, an ETF that tracks the benchmark price of U.S. crude oil. The disclosure says that these stakes are either “more than 5 percent of the total interests in such business or investment, or [have] a net fair market value of more than $5,000.”

The 2020 disclosure was the last time McCoy filed a document showing his investments. Some states, including Georgia, do not require officials who hold key state positions to file full disclosure forms, and require those leaders to publish only a one-page affidavit, according to Haley Barrett, a spokeswoman for Georgia’s Government Transparency and Campaign Finance Commission.

Two of McCoy’s affidavits filed with the state say virtually nothing about his business dealings and stock holdings. McCoy’s most recent affidavit, from 2022, shows his titles as treasurer and as a member of a variety of boards, including the state Depository Board.

McCoy also had to sign a statement to confirm that he has taken “I have taken no official action as a public officer in the previous calendar year which had a material effect on my private, financial or business interests.” That affidavit and a 2021 version of the document does not say whether McCoy currently owns any stocks in the fossil fuel industry.

When asked about what the state ethics commission does to verify if those signed statements are accurate, Barrett said in an email that “once these documents have been filed with our office and reviewed, there is an opportunity to determine if there are any discrepancies in the filings. Investigations can be initiated internally through our office or by a third party complaint.”

McCoy and his office did not return requests for comment.

McCoy is far from the only ESG critic who has a financial or political interest in fossil fuel companies.

Texas’ state comptroller, Glenn Hegar, argued in letters to money managers last year that he believes firms such as BlackRock, HSBC and UBS are boycotting the energy industry, saying in a statement at the time that he believes “environmental crusaders” have created a “false narrative” that the economy can transition away from fossil fuels. Hegar co-signed an open letter in 2021 with other state financial officers that was addressed to the U.S. banking industry and defended the fossil fuel industry.

“We will each take concrete steps within our respective authority to select financial institutions that support a free market and are not engaged in harmful fossil fuel industry boycotts for our states’ financial services contracts,” the letter reads.

He also co-signed the 2022 letter to Biden from a slate of other state financial officers defending the fossil fuel industry.

Hegar has since escalated his campaign against the institutions. Hegar sent letters to fellow state money managers arguing that they have not done enough to cut ties with BlackRock and other firms that he said boycotted the oil and gas industry, Bloomberg reported in February.

In the lead-up to his anti-ESG push, Hegar owned stock in the oil and gas industry. In 2021, the Texas comptroller and his spouse owned between 100 and 499 shares of Devon Energy and up to 99 shares of ConocoPhillips, according to his latest financial disclosure.

His financial records from all of the previous years since he became state comptroller in 2015 do not show any stock in these two companies or in the fossil fuel industry at large.

Hegar’s political ambitions have also seen a boost from the oil and gas industry — a dominating force in Texas. During his 2022 reelection, Hegar received donations from a range of PACs and executives from the oil and gas business.

His campaign received $10,000 last year from Ben “Bud” Brigham, the chairman of oil and gas development company Brigham Exploration, according to state campaign finance records. The PACs of Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Devon Energy, Calpine Corp. and Valero Energy were among Hegar’s fossil fuel donors during his run for reelection last year, according to state records.

Hegar and his office did not return requests for comment.

Jimmy Patronis, Florida’s chief financial officer, has been railing against ESG investment standards since around the time he was reelected to the position in November. Patronis was also among the co-signers of the 2022 letter to Biden defending the fossil fuel industry.

By December, Patronis announced that the Florida Treasury would start divesting $2 billion of assets managed by BlackRock. In an interview on CNBC’s “Squawk Box” in February, Patronis explained the decision.

“The bottom line: I’m seeing dollars are being siphoned off. I’m seeing individuals, like [BlackRock CEO Larry] Fink and others that are using the state of Florida’s money for a social agenda,” he said.

He added: “I just care about returns. And I’m not seeing that.”

Heading into 2022, he also had a financial interest in the fossil fuel industry.

Patronis owned 100 shares combined of Exxon Mobil and Chevron — the two largest gas companies in the world — at the end of 2021, according to his most recent publicly available disclosure.

His personal interest in fossil fuel companies has grown in recent years. In 2018, he disclosed only about 10 shares of Exxon and did not list any Chevron stock.

The document was the first time since 2018 that Patronis listed investments in the sector.

Frank Collins III, the state’s deputy chief financial officer, told CNBC in a statement that Patronis believes ESG efforts are part of a campaign to decimate the oil and gas industry. He said Patronis does not personally make trading or investment decisions for the state’s retirement systems.

“The CFO wants great returns for those in Florida’s retirement funds, nothing else. While the ESG movement has been on a campaign to erase America’s oil and gas industry from the map, those industries were making returns for investors,” Collins said.

Source link

#State #leaders #targeting #climate #investing #quiet #stakes #fossil #fuel #industry

20 years since the invasion of Iraq: What lessons have been learned?

“The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder,” announced then-US President George W. Bush from the White House Oval Office on 20 March 2003, as US-led coalition forces began their ground offensive in Iraq.

Their objectives were to destroy Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and bring down the dictatorial rule of Iraq’s President Saddam Hussein.

It took just nine months for US forces to capture Hussein. He was executed three years later for “crimes against humanity.”

But the question of Iraq’s alleged possession of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons became increasingly contentious. The failure of inspectors to locate the alleged WMDs led to mounting scepticism over the legitimacy of claims made by the Bush administration in October 2002.

By the time the last US troops left Iraq in December 2011 – more than nine years after the invasion began – 4,490 American troops, 179 British service personnel, and over 100,000 Iraqi civilians had been killed. No evidence of WMDs with nuclear delivery capabilities was ever found.

In the UK in 2016, Sir John Chilcot released a damning inquiry on Prime Minister Tony Blair’s decision to commit troops to Iraq, in which he concluded that opportunities for peace were missed, the threat posed by Saddam Hussein had been exaggerated, and that intelligence on Iraq’s alleged possession of WMDs was “flawed.”

Twenty years on, what lessons have been learned? Two Iraq War veterans gave us their take on the invasion and its aftermath.

Memories of the invasion

Following a series of airstrikes against “selected targets of military importance”, US-led forces began their ground offensive in Iraq, which President Bush described as the start of “a broad and concerted campaign.” 

“The crucial thing is that it all happened way ahead of our expectation,” former British Army Officer, Colonel Tim Collins, told Euronews. 

“It was supposed to happen on about the 24th (March). And so we thought we had some days in hand. […] So it kind of caught us off guard. But it was a good way to start because there wasn’t much time to think about it. […] We quickly were given instructions to get ready to leave our bases and head to dispersal positions. And within 24 hours of that, we were crossing the border.”

“There wasn’t a great deal of fighting to start with. […] And so it was very much a question of taking over the large number of prisoners of war who were coming in and surrendering to us, finding some water, some food for them, and at the same time our job was to secure the gas oil separation plants on the Iraqi southern oil fields.”

“We were under incoming fire on an almost daily basis on some of the deployments I was on […] I learned a lot about myself and a lot about other people,” explained British Army veteran David Hornsby, who served five tours of Iraq as an emergency nurse.

“And I learned a lot about looking after both my troops and the casualties I was assigned to. So I think both professionally and personally, I grew a lot from my experiences.”

What were forces told about why they were in Iraq?

At the time of the invasion, the White House had repeatedly stated that the decision to go to war was based upon Saddam Hussein’s alleged possession and development of WMDs and his ties to the militant Islamist group, al-Qaeda.

“[What we were told] was very consistent with the information that the general public was being told, and that was very much based around weapons of mass destruction and the intelligence that the Americans and the British both announced prior to the invasion,” said David Hornsby.

“There was a great deal of confusion […] and it was very much centred around the snippets to do with weapons of mass destruction,” revealed Colonel Tim Collins. 

“But it became clear, although it was never tacitly stated, that regime change was the aim. So, there was no real clarity about what the aim was, but there was a continuing threat of weapons of mass destruction,” Collins added.

Doubt over WMD claims

In the months and years leading up to the invasion, UN inspectors had been unable to locate Iraqi WMDs.

By 2004, the United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan announced that the US-led war in Iraq was illegal, in violation of the UN’s founding charter and had not been sanctioned by the UN Security Council.

“The simple fact is that they were undoubtedly in possession of chemical weapons and nerve agents because they’d used them against the Kurds already. So, we knew that it was a fact,” Collins told Euronews.

“And the question mark hanging over whether they had a nuclear capability and, if they had a nuclear capability, did they have a nuclear-delivery capability, of course, that didn’t become evident until six months to a year after the invasion. So, at the time, it really wasn’t an issue. When we crossed the border initially, we were carrying chemical and biological warfare equipment and wearing protective suits, and then we had respirators with us.”

Problems with the campaign in Iraq

Two months into the invasion, General Tommy R. Franks, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, announced the decision to disband the Iraqi army, and abolish Saddam Hussein’s Ba’ath Party. Tim Collins told Euronews that this decision proved extremely counterproductive, and revealed shortcomings in the coalition governments. 

“By sacking all the members of the Ba’ath Party, it didn’t occur to them that you couldn’t be a schoolteacher, a policeman, an electricity worker, a water worker or anybody to do with infrastructure or maintenance if you weren’t in the Ba’ath Party,” explained Colonel Tim Collins. 

“So, they pretty much sacked everybody who was able to make Iraq function. At the same time, by disbanding the army, they turned what was a relatively effective, well-disciplined army into an extremely effective insurgency.”

“At the time we were simply doing our jobs and I made the fatal error of supposing that if I got on, did my job as a soldier on the ground, someone in government either in the UK or the US, had some form of plan for what would happen once we had secured Iraq,” the former British army officer admitted.

“Now, previous to that,  my job before taking command of my battalion, was working in headquarters, Special Forces, and we were certainly conducting information operations against the Iraqi regime. And the main thrust of those operations was to try and secure the support of the Iraqi military for them to remove Saddam Hussein. And the recognition that if his regime fell, […] it would come to the Iraqi military to provide the security and structure for long enough for civilian elections to be held for a legitimate new Iraqi government to come along. And that was my understanding. So, we all assumed that someone had a plan. We didn’t realise there was no plan.”

Lessons learned from the Iraq war

Two decades later, war rages on the European continent, leading many to reflect on what lessons, if any, can be taken from the conflict in Iraq.

According to David Hornsby, the treatment of wounded soldiers in Iraq helped bring about important medical discoveries that will help treat service personnel in future conflicts.

“The conflict in Iraq led to some amazing medical advances in terms of care for traumatic injuries […] So I think there’s this scope and I’m sure there are already ongoing discussions between health bodies such as the NHS and Ukraine in order to share lessons learned,” Hornsby explained.

Colonel Tim Collins told Euronews that, as far as the war in Ukraine is concerned, the Iraq conflict revealed the importance of dialogue with people who understand the country you’re invading. 

“My full expectation is that the Russian losses and the reverses they’re suffering may well lead to a collapse in the regime in Moscow. If that is the case, then I think we in the West need to be ready to work closely with the remnants of the Russian military to maintain peace and stability within that country until such time as […] elections can be organised and run, and a democratically-elected government can be put in place,” he explained. 

“At the same time, we must be ready immediately to provide the wherewithal and the financial support to get normal life going as quickly as possible, which is something we didn’t do in Iraq. It’s something we didn’t do when the Soviet Union collapsed. And I think we need to learn these lessons and be ready to be very generous, very quickly, so that normality can […] fill the vacuum left behind by the previous regime.”

Source link

#years #invasion #Iraq #lessons #learned

YOU LIE! Mike Lee DOES NOT Want To Murder Social Security! He Just Wants To Murder It *For Your Children*!

When President Joe Biden very accurately said in his State of the Union speech Tuesday that some Republicans have called for eliminating Social Security and Medicare, all the Rs in the House chamber were shocked and horrified, and few were more hilariously performative in their how dare you, sir! theatrics than Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah). It made for a really fun side-by-side video the next morning, contrasting Lee looking outraged during the speech with his actual comments in 2010 where he proudly announced to mostly elderly voters in Cache Valley, Utah, that he wanted to phase out Social Security and Medicare because America simply can’t afford all the socialism. Roll 212, as they say (no one remembers that Daily Show bit from a decade ago, Dok):

Well Mike Lee was not at all pleased that people keep pointing out that he did indeed tell Utah voters during his first run for Senate in 2010,

“I’m here right now to tell you one thing you’ve probably never heard from a politician. It’ll be my objective to phase out Social Security, to pull it up from the roots and get rid of it. People who advise me politically always tell me that’s dangerous and I tell them, ‘In that case it’s not worth my running.’ That’s why I’m doing this, to get rid of that. Medicare and Medicaid are of the same sort, they need to be pulled up.”


Sure sounds like a pledge to phase out Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, to pull them up by the roots and get rid of both programs. Indeed, that goal was why Lee wanted to be in the Senate. It wouldn’t be worth running if he couldn’t get rid of all three. As Newsweek pointed out Wednesday, Lee had framed his vow to extirpate the programs because the Constitution itself (and he waved a copy around) doesn’t say anywhere that government has “the power to redistribute my wealth, yet that’s what entitlement programs are — they’re a wealth redistribution.”

Biden made a point of quoting Lee Wednesday when he spoke to union workers in Wisconsin. Clearly enjoying himself, Biden said, “There was a senator named Mike Lee who was yelling, you know, liar, liar, house on fire kind of stuff last night.” He then went on to quote Lee’s 2010 comments, adding, “Sounds pretty clear to me. How about you? But they sure didn’t like me calling them on it.”

The White House also tweeted out the Newsweek article, noting again the line about Lee’s 2010 pledge to “phase out Social Security, to pull it up by the roots, and get rid of it.”

But wait! Lee tweeted an angry statement later Wednesday to point out that his critics were leaving out a vital part of his statement! He was the victim of selective editing, is all, he said, because his real point in 2010 was that even though he wanted to drive a stake through Social Security and Medicare, he also said America must “honor the commitments made to those who have paid into the system for decades” — in other words, as with George W. Bush’s failed plan to privatize Social Security, those already in the program wouldn’t be thrown off. He’d simply eliminate the programs for the young folks coming up. See? Big difference!

“In repeatedly quoting my 2010 remarks today, President Biden conveniently left out that critical detail — that even when I voiced that position, I insisted that we honor the reliance interests of those who have paid into the system.”

If you want to nitpick — and it would be irresponsible not to — nothing of the sort could be done for current Medicaid beneficiaries, because how exactly would you grandfather in those useless eaters and their useless children in the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) for an income-based program, exactly.

Lee also griped that in the dozen years he’s been in the Senate, he hasn’t actually tried to abolish Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, so there — he broke that campaign promise and he broke it good!

Lee followed up with a tweet replying to the White House, with video evidence that he had definitely told the senior voters in 2010 that he’d only wipe out Social Security and Medicare for their children and grandchildren, not them. And if “I will impoverish your children and grandchildren when they reach retirement age, but not you” isn’t a GOP motto, it sure could be.

Decide for yourself just how exculpatory the full context is, ‘kay?

“We have to hold harmless those who are current beneficiaries. Those who have retired and are currently receiving those benefits, their benefits have to be left untouched, unchanged, un … fazed.”

We Think maybe Lee meant un-phased out there, but maybe the benefits would just hear the news without reacting. He went on to add that “The next layer beneath them, those who will retire within the next few years, probably also have to be held harmless,” so that’s very reassuring.

Lee didn’t specify what age cohort would be spared the axe, but it’s very clear, in the context that Lee provides, that even though he wouldn’t cut Nana’s Medicare, Nana’s granddaughter is screwed, even if she’s been paying into the system for a decade or two.

Lee didn’t go into any details about how, once all the youngs are freed from the burden of paycheck withholding, Social Security and Medicare would be sustained for existing beneficiaries until they all died and the programs wound down.

But no matter: ALL you meanies need to be nice to Mike Lee, who never said he’d completely eliminate Social Security and Medicare. All he wanted was to screw everyone under, say, 50 or 55, and thank goodness he broke that particular campaign promise, so he is the hero, OK?

Thank you for the clarification, sir!

Of course, this is all touche and en garde about one little campaign appearance a decade ago, when actually “get rid of the social safety net” is one of the very few policy positions Republicans bother holding anymore since they’ve all become idea-free nihilists, and it’s one that goes back decades and they’re still doing it as of this term.

[Newsweek / Deseret News / YouTube]

Yr Wonkette is funded entirely by reader donations. If you can, please give $5 or $10 monthly, so we can keep bringing you the meanest and most accurate fact checks in North America and beyond.

Do your Amazon shopping through this link, because reasons.



Source link

#LIE #Mike #Lee #Murder #Social #Security #Murder #Children