All Things Democrat

Ejecting from Afghanistan

Posted on Monday, January 14, 2013 by Marc Belisle

“Geography is destiny.” –Unknown

Afghanistan is a treacherous land. In every sense of the word. Soon we will be leaving it behind. President Obama announced in a January 11th joint press conference with Afghan President Hamid Karzai that American troops would be relegated to a “support” role as early as this spring, and all Western combat troops will be removed by the end of 2014. This announcement passed without fanfare, but it’s worth taking a moment to reflect on the beginning of the end of the longest war in American history, to look forward to being formally at peace for the first time since that sunny Tuesday morning over a decade ago, and to understand why withdrawal is the only rational decision at this point.

On August 9th, 2010, I submitted to the Brussels School of International Studies a 50-page masters dissertation entitled “Greed and Grievance in the Graveyard of Empires.” My dissertation analyzed how aspects of Afghanistan’s society and economy support the Taliban’s survival. At the outset of my research, I was generally supportive of the US/NATO mission in Afghanistan. By the time I had finished, I was passing around a freelance editorial to every newspaper in the country arguing that we needed to get the hell out of there, pronto. No one would publish it. Last summer, I met a special forces veteran who had served as a combat linguist during two tours in Afghanistan at a bar here in Washington, DC. I told him about what I had discovered in my research and he told me he agreed with my conclusions and that I was lucky I hadn’t had to learn it the hard way.

What I learned is that Afghanistan is one big vicious cycle composed of smaller cycles. The three most dooming feedback loops are the violence cycle, the Pakistan/Taliban cycle and the opium/corruption cycle. Combined, these dynamics make it impossible for anyone to pacify and develop Afghanistan. Continue reading →

Posted in Afghanistan, Barack Obama, Bin Laden, Foreign Policy, National Security, Politics, September 11, Terrorism, Wars, Women | Tagged Afghan Women, Afghanistan, extortion, foreign policy, Hamid Karzai, opium, Pakistan, President Barack Obama, Taliban, trafficking, US, violence

Join the discussion at All Things Democrat, powered by Disqus

Democrats Will Choose Their Best Candidate in 2016 – Male or Female

Posted on Monday, January 14, 2013 by Cindy Rose

Lately, some writers and groups across the web have begun to discuss the idea that because women were such huge Obama supporters in the 2012 election, they now expect something in return: a female presidential candidate in 2016. Politico’s Burns and Haberman wrote a piece recently that began:

Prominent Democratic activists and women’s groups are determined to ensure the party fields a powerful female presidential candidate in 2016, drawing encouragement from a 2012 cycle that saw Democrats win female voters by a lopsided, 11-percentage-point margin and elect several new women to the Senate…

…The challenge that hangs over both parties, but especially Democrats, is finding the right woman for the job…

What’s this writer’s opinion about that? Baloney. The biggest challenge facing the Democratic Party is finding a candidate that can match Obama’s appeal across so many voting blocs. The idea that a party choose the gender before the credentials is an insult to women – hello, Sarah Palin!

Even as a staunch feminist, I reject the idea that a) “women’s groups” should choose the candidate, and b) because women helped (and I emphasize helped) elect President Obama, that means we are due a female candidate. The President won among many groups, as The Center For American Progress has reported:

African-Americans 93 percent
Hispanics 71 percent
Asian-Americans 73 percent
Women 55 percent

If we use the ridiculous line of thinking that “we’re owed”, the truth is, three groups would certainly be “owed” ahead of us.

Then there’s the question of President Obama’s cabinet, and cracks about it being a “boys club”. Charlie Rangel, who I admit I’m not a big fan of, was recently spewing his version of this cabinet nonsense on MSNBC’s “Jansing & Co.”:

“It’s as embarrassing as hell… We’ve been through all of this with Mitt Romney. And we were very hard on Mitt Romney with the women binder and a variety of things.

I kinda think there’s no excuse when it’s the second term. If it’s the first term, you could see people got to know who is around and qualified in order to get this job, number one …

I had thought that it could be the Harvard problem where people just know each other, trust each other. And women and minorities don’t get a chance to rub elbows and their reputations and experience is not known … so in the second term, these people should be just as experienced as anybody, any other American.”

That’s idiot logic on so many fronts. President Obama could have chosen an entirely male cabinet, and I would not find it “embarrassing as hell” unless certain choices weren’t qualified to have the job. And what’s “the Harvard problem”; do Harvard grads intimidate Mr. Rangel, because now he’s sounding like a Republican.

As Emily L. Hauser points out in her piece on this nonsense:

The feminist movement (to the extent that there is one thing that can be called that) is about bringing women’s humanity to bear on every aspect of life… President Obama has spent his Presidency expressing his dedication to feminist values. Over and over and over (and over and over) again, he has done the work and forwarded the ideas necessary to actually change the reality in which women and girls live, to not pay lip service to our humanity but to acknowledge and act on it.

… 43% of Obama appointees have been women … Not to mention that if the GOP had not successfully hounded Susan Rice out of the nomination process last month, we wouldn’t even be having this conversation right now…

Back to the Politico post. Neera Tanden, who heads the Center for American Progress, told Burns and Haberman:

“It’s critical that we have a woman on the ticket in some form or fashion…”

EMILY’s List President Stephanie Schriock stated:

“We expect to see a woman on the ticket in 2016. We’re going to do everything we can to ensure that there’s a woman on the ticket in 2016.”

While it would be a huge thrill for many women, including myself, to see a woman Democrat elected President, gender should not be the critical or decisive element for a 2016 candidate. Feminism is about leveling the playing field, not stacking the deck. The addition of Sarah Palin to the McCain ticket in 2008 did nothing to improve McCain’s standing with women, as the Center for American Women in Politics (CAWP) at Rutgers University reported:

Women’s votes were a significant factor in Senator Barack Obama’s victory, with a sizable gender gap evident in the election results….Women strongly preferred Obama to Senator John McCain (56 percent for Obama, 43 percent for McCain), unlike men, who split their votes about evenly for the two presidential candidates (49 percent for Obama, 48 percent for McCain).

In addition, the Pew Research Center found at the time:

Sarah Palin appears to be a continuing – if not an increasing – drag on the GOP ticket….Women, especially women under age 50, have become increasingly critical of Palin: 60% now express an unfavorable view of Palin, up from 36% in mid-September. Notably, opinions of Palin have a greater impact on voting intentions than do opinions of Joe Biden, Obama’s running mate.

Why, because she wasn’t qualified, and many women saw the choice of Palin for what it was: blatant pandering.

The current atmosphere in politics makes recruiting and elevating more women candidates not only smart policy, but an essential one, and the Democratic Party needs to channel more of its resources toward that end. Over the next few years, a number of viable 2016 Democratic candidates will begin to emerge; and Democrats will ultimately choose their candidate, man or woman, based on much more than the single issue of gender.

Posted in Barack Obama, Campaigns, DCCC, Democratic National Committee, Democrats, DSCC, Election, Government, Liberals, Politics, Progressives, Women, Women in Politics | Tagged 2016 candidates, barack obama, congress, Democrats, election, feminists, Presidential Candidates, woman president

Nice Try Donald, But Some Say Your Dad Was An Orangutan, Birth Certificate Or No.

Posted on Saturday, January 12, 2013 by Ken

Some say Donald Trump is not 1/2 Orangutan, but others do not agree.

Bill Maher challenged Donald Trump to present his birth certificate in order to prove that Trump’s father was not an Orangutan. Maher offered $5 million if Trump can prove otherwise, and Trump rose to the challenge by releasing his “certification of birth”.

Some say this is proof that Trump is not 1/2 Orangutan, but others do not agree

It must be noted that the certification of birth was not good enough to prove the citizenship of Barack Obama before he produced his long form birth certificate, so why would we be satisfied with Trumps birth particulars based on the above document?

However, it must be noted there are several issues with the form provided that serve to only further cast doubt on the species of Trump’s father. For example the supposed line that is meant to verify the humanity of Donald’s father does not actually name the species of the father at all! It only reads “FATHER/PARENT’S NAME: FRED C TRUMP”. It doesn’t read “Human father/parents name”. For all we know Fred may indeed be an Orangutan because the birth certificate really does not address the issue of the species of the father!

In fact it may interest the reader to know that Donald Trump was born in N.Y. City, but the location of his conception is not precisely known. Those who have questions about this are only left to speculate. Was the conception in some sort of large ape enclosure in a zoo? Or the deep jungles of Asia? We should demand the answers to these questions before just accepting Trump’s version of all this.

Mary Ann Leod, listed as the MOTHER/PARENT, was a philanthropist. Philanthropists have been known to give time and charity to animal causes. Some say that Mary Ann Leod may have become a little to giving *wink wink, nudge nudge* when it came to a particular Orangutan that she was supporting, resulting in the surprise birth of her son Donald. Just to be clear on this, I am not claiming that I believe Donald Trumps mother had sex with an Orangutan, I am just reporting what some people say.

Also note how the designation of “FATHER/PARENT” is very malleable as far as any sort of guardianship is concerned, but does not actually establish paternity. In fact most states have laws which automatically give the husbands name as the FATHER on the birth certificate, whether the mother had some sort of weird fetish for great apes, or not. Again, not that I actually would say that Trump’s mother had a simian fetish mind you. I’m just reporting what some are saying here, that is all. It is up to the FATHER to establish paternity and challenge their status on the birth certificate if they choose to do so. One can imagine the embarrassment which would have attended such a test so it is easy to imagine the scenario in which Mr. Trump simply accepted his half simian child as his own son, rather than sully the name of Mary by disclosing the truth of the matter. So why didn’t the ’parents’ take the tests to establish paternity? Some say it was to avoid a scandal which would have rocked the city of New York and the scientific community!

Now Donald is threatening to sue if Maher does not give the $5 million to Trumps choice of charities. There is simply no way that suit will actually go anywhere, because if Trump really pushes the issue he would be forced to undergo a DNA test to prove he was not 1/2 Orangutan. There is already speculation in the scientific community that Orangutans, not Chimpanzees are the closest relatives to humans. With human/ape dna already providing a 96% match what would happen if Trumps DNA matched something like 98% of Orangutan DNA? He can not risk that embarrassing outcome, which some believe is probable, so he will not pursue the case far enough to have to take the test.

By the way, another striking feature of commonality between Humans and Orangutans is that we are the only ape species to have a hair line. Considering Trumps oddball, primal, hairline some may speculate that Trump is the true pinnacle of Orangutan evolution. Perhaps we could test the theory by releasing Trump into the wilds of Asia where the entire Orangutan species may come to worship him as a living god!

Posted in Politics, Satire | Tagged Bill Maher, donald trump, Mary Ann Leod, Orangutan

Dear Republican Rape ‘Experts’: Read Some History

Posted on Saturday, January 12, 2013 by Ken

Here is Ga. House Representative Phil Gingrey on the statement by Todd Akin that a woman’s body has ways of “shutting that whole thing down” when it comes to pregnancy caused by rape.

“He’s partly right on that.”

Gingrey pointed out that he had been an OB-GYN since 1975.

“And I’ve delivered lots of babies, and I know about these things. It is true. We tell infertile couples all the time that are having trouble conceiving because of the woman not ovulating, ‘Just relax. Drink a glass of wine. And don’t be so tense and uptight because all that adrenaline can cause you not to ovulate.’ So he was partially right wasn’t he?

The bolded highlight is my addition, because I think it is unbelievable that an OB-GYN would spout this nonsense. Gingrey should have his license yanked by the state medical board.

In October I posted about the history of victorious armies using rape as a tool to impregnate the women folk of the societies they conquered. Just a few days ago I learned of one of the most surprising consequences of that practice as conducted by the one and only Genghis Khan.

Khans medieval attitude towards the people he conquered is best demonstrated by this quote widely ascribed to him:

The greatest joy for a man is to defeat his enemies, to drive them before him, to take from them all they possess, to see those they love in tears, to ride their horses, and to hold their wives and daughters in his arms.

Just to be clear here, these wives and daughters were not being tenderly held in the arms of Khan of their own free will. In fact Khan was so prolific at raping the women of conquered cities that 1 out of every 200 males in the world today are believed to be his direct descendants. There is a very high concentration of Khan descendants in certain areas of Asia, with as many as 1 in 8 males having his genetic marker.

The spread of his DNA was not just a function of him having many wives and a large harem. His DNA is spread across the breadth of the old Mongol empire, from the western shores of the Pacific to Europe.

This prolific genetic legacy can only be explained by the practice of Khan, and his descendants, defiling the local women when they conquered a city. To somehow allow that the women who were treated in such a horrible manner were willing accomplices is completely wrong headed. Those facts, along with the countless other examples provided by the human history of warfare, is incontrovertible proof that women’s bodies do not have some mysterious way of shutting down pregnancy caused by a rape, despite the repeated claims of right wing blow hards.

It is just silly that the history of mankind has to be pointed to as proof of the obvious here. Some things we know just from common sense, not to mention the certainty we have gained from advances in science. Some things were understood even by ancient societies which lacked 1/100th of the scientific understanding we have today. It is just ridiculous that Republicans would deny the obvious out of some misguided attempt to deny a woman’s right to choose, and then continue to deny the obvious when they get called out for it.

Posted in Politics, Republicans, Women's Health, Women's Rights | Tagged DNA, Gengis Khan, Phil Gingrey, rape, Science, Todd Akin

Up In Arms

Posted on Saturday, January 12, 2013 by Marc Belisle

“Their paranoid fear of a possible dystopic future prevents us from addressing our actual dystopic present. We can’t even begin to address 30,000 gun deaths that are actually in reality happening in this country every year because a few of us must remain vigilant against the rise of imaginary Hitler.” –Jon Stewart

Imagine you are Hitler. You are trying to be reincarnated as the person who could take over America the way you took over Germany. How would you do it? Who would you come back as? A general? A politician? A banker? A religious leader?

The lunatic fringe of the far-right gun nuts is attempting to hijack the gun control debate. Since Newtown, the American public has generally awakened to the fact that the Second Amendment line between individual rights and public safety needs to be redrawn. However, the gun nuts don’t want us to have that conversation at all. So they have retreated to their Alamo: a circle-jerk of egomaniacal crowing about how they need to save the Republic from tyranny. I realize that these people don’t represent the mainstream of conservative thought, but their footprint is growing, the cottage industry that fuels their ideology is pervasive, their role in this discourse is not insignificant, and they are too dangerous to be ignored. It only takes one armed messianic lunatic to change history.

Continue reading →

Posted in Barack Obama, Gun Control, Housing Crisis, Occupy WallStreet, Politics, Supreme Court | Tagged Alex Jones, democracy, gun control, gun nuts, history, institutions, waco texas

Lunatic Fringe Take Two

Posted on Saturday, January 12, 2013 by Cindy Rose

yeager We showed you James Yeager’s first video in our article “James Yeager: Poster Child For Why We Need To Rethink Assault Weapons“. Evidently, he felt he needed to clear things up a bit; so, because of his superior intelligence and all, he made a second video. He is now angry at gun owners who don’t agree with him because, and I never knew this, if you’re not ready to go out and start killing people, you lose the right to have an opinion.

Here are a few excerpts from video 2. He starts out sounding like he might have some fragment of rational thought left:

“I was mad when I said it, and probably allowed my mouth to overrun my logic.”

So what does he say when he’s putting a more “logical” spin on domestic terrorism? (Warning, I’m using his exact language, which includes the expletives):

“To the hundreds of people who have emailed me and sent me legal advice, I didn’t ask you for your fucking opinion.”…

…”All you fair-weather, fucking second amendment people who say I’m doin’ a disservice to the gun community, by saying that I’m not gonna stand for the tyranny, fuck you. Our country wasn’t founded by fuckin’ fair-weather pussies; either you’re in or you’re out, and if you’re out don’t call yourself a fuckin’ second amendment advocate. If you’re not prepared to go all the way, then you’re not prepared to go anywhere.”

Now, “Let’s go to the video”:

I think my favorite part is:

”There are unedited videos that people have stolen from me; if you’re one of the people that have stolen my video and you’ve uploaded it onto your site, please take it down. It’s my property, take it down.”

My response to Mr. Yeager? To borrow one of his favorite expletives, “Fuck him.”

First of all, if a guy makes a statement on the Internet that he’s going to start killing random people, he has pretty much lost his “personal property” argument, especially if the bonehead provides a “share” link for his video, as he did with the one above. In the second place, free speech belongs to non-lunatics too, and people deserve to be warned about this guy, especially in the state where he lives (which is alas, the state I live in, where rooting out lunatics is full-time work).

As Ken reported, Tennessee has revoked Yeager’s concealed carry permit. Yeager boasts that he has caches of guns “all over the country” as well as in other countries. Of course, while this could be nothing but bravado, one look at the eyes of this nut job has to make you wonder.

He has also posted a message from a “friend” on his Facebook page that includes this scenario:

“Tens of millions of Americans will refuse to comply with an order that is clearly a violation of the explicit intent of the Second Amendment…

After a number of carefully-planned, highly-publicized, and successful raids by the government, one or more will invariably end “badly.” Whether innocents are gunned down, a city block is burned to ash, or especially fierce resistance leads to a disastrously failed raid doesn’t particularly matter. What matters is that when illusion of the government’s invincibility and infallibility is broken, the hunters will become the hunted.

Unnamed citizens and federal agents will be the first to die, and they will die by the dozens and maybe hundreds, but famous politicians will soon join them in a spate of revenge killings, many of which will go unsolved…

The 535 members of the House and Senate in both parties that allowed such a law to pass would largely be on their own; the Secret Service is too small to protect all of them and their families, the Capitol Police too unskilled, and competent private security not particularly interested in working against their own best interests at any price. The elites will be steadily whittled down, and if they can not be reached directly, the targets will become their staffers, spouses, children, and grandchildren. Grandstanding media figures loyal to the regime would die in droves, executed as enemies of the Republic.

You can expect congressional staffs to disintegrate with just a few shootings, and expect elected officials themselves to resign well before a quarter of their number are eliminated, leaving us with a boxed-in executive, his cabinet loyalists trapped in the same win, die, or flee the country circumstance, military regime loyalists, and whatever State Governors who desire to risk their necks as well…

It will not be pretty. There will be no “winners,” and perhaps hundreds of thousands to millions of dead.

Yet, this is the future we face if the power-mad among us are not soundly defeated at the ballot box before they affect more “change” than we, the People, are willing to surrender to would-be tyrants.”

No, Yeager and his pals aren’t dangerous.

It should be pointed out that reaction to Yeager’s idiocy is mixed. There are the typical comments referring to him as a “patriot”, which is a joke, with one guy going so far as to claim the government “pushed him into this rage”, and that “tyranny is ruling us now”. Puleez! Save the melodrama for your fellow yokels. Spend a year in Sudan, Zimbabwe, or Somalia, then you can talk to us about tyranny.

Surprisingly, some rational types are weighing in on Yeager’s own Facebook page:

◊ “…you’re not really this dumb right? threatening to kill someone is not part of the 1st amendment. if you think it is i suggest you read it again. it is however grounds for judicial action.”

◊ “Yeager needs to have all his guns confiscated and be banned for life from owning any firearms. He is clearly psychotic.”

◊ “Watching his rant, it’s clear he doesn’t posses the clarity of mind, or the mental discipline to rise up as a leader in anything more significant than a toilet cleaning brigade.
To put it simply, he’s just a punk with guns.”

◊ “You are clearly too immature and irresponsible to own a gun, sir. And if the government decides to come to your trailer home and take your weapons, they will do it. And we will all be grateful!

Now according to Tennessee’s WSMV, Yeager has appeared in yet a third video, with one of those “unnecessary” legal advice folks – an actual lawyer, and is trying to backtrack:

“In another video I said some pretty volatile stuff, which I apologize for. I do not – in any way – advocate overthrowing the United States government. Nor do I condone violent actions toward any elected officials.”

Day late, and a dollar short I’d say; his previous unedited, non-legally represented tirade speaks for itself, and exposes him as the domestic terrorist he is. Sorry, gotta cut this short, have to find out where that banjo music’s coming from…

Posted in Gun Control, Politics | Tagged domestic terrorism, gun control, gun rights, James Yeager, NRA

These Gun Nuts Are Nutty

Posted on Friday, January 11, 2013 by Ken

Cindy has already posted about James Yeager, the crazed wing nut in Tennessee who threatened to start killing people if he does not get his way over gun laws. Tennessee may be a deep red southern state, but even they know when someone has crossed the line, so they yanked Yeagers concealed carry permit.

How would you like the be the state worker who asks Yeager to turn over his permit? In order to mitigate the danger to life and limb I suppose they’ll have to evacuate the neighborhood and bring in the SWAT team to do it .

Yeager did not start the recent ’I'm a right wing loony tune who is completely unhinged about guns and may start shooting people’ craze. That honor goes to Alex Jones for his appearance with Piers Morgan, in which he angrily threatened insurrection in the event he does not get his way over gun laws.

Alex Jones is a transparently loony whacko. In the meltdown on CNN Jones admitted that England had lower gun death rates, but only because guns had been taken away, leading to ”hordes of people burning down cities and beating old women’s brains out out every day.”

People like Jones and Yeager who are so paranoid, embittered and delusional are the very definition of the type of characters society should bar from purchasing guns. Does the gun lobby really want these deranged whackjobs, who seem positively eager to start killing people, to be the face of ‘responsible’ gun ownership to the rest of the nation? It was bad enough when Wayne Lapierre babbled at a podium following the Sandy Hook massacre. Even if his message was kooky at least Lapierre was composed while he delivered it, not frothing at the mouth and endorsing the death of those who do not agree with his political point of view.

Posted in Gun Control, Politics, The Constitution | Tagged Alex Jones, gun control, James Yeager, Tennessee, Wayne LaPierre

THE Best Newsletter for Democrats

Posted on Friday, January 11, 2013 by Doug Marquardt

DIRECT eZine for Democrats is by far the best, free, weekly newsletter for Democrats. I’ve been reading it for years and I highly recommend it to all my friends on the political left. Frankly, I don’t know how they pack so much important information into one newsletter, but I’m glad they do.

Follow the link and browse this week’s issue, then subscribe today!

Posted in Democrats | Tagged DIRECT ezine for democrats

James Yeager: Poster Child For Why We Need To Rethink Assault Weapons

Posted on Thursday, January 10, 2013 by Cindy Rose

As I have expressed in earlier posts, the problem with current gun laws is the ability to obtain them by unstable, mentally deranged, psychopathic, berserkers – otherwise known as gun fanatics. The poster child for stricter controls on assault weapons, James Yeager, has made himself a little video where he proudly displays just how off his nut he is.

This loose cannon is supposedly the CEO of a “company” called “Tactical Response”. In the sane world, a tactical response unit, or SWAT (special weapons and tactics) team’s job is to augment the police department in dealing with “extraordinary crises such as hostage situations, armed suspects occupying fortified or barricaded positions, and the apprehension of violent suspects”.

Mr. Yaeger seems like the type who would join a tactical response unit just to up his chances of being able to kill someone. It is the dangerous lunatic fringe like this guy that need to be kept away from assault weapons (actually, this guy doesn;t need to be anywhere near a gun, period). Watch him come unhinged before your very eyes, courtesy of Crooks & Liars:

Yeah, I love the idea of this madman having a gun, don’t you? Now, you were saying Mr. LaPierre?

Posted in Congress, Government, Gun Control, Politics, The Constitution | Tagged assault rifles, automatic weapons, congress, gun control, lunatics, NRA, Wayne LaPierre

Paul Ryan Co-Sponsors Personhood Bill

Posted on Thursday, January 10, 2013 by Cindy Rose

Idiot Republican men are at it again in 2013, and one of America’s most notable Pick-and-Choose Catholics is right out in front. Paul Ryan, no longer running for anything, has reverted to his Anti-Choice, Anti-Women Republican roots, and co-sponsored: HR 23 IH:

A BILLTo provide that human life shall be deemed to begin with fertilization.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘Sanctity of Human Life Act’.

SEC. 2. DECLARATION.

In the exercise of the powers of the Congress, including Congress’ power under article I, section 8 of the Constitution, to make necessary and proper laws, and Congress’ power under section 5 of the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States–

(1) the Congress declares that–

(A) the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being, and is the paramount and most fundamental right of a person; and

(B) the life of each human being begins with fertilization, cloning, or its functional equivalent, irrespective of sex, health, function or disability, defect, stage of biological development, or condition of dependency, at which time every human being shall have all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood; and

(2) the Congress affirms that the Congress, each State, the District of Columbia, and all United States territories have the authority to protect the lives of all human beings residing in its respective jurisdictions.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

For purposes of this Act:

(1) FERTILIZATION- The term ‘fertilization’ means the process of a human spermatozoan penetrating the cell membrane of a human oocyte to create a human zygote, a one-celled human embryo, which is a new unique human being…

From the Huffington Post (my emphasis):

The personhood bill, first introduced in 2011 by Rep. Paul Broun (R-Ga.) and reintroduced by Broun last week, specifies that a “one-celled human embryo,” even before it implants in the uterus to create a pregnancy, should be granted “all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood.” Similar legislation has been rejected by voters in multiple states, including the socially conservative Mississippi, because legal experts have pointed out that it could outlaw some forms of birth control and in vitro fertilization as well as criminalize abortion at all stages.

Broun said in a statement that a zygote’s right to life should be “defended vigorously and at all costs.”

“As a physician, I know that human life begins with fertilization, and I remain committed to ending abortion in all stages of pregnancy,” he said. “I will continue to fight this atrocity on behalf of the unborn, and I hope my colleagues will support me in doing so.”

Ryan did not immediately respond to HuffPost’s request for comment about his support for the bill, which has 17 co-sponsors.

But as RH Reality Check‘s Robin Marty points out:

Let’s just be clear that there is no such thing as a “one-celled” embryo, because the embryonic stage follows first on the zygote or fertilized egg, which develops into a blastocyst, which then develops into an embryo… and is not “one-celled.” But, you know… Republicans, science… pffft.

Dr. Joseph DeCook, executive director of the American Association of Pro-life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, claims an embryo “is a living human being at the moment of fertilization.”

“There’s no question at all when human life begins,” said DeCook, a retired obstetrician-gynecologist. “When the two sets of chromosomes get together, you have a complete individual. It’s the same as you and I but less developed.”

How much less developed you might ask? Well here’s a picture:

and that’s mega magnified so you can see what it actually looks like; human eggs are only about 150 micrometers in diameter and you can just barely see one with a naked eye.

According to the Guttmacher Institute,

Between one-third and one-half of all fertilized eggs never fully implant.

Which means that Republicans’ so-called “persons” are expelled from a woman’s body naturally, on a regular basis.

Only in the Republican Party do you find men hell-bent on legislating women’s reproductive health, a science of which they know nothing about, and women who sit back and play dumb about it all.