posted November 09, 2004 11:45 PM              

This post is more to prove that all politicians have skeletons in their closets no matter how they present themselves to be. The article proves what I said about Karl Rove and Bush's Republican campaign people deliberately finding a new "hate group" to target in order to dupe the Christian conservative voters into casting their votes for Bush and against homosexuals.

Banning homosexual marriages. Is Bush really against "the abomination of homosexuality" and homosexual marriage? He said he was in the debates. He said he believed that marriage was between a man and woman. But according to this article his record does not reflect his words at all. And some Christian conservatives have caught on to the ruse.

One could say that the Christian conservatives may have been duped through their own intolerance, hate and predjudices.

Bush in Bed with Homosexuals

By Chuck Baldwin
The Covenant News ~ April 13, 2002

http://covenantnews.com/baldwin020423.htm

By now, we have a clear record on the Bush administration in regard to homosexuality. The record reveals that President Bush is more than sympathetic to the homosexual agenda. One could even argue that Bush has become (or always was) a proud promoter of that agenda. Here is the record; you judge for yourself.

1. Candidate George W. Bush appointed four openly homosexual, gay-rights advocates to his presidential campaign steering committee. According to the homosexual group, Log Cabin Republicans, "scores" of Bush state steering committee members and campaign volunteers were homosexuals.

2. Perhaps this explains why hundreds of homosexuals gathered in Washington, D.C., last weekend to "celebrate the achievements and leadership of George W. Bush." It also helps to explain why Rich Tafel, executive director of Log Cabin Republicans, said, "We want the country to know that we are behind our president and administration."

3. On Dec. 21, 2001, President Bush signed a historic bill, which "for the first time allows the District of Columbia government to fund a program that will give domestic partners of city employees access to health benefits." Remember, Bush insisted that openly homosexual Congressman Jim Kolbe of Arizona be given a prominent speaking role at the Republican National Convention. It was Kolbe who introduced the amendment lifting the ban on gay partner benefits in D.C.

4. Bush named Scot Evertz, a prominent homosexual activist, to head the White House AIDS office even though he had absolutely no experience dealing with public health issues.

5. Bush appointed another homosexual activist, Donald Cappoccia, to the U.S. Commission on Fine Arts.

6. Bush appointed openly homosexual, Michael Guest, as Ambassador to Romania. Since then, Bush has decided to leave in place a Clinton policy that calls for supporting the "unmarried partners" of U.S. Foreign Service workers. This allows Guest's live-in lover to live in the U.S. Embassy in Bucharest and allows him to join Guest at official embassy functions.

7. Bush presided over the appointment of homosexual activist, Stephen Herbits, to oversee the choice of civilian personnel at the Pentagon.

8. Bush has not reversed a single pro-homosexual policy instituted by former president Bill Clinton. Not even one!

9. The Bush administration posted a job for what is called a "gay and lesbian program specialist" at the Department of Agriculture.

10. Bush appointed the ardently pro-homosexual Governor of Massachussetts, Paul Cellucci, as U.S. Ambassador to Canada.

11. Bush appointed Lewis Eisenberg to become the new GOP chief fundraiser. Eisenberg has a long history of supporting pro-homosexual and pro-abortion candidates.

12. Just yesterday, The Washington Times reported, "The Bush administration has joined European delegates to an upcoming U.N. summit on children in moving to recognize families 'in various forms,' including unmarried cohabiting couples and homosexual partners."

Concerned Women for America is so concerned that it recently released a statement saying, "President George Bush is just another Bill Clinton on the homosexual-rights issue." Perhaps Log Cabin spokesman, Rich Tafel, best summarized the situation. He said, "He [Bush] has a vision of a different Republican Party." If homosexual activists such as Tafel can see the real George W. Bush, why cannot Christian conservatives?

posted November 10, 2004 12:02 AM              

But this is what I thought:

Isn't Bush called "Mago" by Nostradamus?
His satanic nick name

posted November 10, 2004 12:23 AM              

Actually to my way of seeing things, I find encouragement in the above article because it tells me that maybe Bush is not as far to the right as I thought him to be. It might be bad news to a conservative but it isn't bad news to me at all to find out the president isn't really intolerant of minority groups.

What I don't like about it is that unlike Kerry who was honest about it and who came out and told the truth about what he knew a president can and cannot do because we do have a Constitution Bush pretended to be something he wasn't just to get votes. Dishonest.

It also seems his administration betrayed the very people who have been so supportive of them over the past four years - the homosexual community. They believed in him too.

posted November 10, 2004 09:43 AM              

Yeah. Also I think there would have been a difference in the results had Kerry not made those remarks on Cheney's daughter during the debate.

posted November 10, 2004 01:56 PM              

Bush may be personally against gay marriage but not against homosexuals. It may be just the "sanctity" of the marriage vows he is protecting. If you remember that was also Kerry's stance in the debate when he answered that question. He said PERSONALLY he believed that marriage was between a man and woman but went on to say the government should make no laws excluding minorities. So I leave it to you guys to decide for yourselves who was being more openly honest to the American voters?

This is the same as Kerry saying in his speech in Iowa while campaigning that PERSONALLY he was against abortion but as President he has to serve all the people and abide by the Constitution.

It just really shows that voters should be more informed before voting instead of voting emotionally and based solely on what candidates say. Truth is they will say anything to get elected. We all know that.

I agree with you Linda that the stem cell thing hurt us all. Because not all stem research is done on stem cells from fetuses. They do adult stem cell research too.

posted November 10, 2004 02:06 PM            

quote:

---

To cut off all stem cell research would not have made that possible for her and it eliminates any further studies on adult stem cells that might help millions of people in the future

---

I'm going to ask you to prove Bush has banned all stem cell research.

That Bush has banned fetal stem cell research.

posted November 10, 2004 02:22 PM            

jwhop,

You're right- there isn't a ban on stem cell research or those stem cells gathered from the umbilical cord. People are NOT aware of the process of tissue culturing and preserving "mother cell" lines (that just means the first cells gathered).

All daughter cultures are identical to the mother culture and can be recultured for just about...oh forever.

posted November 10, 2004 02:32 PM              

The intention or desire for such a ban was the issue in the election. And in the campaign it was never mentioned to what extent they meant the ban to be. The details were not laid out to the American voters. The only thing mentioned was a ban on stem cell research. Stem cells can be taken after the birth of a child and from adults. So what was the beef? Why was it such a big issue? What does the Religious Right mean when they say a ban on stem cell research? To what extent do they want to go in banning stem cell research?

Perhaps it is the same as the homosexual marriage issue. Things were left unsaid that would have better informed the voters on the issue. Half truths were spoken.

posted November 10, 2004 03:28 PM            

Private research is free to pursue whatever they wish to fund including fetal stem cell research. Fetal tissue used in tests has caused cancer tumors in the subjects it was introduced into.

Adult stem cell research is not restricted either and holds far more promise than the fetal stem cells...at least at this time.

This issue is one the left whoppped up and used the lie of a ban to make Bush seem hard hearted and willing to withhold promising medical technology from Americans suffering from catastrophic diseases.

There is no ban and has been no ban by the President. In fact Bush allocated federal funds for research and Bill Clinton didn't.

posted November 10, 2004 05:51 PM            

The only issue as far as the right is concerned is using aborted fetuses as a way of culturing cells.

On another note, is anyone here familiar with the present results of that stem cell research and transplantation?

SO far it is a bit of a nightmare. Parkinson's patients responded extremely well, that is until the immature fetal cells functioned as they would in a fetus and began to speed up growth quickly, as it would in the womb. The result was the patients began to exhibit morbit bradykinesia, inability to walk and spasms. The adult brain could NOT handle the cellular transplant.

That is why the issue really needs to be studied. We had the same problem when HIV was first discovered. Groups beat on the scientific community FIND A CURE...FIND A VACCINE..but didn't want to allocate funds to first understanding the virus. What happened was billions spent, drugs produced that didn't work and a few years later the community finds that there is an extremely high mutation rate within the virus. SO what may work in one strain will not work in the other strain or cluster.

Too many times people become so passionate about a cause they fail to really look into what is going on behind the scenes. Science is not like fast food- you cannot just order a cell culture and get fries with that..it takes SO long and costs so much money.

posted November 10, 2004 06:37 PM            

I never thought people would still be dying from cancer by this time but most of the promising research hit dead ends.

posted November 11, 2004 01:52 AM              

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6142664/

Stem-cell research a pawn in election politics
Bush's policy makes a mockery of moral issues involved

By Arthur Caplan, Ph.D.
COMMENTARY
MSNBC

Updated: 12:28 p.m. ET Oct. 5, 2004

No matter what your ethnic background is, you have probably heard the word "chutzpah," a classic Yiddish term. A good way to explain the meaning of this word is that chutzpah is like murdering your parents, then throwing yourself on the mercy of the court and claiming to be an orphan.

Chutzpah is very much on display these days among those defending President Bush’s position on stem-cell research. They are howling in print and through the airwaves that proponents of stem-cell research are not treating the moral issues involved with appropriate seriousness and complexity. But what they are really trying to do is neutralize a topic that could otherwise prove costly to Bush in the election.

Stem-cell research, for those of you who zone out at the mere mention of a scientific subject or have been spending your waking hours over the past three years tracking the marriage status of Jennifer Lopez, can refer to both adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells.

Adult stem cells exist in your body to repair or regenerate damaged cells. Think bone marrow, which constantly makes new blood cells, or the cells that grow more skin when you get a cut.

In contrast, embryonic stem cells can only be found in human embryos. Embryonic stem cells have the ability to turn into all kinds of cells, including some that the adult human body cannot make on its own, such as brain or spinal-cord cells, or that an adult body can make but only very slowly, such as heart-muscle cells.

To get an embryonic stem cell, scientists need to have access to an embryo outside a woman’s body. The embryo is not allowed to develop for more than a few days. At this point, researchers isolate and remove the stem cell from the embryo. In the process, the embryo is destroyed. And this is why human embryonic stem-cell research is so controversial.

A mockery of moral issues

Charles Krauthammer, a member of the President's Council on Bioethics, whined in an Aug. 16 column in Time magazine that “the way Democrats have managed to caricature and debase the debate over embryonic stem-cell research stands in a class by itself."

Meanwhile, Sen. Bill Frist, R-Tenn., Bush’s doctor on call in Congress, thunders "shame" on the critics of the president for misconstruing Bush's position on embryonic stem-cell research by saying that the president opposes all of it. Even first lady Laura Bush has jumped on the bandwagon, complaining that "My dad died of Alzheimer's and to hear people say that cures are right at our fingertips — it's just not right."

Now, friends — Mr. Krauthammer, Sen. Frist and the first lady are all guilty of chutzpah. Although they would like you to believe otherwise, it is the defenders of the president’s ban on funding for embryonic stem-cell research who make a mockery of the moral issues involved. And in trying to defend Bush's position, they are defending a policy that makes little ethical sense to most Americans.

Bush's 'compromise'

True, Bush did not wake up one day and decide to oppose stem-cell research. Indeed, as his outraged defenders note, he thought about it — for a few weeks. The president consulted with various ethics experts, albeit a majority opposed to stem-cell research, and then came to a decision.

On Aug. 9, 2001, in his first major speech to the American people, Bush announced that he had settled on what he called a "compromise" with respect to embryonic stem-cell research. No more embryos could be destroyed in research funded by the federal government. But, drawing what can only be generously described as an arbitrary moral line, Bush said he would allow research using embryonic stem cells already in existence as of the day of his speech. He said there were more than 60 such stem-cell lines available — and lots of federal money would be available to support research on these cells.

A ban is a ban

These days, when the president’s decision to ban embryonic stem-cell research is correctly and accurately described as a ban, supporters of the president, such as Krauthammer and Frist, get exceedingly agitated. The president, they insist, compromised. "Use what was around before 2001" is not a ban, they say. And, they self-righteously point out, this president has allocated more funding — nearly $25 million — for embryonic stem-cell research than any other president.

Well, sorry fellas, but prohibiting the expenditure of federal funds on embryonic stem-cell research after August 2001 is a ban. It is a ban of limited scope but a ban it most certainly is.

Moreover, as anyone who has bothered to follow this issue knows, there are nothing like 60 stem-cell lines around. The president did not tell the truth. There are no more than 23. And no credible scientist believes that this number is sufficient to undertake a serious clinical research program on embryonic stem cells.

In addition, the $25 million the president has allocated for embryonic stem-cell research is absurdly low. It's about the same amount of money that has been set aside to study complementary and alternative medicine. The president’s alleged compromise has produced funding on a par with money for studies of St. John’s wort, tai chi and black cohosh root.

To put it another way, the $25 million the president has spent on stem-cell research is about the same amount of federal grant money that a large department of medicine or neurology at a single major medical school might receive in a year or two.

Fuzzy logic

Not only is the president’s compromise nothing of the sort, his moral reasoning, and that of his defenders, is at best obtuse. Consider these points:

The president says that embryo destruction is wrong, but still allows research on embryos destroyed before August 2001. Huh?

The president says that embryo destruction is wrong, but does absolutely nothing to prevent the daily destruction of embryos in fertility clinics across the United States. What?

The president says that embryo destruction is wrong, but fails to tell us whether he really believes that an embryo destined to be destroyed at a fertility clinic but now residing in a Petri dish is morally on par with a child suffering from juvenile diabetes or a person who cannot walk due to a spinal-cord injury. Huh?

And the president says that embryo destruction is wrong, but does not tell us what he proposes to do about American scientists heading overseas to conduct embryonic stem-cell research in South Korea, Britain, China or Singapore, and then publishing the results in American journals and seeking American patents. Why?

Furthermore, consider Bush's position on cloning for stem-cell research. Using the techniques involved in creating Dolly the sheep, it is possible to create cloned human embryos for use as a source of embryonic stem cells. But the president has done nothing but vigorously try to ban this method for getting stem cells. While it otherwise has little time for the United Nations, the Bush administration is currently devoting much energy to trying to persuade the world body to ban cloning for the purposes of stem-cell research.

Too much hype?

But wait, isn’t it true, as Laura Bush points out, that proponents of embryonic stem-cell research have overhyped it? This is partly true, but every form of scientific research in 21st-century America gets overhyped. If the president’s wife wants to bemoan hype in biomedicine, there are a lot of ad campaigns by pharmaceutical companies that she should add to her condemnation list.

In facing a president who is trying to ban research vital to finding new treatments and cures, is it any wonder that patients and their advocacy groups engage in a bit of hype? And if you are Laura Bush, you must certainly know that your husband’s policy of banning federal funding for stem-cell research is the cruelest thing you can do to patients with incurable diseases.

A political pickle

So what is really going on here? What's going on is that the president’s defenders are in a political pickle that they themselves created.

Bush believes that human life and human rights begin at conception even if conception occurs in a Petri dish. The president and his operatives know that their core base of supporters fervently opposes all forms of abortion and agrees that embryos are people from the moment of conception. They also know that the vast majority of American people do not agree with these views.

So, the Bush administration made a political calculation to use opposition to stem-cell research and cloning as a low-risk stalking horse to advance its anti-abortion agenda and secure support among its most avid anti-abortion constituents.

In addition, Bush's advisors thought that the issue of cloning for embryonic stem-cell research gave them an opportunity they never previously had. By banning all forms of cloning, they hoped to get embryos recognized as people under American law. They gambled that by terrifying the public about the horrors of human cloning and talk of embryo destruction, they could get traction in public policy with respect to abortion.

But this gambit failed. Embryonic stem-cell research and cloning research have drawn huge interest from the biomedical community, the biotechnology industry and, most importantly, from patient advocacy groups and the tens of millions of Americans with serious diseases and ailments.

Bush's current position could prove so unpopular that it might cost him a close election. So suddenly he and his supporters are seeking to recast his position as a compromise, not a ban, and to depict him as a pioneering funder of stem-cell research.

Let’s get past this chutzpah defense and talk turkey. Bush favors a ban on nearly all embryonic stem-cell research. His talk and that of his supporters about compromise is just that — talk.

Arthur Caplan is director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania.

The above article should have maybe given these Bush supporters a hint that what he says is very often different than what he does. Just like all politicians. Democrats and Republicans.

Ronald Reagan ran an anti-abortion campaign too and he never did a thing about abortion in the 8 years he was in office. His vice-president, George Bush the elder, and suceeding president didn't do a thing about abortion either. George W Bush makes that 16 years of Republicans who ran on family platforms, including anti-abortion, and moral issues and none of them have done a thing about abortion. Mainly because they can't through legislation.

posted November 12, 2004 04:06 PM            

Simply put, man would abuse the use of aborted fetuses, especially when those stem cells are not necessary for use. You can culture the cells from the umbilical cord.

We run the possibility of turning people into nothing more than dairy cows. In the dairy industry you get the milkers pregnant so they can produce milk - no one really cares about the calves, unless they are female so that they can be used as milking cows as well.

So do we have women get pregnant so that we can culture the embyro in a few days? What about the toll on the woman's body? All the hormones and changes one must go through, especially in the beginning when the egg is first fertilized and goes through cellular division. The woman's body, as you know, goes through immense changes.

Do we then advocate embyro donors? Or do we encourage unlimited access to aborted fetuses, thereby promoting women to abort?

That is why these are ethical questions and there are so many issues surrounding it.