Life is on the line

I am terrified to be living in a country that is morally indistinguishable from Nazi Germany in regards to eugenics. The state should not, and does not, have the authority to determine Lebensunwertes Leben: life unworthy of life.

Here is what Al Mohler has to say:

President Barack Obama today signed an executive order that reverses the Bush administration's restrictions on federal funding for research that involves the destruction of human embryos. In a White House ceremony, President Obama said that Americans “have come to a consensus that we should pursue this research; that the potential it offers is great, and with proper guidelines and strict oversight the perils can be avoided.”

President Obama spoke to the moral issues involved when he stated: “Many thoughtful and decent people are conflicted about, or strongly oppose, this research. I understand their concerns, and we must respect their point of view.”

But the President clearly does not share these concerns, and it is unclear what he means by respecting the point of view of those who rightly understand the issue as tax-supported homicide

President Obama is now personally responsible for research that will involve the intentional destruction of human embryos. This comes even as the ideological roots of this conflict have become increasingly clear. Credible alternatives to research that would require the destruction of human embryos have become available, even as the most promising avenues of medical research are now using adult stem cells, which avoids the moral issues involved in the use of human embryos.

The scientific community increasingly appears to have drawn a line in the sand on this issue. The insistence that embryos must be destroyed is a matter of ideology. Some researchers seem to resist any alternative source of stem cells, no matter how great its potential.

One of his most influential scientific advisors, Harold Varmus, told The Washington Post, "This is consistent with the president's determination to use sound scientific practice, responsible practice of science and evidence, instead of dogma in developing federal policy."

When human embryos are destroyed in the name of medical advancement, we make a deal with the Culture of Death and sacrifice embryonic human beings for the hope of medical advances. We all hope and pray for those advances, and for treatments to cure or treat intractable diseases. But there are valid alternatives to the use of human embryos.

The vulnerable human embryo is now at greater risk than ever before. And this, inevitably, means that every single human life is devalued by this decision.

President Obama said that Americans “have come to a consensus that we should pursue this research; that the potential...”

I'm sure there is a "consensus" somewhere slightly greater than or equal to 50%, but that argument is entirely irrelevant.

Even if 99% of America supported destroying embryos it would still be unethical, which is the only standard that matters. We know Biblically when life begins, but more important to the political issue at hand, we know scientifically that there is no difference genetically or biologically between a single cell embryo and a 100-year-old man; they are just at different stages of development.

They distract people by talking about the potential for medical cures and they excuse it by saying these are leftovers doomed for freezers or destruction anyway, so we might as well squeeze out anything we can.

The bottom line is that 100% approval and guaranteed medical breakthroughs would do nothing to change the fact that it is murdering humans who have committed no crimes and cannot defend themselves.

Relevant to any student

This Town Hall article puts lyrics to the song that many educators, judges and journalists sing. Give it a read.

Now, the worst part is most American students don't even realize how horrible their public education is. Because they never learn the true and important lessons of civics, American history, economic and free market policy and so on, they have no choice between preferring or even believing one side over the other. They are only given one worldview.

This is most clearly demonstrated in my life in a lit theory class in college, in which the texts were written exclusively by female authors save for one which was written by a gay man whose subject was three women, specifically Virginia Woolf. Each text was an example from one school or set of critical theory, such as Romanticism, Marist criticism, Feminist criticism, Stream of consciousness, Realism, Naturalism et cetera, but each was always similar to the rest in that it was written by a female. The class was not a female authors class; it was a lit theory class that had been co-opted to show the brilliance of female authors without the mention that there were literally hundreds of male authors who had tackled the same subjects or methods of writing. In a word, it was absurd.

It should shock no one that college seniors at institutions across America fail tests on American civics. These are not dumb kids by any means. It is simply a matter of not being given the material, the teaching. You do not give a ten-year-old a pile of wood with some rivets and bolts and tell him to build a bridge. Therefore, it is not surprising that Americans who are never instructed on our history and triumphs of our free market system fail to appreciate those systems and consistently slide towards accepting increasing government control, beaurocracy and other socialist ideals. For further reading of this travesty, please read Cal Thomas' column. We can no longer rely on public education to give us a fair and complete tutorial on history, sociology or science. It is up to us.

Sexual purity is for your own good

I never really thought about this before, but the left is insanely vehement against the suggestion that we should encourage teenagers to consider and practice sexual purity. They consider it a lost cause and conservatives as old maids who are spreading disease and pregnancy instead of condoms and complicit sexual advice.

It derives from a misunderstanding of God's commandments for sexual purity. Sexual restraint isn't for dedication and obedience to God, though it can be used for that. God created sex and He knew that if abused it could only cause dire and traumatic consequences, which are the reality of rape, pedophilia, homosexuality, group sex and adultery.

I've never heard of a couple who said, "I regret waiting for my husband/wife." It is only people who never tried who are convinced that it "could not happen, and I would be miserable if I only had one partner," and so on. On the other side, there are plenty of people who do say that they regret not waiting or regret taking part in some deviant sexuality. These are the people who have tried both sides and they always come out on the side of God. His side is the side of the human heart which He knew could not handle deviant sexual behavior. The only people who regret not having sex or deviant sexual behaviors, like threesomes and so on, are people who wanted to but could not because they could find no partners. In reality though, if you want it, you can have it at any age and in any condition.

2037: Remember the good ole' days of the 1980s?

In thirty years, we will look up from our piles of ash that we till endlessly praying for crops to spring forth from and we will think back on a time when the providence of God was with us because we prayed and worked earnestly to see that it was. Then we will think of the days when the providence of God slowly faded from American society in the name of universalism and equal protection under the law, and we will remember this (and we will weep bitterly):

“An illustrious day for all Americans and a memorable day for us.” So declared Rajan Zed, a Hindu priest from Nevada, after being invited to open the July 12, 2007 session of the United States Senate with a Hindu prayer ...

The architects of American civilization would be aghast. To give credence or credibility to pantheistic religion (“God” is inside the Earth, sky, etc.), that advocates belief in thousands of “gods” while rejecting the one true God of the Bible, would be unthinkable in 1776. It was equally unthinkable for most Americans up until the last 40-50 years ...

It was on June 28, 1787, in the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, that one of the least religious of the Founders, Benjamin Franklin, then in his 80s, rose to his feet and made the proposal that Congress open their sessions with prayer. Yet, on that occasion, the God, the religion, and the sacred Scriptures that Franklin had in mind were certainly not the gods, religion, and scripture of Hinduism.

Read Franklin's exact words (chock full of allusions to the one true God and the Bible) in the Apologetics Press article.

I'm sure some senators silently boycotted by not attending the July 12th sesion, but they would get slammed in the press if they said anything that wasn't politically correct or could get labeled as intolerant. I don't blame them. We need good men silently serving and voting the right way; I can speak the truth without fear of the press or losing to a "tolerant" democrat who will destroy our country -- maybe not the geographic features of a continent spanning nation, but certainly the foundation that enabled America to become the preeminent state in the world today.

For sure, the Founders of America desired religious freedom. Technically, by “religious freedom” they meant that all Protestant denominations should have the right to pursue their own interpretation of the Bible and to worship the God and Christ of the Bible according to their own consciences without governmental interference ...

Nevertheless, the Founders were perfectly willing to extend the right of religious freedom to those who did not share the Protestant brand of the Christian religion. They opposed all religious persecution for the simple reason that Christian people love their fellowman and do not mistreat others (Matthew 7:12).

But make no mistake: the Founders believed in the God of the Bible, and the vast majority of them believed in the validity of the Christian religion to the exclusion of all other gods and religions. They would not have countenanced giving non-Christian religions any sort of public endorsement or favorable encouragement.

This is evidenced very clearly in the article. The worst part today is how the democrats are co-opting other religions to tear down Christiantity. They think they can weaken Christian morals and dominance in America by creating an education system that tells children that all religions are equal; Since all are equal we can't listen to any of them because they differ in teaching and policy. The truth is they hate all religions and all morality but they will use the means of promoting cults and false world religions in order to pollute the minds of children, so eventually they can do away with all external moral authority in this country.

This is the morality and rule of law that we are heading for -- one with complete exclusion of external moral authority (article from Town Hall).

Remembering why I detest John Edwards

For those of you who are not as actively obsessed with the future of our country, I submit to you John Edwards, savior and hero.

John Edwards likes to proclaim the existence of "Two Americas." In one section of his speech he will tell you how unfair America is and that those born poor will never be able to rise out of the cycle of poverty. Then in another section he will brag to you about how poor he was as a child and how his hard work has gotten him to where he is. He literally sees no contradiction in these two scenarios. Johnny is affectionately known as the "Breck Girl of politics" and for those of us under 40, this should demonstrate why.

His championing for the impoverished has led him to build a 28,200 square-foot home and spend $400 on hair cuts:

"The issue is back in the news because of revelations that Edwards got two $400 haircuts paid for by his campaign. (Edwards is reimbursing his campaign $800 to cover the cost of the cuts.) At the same time, we're talking about a $400 haircut, paid for by the campaign, for a candidate who champions himself as an advocate for America's poor."

While redistributing wealth and land in a pseudo-socialist manner from his mansion seems like a tall order in itself, I beg you to remember John Edwards' campaign promise to make the lame walk.

From a 2004 column by Charles Krauthammer, himself a paralytic, and worth reading in its entirety to get an "insider's" view on spinal cord research:

"This is John Edwards on Monday at a rally in Newton, Iowa: 'If we do the work that we can do in this country, the work that we will do when John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve are going to walk, get up out of that wheelchair and walk again.'

In my 25 years in Washington, I have never seen a more loathsome display of demagoguery. Hope is good. False hope is bad. Deliberately, for personal gain, raising false hope in the catastrophically afflicted is despicable."

I myself do not doubt his ability to heal the lame since he has already channeled the spirits of dead children in order to win large settlements from obstetricians whose only crime was not endangering the lives of mothers through dangerous Caesarean sections:

"She speaks to you through me and I have to tell you right now -- I didn't plan to talk about this -- right now I feel her. I feel her presence. She's inside me, and she's talking to you."

Read the whole disgusting truth of how this "son of a mill worker" gained a net worth north of $50 million by pulling up his own bootstraps.

In summation, John Edwards may be the biggest slime ball in this election cycle and that is saying something in a field boasting such masters of megalomaniacal malfeasance as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, but hey, he's come so far despite the disadvantages of poverty, he might just pull it off.