Friday, March 13, 2009
Personal Aside: Sarah PalinCall Home and Put Your Presidential Itch on Hold Mark Kirk Tells It as it Really Is on Human Stem Cells (Not).
Hold It, Governor Palin.
Dear Governor Palin,
No one was more delighted to see you get the vice presidential nomination last year than Iand my view of your candidacy remains the same notwithstanding assaults from the trendy left and much of the squishy malleable national media.
And no one was angrier than was I at the shamelessly partisan mainstream media or at the media which huckstered your so-called incompetence while ignoring two-time Joe Bidens ecstatic mention of FDRs speech to the nation on TV right after the crash of `29 which would warrant serious reexamination of his mental health given that he experienced two brain aneurisms. Nothing that has transpired since his election gives me for one solace that his gaffes are incidental but his role as mere sidekick and prop at presidential photo ops is some consolation.
Certainly, seeing John McCains initial low registry with grassroots conservatives, I appreciate that your addition to the ticket helped it to run five points ahead of Obamas until the economic meltdown in late Fall. No one including the true Messiah Himself not the bogus one even announcing a cure for cancer could get elected as a Republican with the baggage of an unpopular war and heavy economic recession. No one. And you assisted nobly to cut McCains losses as well as your campaigning since then for Republican congressional candidates.
Normally your encouraging performance in 2008 should lead you to top consideration for the presidency in 2010. I write this to encourage you NOT to seek it. Your unmarried daughter Bristols pregnancy can smite any family at any time no matter how solid their strictures and teachings but rather spectacular occurrences following the election warrant in the minds of social conservatives and me personally that at this crucial time you regard your major duty as your family.
For social conservatives who stress the importance of family stability, there have been three clear-cut examples of chaotic family disruption that deserve your undivided attention. None affecting you personally but still possibly future erupting eruptions that should be considered.
First, Bristols interview on Fox un-contradicted by you that abstinence programs wont work with adolescents reflects an inability to recognize that this is directly opposite to her experience which could mean that insufficient care was taken to point out the obvious to her. Any one at the age of 17 having gone through this experience should have a soberer and more mature outlook. Criticizing abstinence not only contradicts her own predicament but causes great harm to the social fabric and scandal to teenagers who listen to her.
Second and this one certainly beyond your control the drug pusher arrest of Bristols once expected mother-in-law casting doubt on the stability of that familys background should have been the final straw to negate any future national candidacy for youas it sends a scandalous message for anyone who regards family stability as a major national requisite.
Third, the sudden departure of the father of Bristols infant requires even more attention from you--her mother-- to this young woman in the form of counseling that should take priority over any future thought of entering the national political picture with its superhuman demands on time and physical strength.
Personally, on top of these serious disadvantages, it pains me not a little to see any infant much less a Down syndrome baby toted like baggage in the arms of family members struggling to get on and off aircraft where the central figureeven as attractive a candidate as youseeks high office and public approbation.
All these reasons would indicate to me that since you are still a young woman in your mid-40s and have done an extraordinary job as governor of a major state you can easily afford to put candidacy for national office on hold for ten years minimum. A Senate seat might be acceptable but scotch the thought of the presidency, please.
Failure to do so will cause cynicism and severe misgivings among people who would normally wish you great success in the long-run.
And that includes this signatory.
If Kirk Ever Talked Straight.
If Rep. Mark Kirk were honest he would say this about Obamas signatory on an executive order in behalf of federal dollars spent on embryonic stem cell research instead of the evasive pap he signed off on with just one sentence: to-wit: I support the decision of President Obama to back stem cell [sic: no use of the word embryonic] research. His decision will be broadly backed by a bipartisan coalition on Capitol Hill. This policy will accelerate new cures and ensure American leadership in medicine.
This statement would be totally accurate vis-à-vis Kirks position:
Kirks Praises Obama for Harvesting and Killing Living Human Embryonic Stem Cells for Research.
WASHINGTONRep. Mark Kirk (R-IL) today issued the following statement praising President Obamas signing of the executive order overturning ex-President Bush authorizing federal funds for the harvesting and killing of human embryo stem cells:
I unqualifiedly support President Obamas decision to approve government-funded embryonic stem cell research that uses cells from human embryos because I believe killing the human embryos used to produce the stem cells is justifiable so that others might live. Nancy Reagan does the same because her husband died of Alzheimers and she believes he could have snapped out of it poof!...like that. As does former Senator John Edwards who said if John Kerry and he were elected, people like Christopher Reeve are going to walk, get up out of that wheelchair and walk again!
Neither Nancy nor John Edwards are even slightly correct, of course but thats immaterial. Of course its a scientific fact that the latest scientific breakthroughs have made possible production of cells that are the same as equivalent to embryonic stem cellsbut fortunately that has been not stated and understated by the president and the media. Both believe the important thing is to allow the harvesting and killing to begin at once in the off-chance they will save more of us even though other means are at hand because government should be able to decide death since we are a humanitarian country. For that reason, I proudly call myself pro-choice. Our government should be empowered to make the choice to fund research leading to manufacture the human embryos to die that others will liveand vote.
Also while there has been and continues to be ample funding from private sources for this, I want to be sure private sources are held back so that taxpayers pick up more of the cost. Thus I warmly praise President Obamas decision to override ex-President Bushs 2007 executive order that empowered the National Institutes of Health to investigate non-human embryo sources of stem-cells. Non-human embryo stem cells may work but it is far more satisfying to Bush haters to be sure human embryos are killed thus driving out the blotch of the religious right from our country in behalf of separation of church and state.
In support of this concept, I have enlisted in the Death to Human Embryos: Republican Division which is part of the sanctified two-party system. As none other than John D. Rockefeller, Jr. and his brothers wrote in the 1930s: it is better to limit the population so there will be more available for ever fewer people, i.e. us.
Face it, because the embryonic stem cells we will destroy are human, the treatment of patients involving creation of embryonic human beings who share their genes, is known as cloning. I see the president has balanced his statement with opposition to cloning: that is purely the David Axelrod-cloned (pardon me, coined) solution. I believe there is no use shading the word cloning with blurry words such as therapeutic cloning or research cloning. The cloning of an organism always results in asexual reproduction, the difference being that in therapeutic cloning the cloned embryo is destroyed in the course of research. Some on my side including the President are in denial that we kill human embryosincluding the media which always refer to the process of stem cell research not using the terms embryonic or human involved since that would get many people upset.
For that reason, I condemn former President Bush who was urged in 2001 to fund research for leftover embryos at fertility clinics. At that time, advocates swore up and down that they would stop at creating embryos for the sole purpose of research. Senators Arlen Specter, Tom Daschle, Chris Dodd, Tom Harkin and Orrin Hatch insisted at the time that they were opposed to creating human embryos for the sole purpose of being killed for research. Well, they changed with the times. I am proud to say I have always been for the killing of human embryos no matter the arguments.
But on the other hand, I can understand the denial of the president and the other squishes. So for bipartisan sake I join them in saying:
We never killed you. You never existed.