We are having another one of those amazing moments when Barack Obama – acting as a radical leftist ideologue and advancing a leftist political agenda – summons that amazing degree of personal chutzpah that he alone possesses to condemn his opponents as partisan.
Sort of like when Obama – caught red-handed having spent 23 years in a racist and anti-American church – proceeded to offer a pompous moralizing sermon on race relations. Most people – even most politicians (which is saying a lot) – would have faded away with shame had they been caught in such a radical and hateful environment. But Barack Obama’s greatest political weapon is that he has no shame.
As the Associated Press reported:
WASHINGTON – From tiny embryonic cells to the large-scale physics of global warming, President Barack Obama urged researchers on Monday to follow science and not ideology as he abolished contentious Bush-era restraints on stem-cell research. “Our government has forced what I believe is a false choice between sound science and moral values,” Obama declared as he signed documents changing U.S. science policy and removing what some researchers have said were shackles on their work.
“It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda — and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology,” Obama said.
Researchers said the new president’s message was clear: Science, which once propelled men to the moon, again matters in American life.
Opponents saw it differently: a defeat for morality in the most basic questions of life and death.
“The action by the president today will, in effect, allow scientists to create their own guidelines without proper moral restraints,” Family Research Council President Tony Perkins said.
As for the “science” of global warming, consider that Al Gore received a Nobel Prize for his “scientific” work for producing Joseph Goebbel’s-like propaganda. The planet has been getting colder over the past decade – not warmer. The recent march to protest global warming – in the snow, with a major snowstorm on the way, in one of the coldest years on record – can rightly be dubbed “the March of the Morons.” But that’s what happens when liberals get involved with science. Given that they believe that everything should be under government control, “politicization” of whatever they come into contact with becomes a no-brainer.
“It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda — and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology,” Obama said. In other words, valuing human life and seeking to protect it is a “distorted or concealed political agenda” and an “ideology”; whereas seeking to destroy human life and harness human beings for research is making “scientific decisions based on facts.”
Jonah Goldberg, writing in Liberal Fascism, wrote:
Again, it is my argument that American liberalism is a totalitarian political religion, but not necessarily an Orwellian one. It is nice, not brutal. Nannying, not bullying. But it is definitely totalitarian – or “holistic,” if you prefer – in that liberalism today sees no realm of human life that is beyond political significance, from what you eat to what you smoke to what you say. Sex is political. Food is political. Sports, entertainment, your inner motives and outer appearance, all have political salience for liberal fascists. Liberals place their faith in priestly experts who know better, who plan, exhort, badger, and scold. They try to use science to discredit traditional notions of religion and faith, but they speak the language of pluralism and spirituality to defend “nontraditional” beliefs. Just as with classical fascism, liberal fascist speak of a “Third Way” between right and left where all good things go together and all hard choices are “false choices” (p. 14).
And that seems to be precisely where we are now.
Obama has to separate out religion and morality from his “science.” That way he can avoid the implications of “religious” and “moral” passages such as Isaiah 5:20:
How horrible it will be for those who call evil good and good evil, who turn darkness into light and light into darkness, who turn what is bitter into something sweet and what is sweet into something bitter.
Barack Obama – who earlier in his political career vehemently supported outright infanticide – falls under the woe of Isaiah’s warning. Not only does he label the defense of life as an evil and the radical abortion agenda good, but he turns that which is the sweetest of all – innocent, young, tiny human life – and warps it into the very worst kind of bitterness.
But in spite of Obama’s pious “we will pursue the truth” (unless you consider the recent blatant misrepresentation of health care statistics as he tried to fearmonger Americans into supporting his socialized medicine agenda), Americans should realize that “morality and science” have conflicted before – and the result was the most shocking disregard of humanity and the worst mass murder in human history.
We can take a moment to consider the results of Japan failing to distinguish between “sound science and moral values.” Unit 731 murdered thousands of human beings in some of the most unimaginable ways in order to advance their scientific quest. I wouldn’t want human beings performing such tests on mice – much less human beings – but such setting aside of morality did lead to some great scientific breakthroughs on how to kill even better.
An even better example would be the Nazis, who came out of the most educated and scientifically advanced culture in the world at the time. They were great at science as Obama envisions it.
Dr. T.D. Hall, in an article entitled, “THE SCIENTIFIC BACKGROUND OF THE NAZI ‘RACE PURIFICATION’ PROGRAM, US & German Eugenics,
Ethnic Cleansing, Genocide, and Population Control,” writes:
In the conclusion of his remarkable book The Nazi Doctors–Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide, Robert Jay Lifton writes of a visit to Auschwitz: “I went to the camp a few years ago and was shown the many exhibits maintained there, exhibits that leave nothing to be added concerning the evil human beings can do to other human beings. But the one that left the most profound impression on me was the simplest of all: a room full of shoes, mostly baby shoes.”
Genocidal campaigns are not new. They occurred before the Holocaust; and they are occurring at this moment.What distinguishes the Nazi “race purification” extermination program from other genocidal campaigns is its “scientific” character. At a mass meeting in 1934, Nazi Deputy Party Leader Rudolf Hess stated, “National Socialism is nothing but applied biology.” “The entire Nazi regime was built,” Lifton writes, “on a biomedical vision that required the kind of racial purification that would progress from sterilization to extensive killing.” As early as the publication of Mein Kampf (1924-26), Lifton indicates, “Hitler had declared the sacred racial mission of the German people to be ‘assembling and preserving the most valuable stocks of basic racial elements [and] . . . . slowly and severely raising them to a dominant position.’ . . .”
Where did the “biomedical vision” of Hitler and his party originate? The primary sources were: Darwinian biology and evolutionary theory; Social Darwinism, the evangelistic dissemination of Darwinism; and a pseudo-science called “eugenics.” In the first several decades of the twentieth century, eugenics was considered by many as humanity’s best hope for the future. It played the role now played by “genetic engineering.” It was applied Darwinism.
Hugh Murray writes an article that goes into compelling detail into “Nazi Science.” In his ending he says, “It is comforting, flattering, to think of the West as scientific, the Nazis as irrational, mystical, murderous. But to what extent was their murderous policy the outcome of scientific inquiry?” It is an important question to ponder. But what he doesn’t mention is that the Nazi scientists would have very likely thought the same sort of things about their critics. At the end of the war, the Nazis were years ahead of us in scientific research.
And lest we think this was just about the evil of the Nazis, think again. The “science” behind Nazi thinking was pioneered by American researchers:
[Dr. Harry Hamilton] Laughlin’s Eugenical Sterilization in the United States established him as an expert on the topic. His model sterilization laws were used by many of the more than 30 states that passed sterilization laws. Germany’s 1933 sterilization laws were also modeled after Laughlin’s. Laughlin’s immigration studies, which seemed to support the idea that recent immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe had a higher percentage of “socially inadequate” persons than other immigrants, led to the highly restrictive immigration quota system of 1924 which favored immigrants from Northern Europe. As is evident in the Laughlin Collection, Dr. Laughlin also devoted considerable time and effort developing his ideas for a common world government.
For those who wish to mock me for tying Nazism with Obama’s announcement to increase stem cells (and earlier to increase the federal funding of abortions), let me just say this: the Nazis were responsible for the murders of 6 million Jews in their “scientific” campaign that we today call the Holocaust; abortionists have taken the lives of going on 60 MILLION human beings since in the United States alone.
And let me further say that famous atheist and “scientist” Richard Dawkins is himself coming out and suggesting that the Nazi eugenics program may not have been all that bad, after all.
To put it simply, a human embryos are human by virtue of their parents, and beings by virtue of the fact that they are living things (they grow, feed,respire,excrete,respond to stimuli, and reproduce): they are human beings. Scientifically, every living thing is rigorously classified by the science of taxonomy into the categories of: Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species. And a human embryo is of the kingdom Animalia, of the phylum Chordata, of the class Mammalia, of the order Primates, of the family Hominidae, of the genus Homo, and of the species sapiens. Same as you, and same as me.
And denying humanity to one’s victims is and always has been the modus operandi of every single genocide in history.
Barack Obama wants to disconnect science from morality. But Dr. Robert George says it simply cannot be done:
Princeton University politics professor Robert George, a Catholic and another member of the Bush-era Council on Bioethics, said the moral argument over embryonic stem cell research is not rooted in religion but in ethics and equality. He said research shows that an embryo is a human being in its earliest form of development, so we have to ask ourselves whether all human life should be treated equally, with dignity and respect.
“I don’t think the question has anything to do with religion or pulling out our microscope and trying to find souls,” George said. “We live in a pluralistic society where some people believe there are no such things as souls. Does that mean we should not have moral objections to killing 17-year-old adolescents?”
Too many times in the past – and in the very name of “science” – the answer to such questions has been, “Yes.”
My last point is simply factual: embryonic stem cells – pitched as the great hope of science – has failed to produce anything. Five years ago, California voters passed a $6 billion spending measure to fund stem cell research. Proposition 71 was boldly titled the “Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative.” The results? Butkus. Zero cures of zero diseases.
While other forms of stem cell therapy have yielded all kinds of positive results, embryonic stem cell therapy has led to nothing but the deaths of the human beings being “harvested” for their genetic material. And liberals and Democrats have demagogued the issue by cynically conflating successful – and life affirming – stem cell therapies in order to obtain the license to pursue the fool’s gold of embryonic stem cell research.
This is nothing more than another massive liberal spending program to pour tens of billions of dollars of taxpayer money into their pet programs. And like Prop 71, it will directly benefit supporters of Democrat politicians.
The thinking seems to be, “If at first you don’t succeed, kill more babies.”
And before you lend your support to the hoopla surrounding the “hope” of embryonic stem cell research, remember that you may yet become the causality of “retroactive” abortion. As D. James Kennedy prophetically expressed it: “Watch out, grandma and grandpa! Because the generation that survived abortion will one day come after you!”
And with the passage of the so-called “stimulus” bill, and talk of socializing medicine now, that day is here:
If the Obama administration’s economic stimulus bill passes the Senate in its current form, seniors in the U.S. will face similar [medical] rationing. Defenders of the system say that individuals benefit in younger years and sacrifice later.
And by “sacrifice” they mean die a death of medical neglect, as medical resources are systematically denied health care. The elderly consume a whopping percentage of health care resources; and as government budgets tighten, they will be the first to be “sacrificed.”
Proverbs 8:36 says:
But he who does evil to me, does wrong to his soul: all my haters are in love with death.
Don’t love death. Choose life.