Let's rewrite one for The Gipper! (Ann Coulter)

I read the New York Times last week and apparently a fellow named "Iran-Contra" died recently. But that's all I'll say about the people who have consistently been on the wrong side of history and whose publisher is a little weenie who can't read because he has "dyslexia." The three key ingredients to Ronald Reagan's sunny personality were: (1) his unalterable faith in God; (2) for nearly 30 years, he didn't fly; and (3) he read Human Events religiously but never read the New York Times.

Even in his death liberals are still trying to turn our champion into a moderate Republican – unlike the religious-right nut currently occupying the White House! The world's living testament to the limits of genetics, Ron Jr., put it this way at Reagan's funeral:

Dad was also a deeply, unabashedly religious man. But he never made the fatal mistake of so many politicians of wearing his faith on his sleeve to gain political advantage.

Wow. He's probably up in Heaven – something Ron Jr. doesn't believe in – having a chuckle about that right now. To hear liberals tell it, you'd think Reagan talked about God the way Democrats do, in the stilted, uncomfortable manner of people pretending to believe something they manifestly do not. (In a recent Time magazine poll, only 7 percent of respondents say they believe Kerry is a man of "strong" religious faith, compared to 46 percent who believe Bush is.) Or, for that matter, the way Democrats talk about free-market capitalism.

The chattering classes weren't so copacetic about Reagan's religious beliefs when he was in office. In 1984, Newsweek breathlessly reported that:

Reagan is known to have read and discussed with fundamentalist friends like [Jerry] Falwell and singer Pat Boone such pulp versions of biblical prophecies as Hal Lindsey's best-selling "The Late Great Planet Earth," which strongly hints of a nuclear Armageddon.

One hundred Christian and Jewish "leaders" signed a letter warning that Reagan's nuclear policy had been unduly influenced by a "theology of nuclear Armageddon." In the second presidential debate that year, President Reagan was actually asked to clarify his position on "nuclear Armageddon."

Most confusing to Democrats, at the time Reagan was doing all of this Bible-reading and consorting with preachers, he hadn't even been accused of cheating on his wife. What kind of angle was he playing? liberals asked themselves.

Meanwhile, President Bush says he appeals to "a higher father" and liberals act like they've never heard such crazy talk from a president.

Newsweek's Eleanor Clift says Bush is unlike Reagan because Reagan "reached out, and he was always seeking converts." That's true, actually. I think Reagan would have favored converting Third World people to Christianity. (Now why does that idea ring a bell?) Clift continued: "That is the big difference between Ronald Reagan and the president we have today. The president today would like to consign his political opponents to oblivion."

Reagan on abortion: "We cannot survive as a free nation when some men decide that others are not fit to live and should be abandoned to abortion or infanticide."

Reagan on gay rights: "Society has always regarded marital love as a sacred expression of the bond between a man and a woman. It is the means by which families are created and society itself is extended into the future. In the Judeo-Christian tradition it is the means by which husband and wife participate with God in the creation of a new human life. It is for these reasons, among others, that our society has always sought to protect this unique relationship. In part the erosion of these values has given way to a celebration of forms of expression most reject. We will resist the efforts of some to obtain government endorsement of homosexuality."

Reagan on government programs to feed the "hungry": "We were told four years ago that 17 million people went to bed hungry each night. Well, that was probably true. They were all on a diet."

Most peculiar, the passing of America's most pro-life president is supposed to be a clarion call for conservatives to support the disemboweling of human embryos – in contrast to that heartless brute President Bush always prattling on about the value of human life. Someone persuaded poor, dear Nancy Reagan that research on human embryos might have saved her Ronnie from Alzheimer's. Now the rest of us are supposed to shut up because the wife of America's greatest president (oh, save your breath, girls!) supports stem-cell research.

Ironically, the always market-oriented Ronald Reagan would probably have asked his wife, "Honey, if embryonic stem-cell therapy is such a treasure trove of medical advances, why isn't private research and development funding flocking to it?"

President Bush has never said that fetal stem cells cannot be used for research. He said "federal money" cannot be used to fund such research. If leading scientists believed fetal stem-cell research would prove to be so fruitful in curing Alzheimer's, why is the private money not pouring in hand over fist? Do you realize how many billions a cure for Alzheimer's would be worth, let alone all the other cures some are claiming fetal stem-cell research would lead to? Forget Alzheimer's – do you know how much middle-aged men would pay for a genuine baldness cure? Then again, Porsche sales would probably fall off quite a bit if we ever cured baldness.

But you can't blame Nancy. As everyone saw once again last week, she's still madly in love with the guy. She'd probably support harvesting full-grown, living humans if it would bring back Ronnie. Of course, I thought it was cute and not creepy that she consulted an astrologer about Reagan's schedule after he was shot. That didn't make astrology a hard science. But liberals who once lambasted Nancy for having too much influence on Reagan's schedule now want to anoint her Seer of Technology.

The lesson to draw from what liberals said about Reagan then and what they are forced to say about him now is that the electable Republican is always the one liberals are calling an extremist, Armageddon-believing religious zealot. That certainly bodes well for President George W. Bush this November, thank – you should pardon the expression – God.

So many doctors say, Stems Cells will be the cure to all these diseases. I say lets try it. If it doesn't work, then you people were right. But lets atleast try them.
Stem Cells sounds so promising.
If Ann's mother or father got Alzheimer’s, then lets see how she thinks.

Here's a good article about Stem Cells.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/HEALTH/02/12/science.clone/
Stems cells extracted to be used for medical research
Thursday, February 12, 2004

SEOUL, South Korea (CNN) -- South Korean researchers reported Thursday they have created human embryos through cloning and extracted embryonic stem cells, the universal cells that scientists expect will result in breakthroughs in medical research.

Hanyang University professor Hwang Yoon-Young said, "Our research team has successfully culled stem cells from a cloned human embryo through mature growing process in a test tube."

The findings by a team of researchers led by Dr. Hwang Woo Suk of Seoul National University were presented to South Korean scientists and will be published in the U.S. journal Science.

The paper describes a detailed process of how to create human embryos by cloning, saying the scientists used the eggs donated by Korean women.

The technique, scientists said, was not designed to make babies but to further the process known as therapeutic cloning, a possible treatment for a multitude of diseases.

Advances in stem-cell technology have been hailed as holding potential cures for many crippling illnesses, such as diabetes, spinal cord injuries and Parkinson's disease.

According to the U.S. National Institutes of Health, stem cells can be manipulated by scientists to develop into many other human cells.

While they can be found in adults, those found in days-old embryos are far more prevalent and more easily manipulated into specialized cells, which then could be used to create cures or even grow replacement organs, the NIH reports.

Stem cell researcher Dr. Rudolf Jaenisch of the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research in Cambridge, Massachusetts, told The Associated Press the experiment proved the cloning technique was possible using human cells.

"That's an important point to prove," he told the AP.

Still, "it's not of practical use at this point," Jaenisch told the news service, stressing that years of additional research were required.

Opponents have said using embryos, even ones just several minutes old, is destroying a human life. Embryos are destroyed when stem cells are removed.

The report already has sparked a renewal of the debate over whether all forms of human cloning should be banned.

"The result of our research proves it is possible scientifically for human cloning, and we are likely to revive the controversy over human cloning," Hwang said.

Although cloning may be technically possible, the moral issues will be the great dilemma, said Arthur Kaplan, medical ethicist and director of the University of Pennsylvania's Center for Bioethics.

"I think the big question is: If you make this kind of thing in a dish, have you created a human life?" Kaplan said. "Can you make something that people have strong moral views about in terms of destroying it, in order to benefit other people? And that's going to be the key debate."

Kaplan said splitting the debate into two issues -- cloning for making babies and cloning for research purposes -- would help in making sensible policy.

Scientists caution it could take years of further research before stem-cell science turns into actual therapies.

Last year, a ban on human cloning passed the U.S. House of Representatives but failed to get approval by the Senate over questions of whether cloning for research purposes could be allowed.

The United Nations decided at the end of last year to delay any decision on a human cloning ban for two years.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.