Anyway, I saw that Glenn Beck was shedding some light on how most eugenicists have been and are “progressives”:

Part 1:

Part 2:

National Review has an article about it. Killing human beings for the potential benefit is unethical and wrong. We should help the suffering with adult stem cells, not by taking it from cloned embryos, creating embryos just to kill them or taking them from “extra” embryos which could be adopted and implanted. These are tiny human beings. Killing innocent human beings is evil, regardless of age or development. Bush had not even banned it, but rather said that no tax dollars should go to killing embryos for experimentation. It should be defunded and banned, and instead we should invest more in adult stem cell research, which has actually helped many people. Adult stem cells can help people, and scientists have learned how to make them pluripotent, or able to be turned into different tissues. This is just a form of child sacrifice, the killing of the innocent and is evil and should not happen. Fetal experimentation, much like embryonic experimentation (embryonic stem cell research), also involves killing human beings, but instead of embryos, it is fetuses who are killed. Body parts are then sold to companies and universities to experiment on them. Both should be banned, and instead, ethical science should flourish.

Obama wrongly calls opposition to the killing of tiny human beings for research as “ideology.” But he has ideology, too–his ideology states that it’s okay to kill innocent human beings for profit and possible but not real benefit. Science cannot function without ethics.

Obama’s apostles are hard to dismiss. Oprah simply calls him “The One,” because “we need politicians who know how to be the truth.” (Jesus says in John 14:6 “I am the way, the truth …”) Oprah goes on to say Obama will help us “evolve to a higher plane,” which would put Obama in the role of our Intelligent Designer.

According to the New York Times, Obama’s volunteers are taught to eschew discussions of the issues and instead “testify” about how they “came to Obama.”

For many, he’s no retro-redeemer, but a 21st-century savior, a Matrix-messiah and Neo for our modern-day Nineveh. Self-help guru Deepak Chopra dubs Obama “a quantum leap in American consciousness,” while prominent “leadership coach” Eve Konstantine assures us that, “He’s our product out of the all-knowing quantum field of intelligence.”

Looking throughout history, different regimes that have been responsible for evil ideologies and policies have been worshipped as messiahs. Sick.

Read the entire article or check out his book, which I have a copy of but am working on reading but I’m busy with PhD work right now, so I can’t vouch for all of it but it does look well-researched.

I wanted to make sure you saw this letter to Pastor Rick Warren we have posted at RedState.  In light of the recent reports about Barack Obama’s opposition to the Born Alive Infant Protect Act (legislation that would require life sustaining medical treatment for infants born alive despite an attempted abortion), the issues Hunter raises in this letter are too important to ignore.

We hope Pastor Warren will ask the tough questions, not just the popular questions.
Erick
 
The text of the letter, written by Redstate Contributor Hunter Baker, is below:

Dear Pastor Warren,

I am writing to you to express concern about something that may get lost when you host the candidate forum with John McCain and Barack Obama at Saddleback Valley Community Church which is likely to receive national attention. The decision to address you on this question in an open letter comes with some trepidation, but I have attempted to reach you through your media agency, the church email, and your personal email with no effect. I hope this message in a public forum will come to your attention instead of sitting unread in a pile of fan mail and requests for favors.

You see, I understand and appreciate who you are and what you’ve done. You are one of the most widely known pastors in the nation and have written one of the best-selling non-fiction books of the past several decades. I have many times walked into friends’ homes and have seen The Purpose-Driven Life sitting on coffee tables or bookshelves. When Time named you one of the most influential evangelicals in America, I agreed and applauded the selection.

During this period of well-deserved fame, you have been a good steward of the blessings God has provided. You gave away 90% of your massive royalties and repaid your church for years of salary. Instead of following the sometimes frivolous paths of other celebrity pastors, you focused in on the suffering of AIDS victims in Africa. You and your wife Kay have been outstanding role models. You have avoided making intemperate statements. Neither have you become some kind of caricature of the pastor in politics, ready to drop anything for a talking-heads appearance anywhere, anytime.

In your news release about the candidate forum, you suggest that you will avoid “gotcha” questions. The topics highlighted in the release are poverty, HIV/AIDS, climate and human rights with a special emphasis on character and leadership rather than programmatic details.

There is much to be said for rising above partisan politics. After all, the church is on a mission from God to all the earth. It is emphatically not intended to be a tool for either one of the political parties. We are after bigger game than a balanced budget, the right kind of welfare state, or term limits. We seek redemption for a world we believe has lost its way.

However, there are certain issues that demand the church’s involvement, issues of basic justice, issues of life and death. Perhaps the least ambiguous of those issues is the protection of babies throughout pregnancy and immediately after birth. We live in a culture that, strangely, acts as though unborn children are like genies that can be stuffed back into the bottle. We know that isn’t true. We know that abortions end with little piles of bloody flesh and bone. Fetuses don’t merely cease to exist. They experience violent physical death.

There are many doctrinal issues that divide Christians, but the protection of young life should not be one of them. Pastor Warren, as Protestants, we are part of a tradition that loves to point to the early church — the young church so pure in our estimation — still uncorrupted by the power of empire. That church, that persecuted church, was a tireless defender of life. Early Christians counseled against abortion and actively rescued infants exposed to the predators and the wild by Roman parents who vested few rights in human beings shortly after birth. A child of the wrong sex or one who looked weak could be abandoned. How strange it is that today a candidate claiming to be a Christian could oppose the Born Alive Infants Protection Act or a ban on partial birth abortion! To do so is to disclaim not only a major part of Christian teaching, but also a cultural advance in favor of protecting the weak and innocent.

Pastor, you know both John McCain and Barack Obama. You know where they stand on the protection of innocent human life. While it is a fine thing to allow both men to expound upon their experience, their leadership ability, and their attitudes toward challenges of the future like AIDS or climate change, I submit that you would do a disservice to your congregation and to the church at large if you host both candidates and ignore the issue that divides them more clearly than almost any other. Barack Obama has indicated a willingness to change his position on a number of issues, including drilling for oil, the way the Iraq war is conducted, and the proper understanding of gun ownership rights. But his position with regard to abortion rights is positively adamantine. Abortion on demand is non-negotiable. McCain, on the other hand, has consistently voted against a broad abortion license.

Some would respond to me, though I doubt you would, that I am emphasizing one issue unfairly. My answer is that this issue is basic. If the year were 1958, instead of 2008, do you think it would be right to host such a forum and ignore segregation, knowing one candidate was ardently in favor of the separation of the races? You and I both know that it would be wrong to gloss over a glaring breach of that kind. We both know many in the church were wrong in just that way. (It is a terrible irony of history that Mr. Obama now stands with those who favor the persistent removal of an entire class of human beings from legal protection through legal fiat. How I wish it were not so.)

My hope is that you will make no promise to leave the foundational issue of the sanctity of life untouched in this forum. If the lack of that promise means the forum may not take place, then I suggest it would be better to cancel it.

With respect,
Hunter Baker

It’ll be interesting to see if Rick Warren responds to Hunter Baker. I hope Rick doesn’t just give softball questions to Obama, the pro-abortion extremist, but he probably will, sadly.

Topeka, KS (LifeNews.com) — Very rarely does a sitting governor oppose fellow party members running for an election, but pro-abortion Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius is doing just that. The potential Barack Obama running mate is attacking a pro-life Democrat and supporting his primary opponent because she disagrees with his abortion stance.

We’ve got a long list of reasons NOT to vote for the pro-abortion extremist Barack Obama, who not only supports killing the unborn but partially born and newborn as well! sick. You may not agree with all of the reasons not to vote for him, but everyone should agree killing innocent human beings is wrong. Check out the list here: Reasons NOT to vote for Obama

An Open Letter to Relevant Magazine:

Relevant Editorial;

I’ve written a few online articles for you back when you were first starting.

I am just writing to ask why you use misleading pro-abortion vernacular in your recent issue with the huge mug of Rob Bell on the front cover. You mention the pro-abortion politicans’ stances on abortion as “pro-choice.” The term “pro-choice” was cynically concocted by population control advocates such as Lawrence Lader of the Population Council (and founder of National Abortion Rights Action League) when selling the idea of abortion to the 60’s feminists, in order to reduce the populations of the poor and minorities. Bernard Nathanson, the co-founder of NARAL, later became pro-life after “performing” thousands of “abortions” and detailed all of this in interviews and his book, Hand of God. ALL early feminists, including suffragists Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony to Alice Paul Walker were pro-life. They saw abortion as just another way to dehumanize women. Even recently, the husband of the lawyer in the Roe v. Wade case wrote then-President Bill Clinton to legalize the morning after pill in order to kill more poor people (this letter was found in the Clinton presidential library and exposed by Judicial Watch).

The Associated Press style guide, while somewhat biased itself, suggests using “abortion rights advocate” to describe pro-abortion politicians and “anti-abortion” to describe pro-life politicians. That would be better than using the propagandistic and misleading term, “pro-choice.” Pro-choice to do what? Own a slave? You’d be pro-slavery then, not the simplistic and misleading “pro-choice.” It’s insane that some people who call themselves Christians object to genocide in Darfur then turn the other way and ignore the genocide of abortion, the killing of an innocent, living human being. According to one of your polls, over 50 percent of people think that Christians can be pro-abortion (or for abortion “rights” as your magazine put it). That is sickening and evil. Can Christians be for the raping and killing of darfur refugees? No. And they can’t be for the killing of innocent human beings. I know that was just an unscientific poll and not your writing, but that points to a sad and ignorant culture that doesn’t know what the euphemism of abortion is or doesn’t care and is therefore morally vapid.

You call pro-abortion politicians “pro-choice” but say that pro-life politicians “consider themselves pro-life,” as if they really aren’t and that’s their own label. Why add the “consider” tag to just the pro-life candidates, as if their label is somehow innacurate but the other one isn’t? Please be honest in your labeling: pro-life people are against abortion and also infanticide, the killing of newborns and infants, euthanasia, and the killing of embryos for research and experimentation (embryonic stem cell research, which isn’t needed at all due to recent scientific advancements). In other words, “pro-life” is, indeed, an honest description of the position, while “pro-abortion” is also honest and much more accurate than the misleading and incomplete “pro-choice” mantra.

You feature a hi-res face of Rob Bell, who teaches that the Bible isn’t really all true (like Mary being a virgin) and other heresies. Bell, adopting the vernacular of 9-11 insider wackos, states that the war in Iraq is “for oil.” If it were for oil, then why are we losing billions of dollars because of the war and not making money off the oil? That’s just pure propaganda. I was against the Iraq War from the start because I was afraid of the sectarian violence that would ensue afterwards: I actually knew what Shiite and Sunni were before this whole mess. But that doesn’t mean I believe irrational and illogical fantasies about the war being “for oil.” Only a truly ignorant person who is not well-read would believe such Michael Moore-style nonsense and misinformation. Just because Rob Bell is extremely popular doesn’t mean what he is teaching is true. In fact, we should think critically even more as a person gains a huge following. He may have some good points, but be brave and point out where he contradicts the word of God instead of just trying to please men. We should please God.

Since when did Relevant turn so relativist/left wing? Try to read outside of Brian McLaren’s hip heresies and read something that might challenge you! McLaren has stated that the Bible is just a good story and not literally true, that he is a fan of the people behind the Jesus Seminar (the people who say that Jesus didn’t literally raise from the dead), and has refused to say that homosexuality is a sin. He puts Christianity on the same level as all religions, basically insinuating Jesus lied when he said he was the Way. He also believes in universalism, which is unbiblical and untrue.

This same issue features an article by Jim Wallis, a left-wing activist who advises pro-abortion politicians such as Howard Dean. He may not be as out there as some, but why only focus on “hip” left-wing speakers, many of who contradict the Bible?

The truth is not found inside misleading vernacular or celebrity-driven hysteria. Why not interview deeper thinkers or people who believe in the Word of God? Why focus on Moby, a pro-abortion relativist, and let him complain about the Church, as if he’s so much better? Yes, the church has problems, but do we need Moby to tell us? Why focus on Rob Bell, who only wants to please man and never offend anyone except Bible-believing Christians, when the gospel itself is offensive to many? “For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.” 2nd Timothy 4:3

Chad
Culture Jam for Life
www.culturejamforlife.com

In response to last year’s Supreme Court ruling banning partial-birth abortions, an abhorrent practice that often involves forced partial-birth and the crushing of a baby’s skull while still inside the womb, the presidential candidates spoke their opinions with obvious separations between Republican and Democrat.  It is no accident that all candidates in favor of the Supreme Court’s decision were Republicans and the others were Democrats.

Senator McCain, who recently won the New Hampshire primary, summed it up best when he said the “Supreme Court ruling is a victory for those who cherish the sanctity of life and integrity of the judiciary. The ruling ensures that an unacceptable and unjustifiable practice will not be carried out on our innocent children.”

Senator Sam Brownback brought up a good point when he said he was “delighted that the Supreme Court is moving forward to see the expression of life in the Constitution”  According to our Constitution, we are granted the inalienable rights of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

The Democrats all made reference to the issue of the mother’s health.  However, none of them said anything regarding the health of the baby.  And that’s what it is at this point.  When we see a pregnant woman we don’t ask, “Oh, when’s the fetus due?”  We ask when the baby is due.  Because it’s a baby.

Democrat Mike Gravel stated he was “opposed to today’s ruling or any ruling that places restrictions on reproductive freedom.”  Where is the freedom in killing a child while it’s still in the womb?  He says he is opposed to restrictions on reproductive freedom, yet he supports the idea of not only restricting the life of an infant but preventing it. 

Where is the freedom in that?

Only Republican John McCain seems to share Romney’s view on abortion: That a baby should be aborted in cases of rape, incest, or for the safety of a mother.

Ron Paul brushes the topic off onto states, instead of making it a federal – and therefore more effective, with harsher punishments – law.

In short, who should you vote for? When it comes to abortion, voting Democrat would be a bad idea. All of the Democratic candidates, as well as Republican Rudy Giuliani, support abortion and would refrain from dealing with the issue accordingly. As for Republican, this blogger supports Republican Duncan Hunter: He opposes abortion, and has attempted to do something against it during his time as a representative of California.