You are factually incorrect.  Bush eliminated no federal funding for stem cell research.  Period.  Proofs:  (1)  Congress, in particular, the HR, originates all money bills and to date, Bush has yet to veto any legislation as President.  (2)  Examining the NIH/NINDS budgets for FY2001[Clinton], FY2003 and FY2007, we see that at the least, neurological stem cell research continues to be funded:

http://www.ninds.nih.gov/news_and_events/congressional_testimony/fy01_nindshtr.htm

http://www.ninds.nih.gov/news_and_events/congressional_testimony/FY_2003_congressional_testimony.htm

http://www.ninds.nih.gov/news_and_events/congressional_testimony/fy_2007_budgetrequest.htm

You seem nice enough as well......just got your facts wrong.

Federal funding for stem cell research has not been eliminated. Congress has not funded embryonic stem cell research - probably because embryonic stem cell research (unlike stem cells from umbilical cords, etc) has only shown promise in developing unwanted tumors.  Religion?  Hardly.  Secularism - follow the money.  Why no medical research on dead fetus' that were killed in the womb?  Didn't the world already have that conversation with Mengele fifty years ago?  You probably remember him better as the Auschwitz angel of death.  Religion? Hardly. Simple compassion. How about trying to replace creation theory in the classroom with evolution?  I believe that occured first, but let's keep that our little secret. Religion? Junk science at it's finest - that is, until Gore was given an oscar for his portrayal of a scientist. Condoms in high-schools?  Be real.  Thanks to your progressive brave new world - we have to hand them out so students don't knock up their teachers.  Religion?  Child abuse!

I can understand your misplaced hatred of Dubya.  What I don't understand is why you hate people in undeveloped countries.  Why don't you explain that to the class?

By supporting this silly, disproven nonsense that human CO2 emissions are responsible for climate change, you are preventing people in Africa and other undeveloped countries from using their natural resources, i.e.: coal, oil, etc., to provide a healthier life for themselves.  So they continue to live without electricity to bring clean water from deep in the ground to a spicket in their hovel.  Without electricity they have no temperature controlled home in which they can close their doors and windows leaving mosquitos and other disease-carrying insects/rodents outside.  Without electricity they have no electric stove to cook their meals, so they resort to wood.  The smoke of which makes the air in their homes so noxious that their life expectancy is half that of the developed world.

So just what is it that makes you hate these people so much that you would come on to a blog to champion erroneous human-induced global warming?  They have no ties that I can think of to Bush, Cheney or even the dreaded Rove.  So just what is your motivation?  Please explain, I'm truly mystified.

Then maybe you can explain to the class why you hate the Iraqis and don't want them to succeed in freeing themselves from the oppression of terrorism.  Sure they might have some love for Dubya but you certainly can't associate them with the religious-right.  Why do you not want them to succeed?   Still mystified.

The point being, in your quest to feel good about saving the world from every human except yourself and those that "feel" like you do, don't you see the harm you are doing to so many more that could care less about your feel-good ideology and are only interested in having a better life?  Having a better life -- something political activists possess but don't seem to want to share with others.  Not real progressive, but hey, as long as you can blame it on Bush......