Glenn Beck: March to Socialism - science vs. ideology



Embryo: A Defense of Human Life


by Robert P. George and Christopher Tollefsen


VOICE: The Glenn Beck program presents more truth behind America's march to socialism.

GLENN: That is right. We're actually, we're actually going to kind of go off the beaten path here. I mean, I know I like the sound of the boots and everything, but I want to go off the beaten path just a little bit. I want to bring in Professor Robert George and talk a little bit about the fixing science in her seat again, as Barack Obama stated during his inaugural address, putting science right back on the top of the food chain, which is always a spooky thing. Robert George is a professor at Princeton University and can comment a little bit on a couple of items, what's happening in Connecticut with the Catholic church and also stem cell research, the ban of federal money being lifted yesterday by Barack Obama. And Professor George, you actually say that this is much worse than what it appears on the surface. Why?

PROFESSOR GEORGE: Oh, yes, that's exactly right, Glenn. The expectation was, of course, because he promised to do it is that Barack Obama would lift President Bush's restrictions on the funding of embryo-destructive research in the case of embryos that were left over in in vitro fertilization, in clinics in a frozen state and would likely not be used by their parents for another pregnancy. The theory is that these embryos are likely to die anyway and therefore good use could be made of them. I never bought that argument, but that was the argument. An awful lot of people did buy it. But Obama went so much farther than that. What he did in his executive order yesterday was open the door to the creation of embryos, whether by cloning or by other technologies, specifically for research in which they would be killed, creating new human life. And all an embryo is, a human embryo is an early stage of life. You and I were once embryos as we were adolescents and children. It's just a stage of development. So this opens the door for human beings for research in which they are destroyed and that's just contrary to the basic principles not only of the Judeo-Christian moral tradition but of the American tradition that says each of us as human beings throughout our lives has dignity and worth and cannot be reduced to the mere status of an object or disposable research material.

GLENN: The guy who started embryonic stem cell research, I heard a quote from him yesterday, said if you haven't -- if this whole concept of research on embryos hasn't given you pause, then you haven't thought about it enough.

PROFESSOR GEORGE: Oh, yes, that's Jamie Thompson you are quoting who was the first person to isolate human embryonic stem cells. He is a research scientist at the University of Wisconsin. And he said that in explaining why he had done path-breaking work, very important pioneering work to create alternative sources of pluripotent stem cells, pluripotent just means like embryonic stem cells, cells that are able to be manipulated to become any sort of cell tissue so they would be very useful in regenerative medicine if all things work out. But Thompson was explaining why he went down another path and created a technology for which he's likely to win the Nobel Prize called induced pluripotent stem cells which can be created without using embryos or destroying embryos or killing embryos. So yes, even somebody like Thompson recognizes that there's a huge ethical issue here. But President Obama's just swept past it, just swept past it.

By the way, there was something I think very disturbing about the president's speech yesterday. He said that he was opposed to reproductive cloning, and a lot of people took that to mean that the president was against cloning in general. But he's not. In fact, he's not against cloning at all. He's in favor of using cloning technology to create new human embryos, human beings that would be destroyed in research. What he's opposed to is permitting those embryos to live. By reproductive cloning, he just means a ban on implantation once the cloning is complete, the human embryo is created and it's there. He wants them to be used in research and destroyed but not implanted. That's not opposition to cloning.

GLENN: I tell you, it's so disturbing. I'm getting a lot of heat today because yesterday on television I talked about this and I said, you know, it was the progressives and the scientists that brought us eugenics. The idea that science -- if evolution is true, then science should be able to help it along, and it was the guys in the white jackets. It was the scientists and the doctors that brought us the horrors of eugenics and it's because --

PROFESSOR GEORGE: Glenn, can I fill you in a little bit? Because you are absolutely right. Let me tell you a little bit of the history. It's fascinating. Those guys in white coats were not even during the Nazi period. These weren't guys working for the Nazis. This was years before the Nazis during the Weimar Republic.

GLENN: It was here.

PROFESSOR GEORGE: When progressive, as they were then called, doctors and lawyers and others, decided that there were some lives unworthy of life. And two scholars, a guy named Bending and a guy named Hoka (ph) who were not Nazis who were opposed to the Nazi federy and so forth, they saw them as really sort of lower class thugs. But these two guys, a law professor and a medical professor, wrote a book called Lebens unwürdig von Leben, life unworthy of life which was a roadmap for taking the life destroying the lives of retarded people, people regarded as inferior because of their low intelligence or physical impairment or so forth. That was the roadmap. It was before the Nazis. You are 100% right.

GLENN: And a lot of this stuff, I mean, started here originally, did it not? Didn't some of the original thinking --

PROFESSOR GEORGE: Well, it didn't just begin in Germany. It's certainly true that there was a strong eugenics here among the elite, among the progressive, the people who regarded themselves as the forward thinkers. Just the name, one figure from my own field of philosophy of law, Oliver Wendell Holmes, the great American jurist and philosopher and eventually Supreme Court justice who was with the program entirely of eugenics before the Nazis gave it a bad name. So it was here in America just as it was in Germany.

GLENN: So here's what I'm afraid of and, you know, call me crazy, but whenever you unplug from ethics and you put science at the top and then you surround it with a bunch of progressive elitists, that usually doesn't spell, you know, spell out anything that's good.

PROFESSOR GEORGE: It does not spell out the word human dignity, or the words human dignity. And that's what we should be concerned about. Another thing that was so disturbing, Glenn, about President Obama's remarks yesterday, he depicted this debate as a question of science against ethics. It's not a question of science against ethics. It's a question of whether we will have ethical science or unethical science. Of course, he doesn't use the term "Ethics" in his depiction. He accuses his opponents of doing politics or ideology. So it's science against politics or science against ideology. But the real question is are we going to do science in an ethically upright way that respects the dignity of all human beings, respects the fundamental worth, the basic human rights of all members of the human family. Are we going to adopt war or are we going to adopt the utilitarian ethic that decides killing some human beings or human beings in some stages of development in the hope to help others is okay. I know where I come out on that and it's certainly not on Barack Obama's side.

GLENN: Do you know the story of, what is it, I'm trying to remember his name, Baby Nos or Noch?

PROFESSOR GEORGE: Noah, Noah. In fact, I begin my book Embryo which I coauthored with Christopher Tollefsen who is a wonderful professor at University of South Carolina. That's not the biblical figure, not the person we have in mind although he's named for the biblical figure. Noah was a baby who was born 16 months after he was conceived. Now, you ask how could he have been born 16 months. Isn't human gestation nine months. Well, Noah was conceived by in-vitro fertilization. He was stored away as a tiny embryo in a clinic, in a frozen condition when Hurricane Katrina hit. And some rescuers, some guys in boats, policemen and firemen in boats, knowing that those embryos were stored away in the flood and that the electricity was going out and they would all die actually took risks to themselves to rescue those embryos, and one of those embryos was later implanted in his mother's womb, Noah, and he was brought to birth and he's a healthy baby boy today. Now, when everyone thinks of in vitro fertilization, there's a big controversy and difference of opinion on morals about in vitro at all. The reality shows that that baby, Noah, was the same human being 16 months before he was born as when he was born. We don't need to discard or throw away embryos. We certainly shouldn't create embryos in order to be killed in biomedical research. We should respect all human life. And by the way, Glenn, there are good alternatives. We don't need to do this to advance our scientific goals in biomedical science.

GLENN: All right. I want to take a quick break with you and I want to come back. There's something going on and I'm just assuming that you are aware of it, in Connecticut, where the state is trying to get in and cross the line of church and state and try to tell the Catholic church exactly how they can run their operation which, if I'm not mistaken, you know better than I do, I thought we had a constitutional amendment that would stop things like this but we'll talk about that here coming up in just a second.

(OUT 9:45)

VOICE: And now another letter from Glenn Beck.

GLENN: Dear American people, babies are annoying. Yeah, I know. They're cute and everything, but they cry and they cry and cry and then they scream and cry some more and then they poop. But do you think maybe we could avoid the harvesting babies for their organs or stem cells or cloned bodies? I mean, am I missing something? Is there something really truly appealing about ripping out a baby's liver and the cells that I'm missing? Let me know. Love, Glenn.

VOICE: That was another wonderful letter from Glenn Beck.

GLENN: That's all I'm wondering. Okay, let me go back to Professor Robert George from Princeton University, one of the great conservative minds in America today. And I want to talk to you a little bit about what's happening in Connecticut. I am -- and maybe I'm overblowing this, but it concerns me that once government gets a foot in the door in any church, we're all in trouble. Can you explain what's happening in Connecticut,

PROFESSOR: George?

PROFESSOR GEORGE: Sure, and I can put it in context and I think make it perfectly understandable to your listeners. This is not a difficult case to fathom or understand. What you have are two Connecticut legislators. Let me name names. State senator Andrew McDonald and state representative Michael Lawlor who have introduced a bill that's basically a blatantly unconstitutional, anticonstitutional attack on the Catholic church. It's an effort to take control of the Catholic church away from the bishops and the clergy and place it into the hands of lay boards in each of the Catholic parishes or church communities. This is a grotesque intrusion of the state into the affairs of the church. It's a violation of the First Amendment. I do not see how it can possibly withstand constitutional scrutiny. I would say at most it would get two votes to uphold it on the Supreme Court. Even the liberal members of the court for the most part are going to see this as what it is, a blatant attack on the freedom of the church and a violation of the First Amendment.

GLENN: So for --

PROFESSOR GEORGE: Now for --

GLENN: Should we not worry about it then?

PROFESSOR GEORGE: Oh, yeah, you should worry about it. I'm going to put it in context and you'll see it's part of a larger project here on the cultural left. Why do you think these two guys have introduced this bill, why this attack on the Catholic church? Think about it in context. Any church that has opposed the redefinition of marriage; that is, to change marriage from being the conjugal union of man and woman, husband and wife to include same-sex marriage or perhaps other forms of sexual union, any church that has opposed that has come under attack by the proponents of redefinition of marriage. We've seen it with the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, the Mormon church, going all the way to invasions of church property and desecrations of churches. We've seen it in attacks against evangelical churches. And make no mistake about it: The two legislators who are responsible for this bill are doing it in the retaliation for the church's opposition to the redefinition of marriage. This is all about marriage, sexual morality and nothing else.

GLENN: Professor George, I've only got about 45 seconds. I don't know if you can answer this. Isn't the -- wasn't the death of the church and faith in Europe really when it became politicized, when the church first -- when the government first got their foot into the door, once you start doing that, and it seems to me that between this action, the reduction of charitable deductions for income tax, I mean, it seems to me that they're going to try to get their political correct agenda into everybody's churches.

PROFESSOR GEORGE: You know, Glenn, socialism is sometimes depicted as an attack on individual freedom and it is that, but that only tells part of the story. More centrally in a way is the attack of socialism on the institutions of civil society; that is, families, churches, other private associations, organizations such as the Boy Scout. What Father Richard John Neuhaus, the late Catholic priest theologian called the mediating structures, the authority structures that provide a buffer between the individual and the state, the state wants to remove them from the scene, weaken them so that there's a direct imposition on the individual. You see this in the communist countries. The first thing they do is weaken the church. They try to corrupt the church.

GLENN: Okay. Robert George, Princeton University, thank you very much. We'll talk again, sir. Bye-bye.

(OUT 9:53)

Here's a question unique to our times: "Should I tell my father 'Happy Father's Day,' even though he (she?) is now one of my mothers?"

Father's Day was four days ago, yes, but this story is just weird enough to report on. One enjoyable line to read was this gem from Hollywood Gossip: "Cait is a woman and a transgender icon, but she is also and will always be the father of her six children."

RELATED: If Bruce was never a he and always a she, who won the men's Olympic gold in 1976?

Imagine reading that to someone ten — even five — years ago. And, honestly, there's something nice about it. But the strangeness of its having ever been written overpowers any emotional impact it might bring.

"So lucky to have you," wrote Kylie Jenner, in the Instagram caption under pre-transition pictures of Bruce Jenner.

Look. I risk sounding like a tabloid by mere dint of having even mentioned this story, but the important element is the cultural sway that's occurring. The original story was that a band of disgruntled Twitter users got outraged about the supposed "transphobic" remarks by Jenner's daughter.

But, what we should be saying is, "who the hell cares?" Who cares what one Jenner says to another — and more importantly and on a far deeper level — who cares what some anonymous Twitter user has to say?

When are we going to stop playing into the hands of the Twitter mob?

When are we going to stop playing into the hands of the Twitter mob? Because, at the moment, they've got it pretty good. They have a nifty relationship with the mainstream media: One or two Twitter users get outraged by any given thing — in this case Jenner and supposed transphobia. In return, the mainstream media use the Twitter comment as a source.

Then, a larger Twitter audience points to the article itself as proof that there's some kind of systemic justice at play. It's a closed-market currency, where the negative feedback loop of proof and evidence is composed of faulty accusations. Isn't it a hell of a time to be alive?

These days, when Americans decide to be outraged about something, we really go all out.

This week's outrage is, of course, the Trump administration's "zero tolerance" policy toward illegal immigration along the southern border. Specifically, people are upset over the part of the policy that separates children from their parents when the parents get arrested.

RELATED: Where were Rachel Maddow's tears for immigrant children in 2014?

Lost in all the outrage is that the President is being proactive about border security and is simply enforcing the law. Yes, we need to figure out a less clumsy, more compassionate way of enforcing the law, but children are not being flung into dungeons and fed maggots as the media would have you believe.

But having calm, reasonable debates about these things isn't the way it's done anymore. You have to make strong, sweeping announcements so the world knows how righteous your indignation is.

That's why yesterday, the governors of Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island and Connecticut declared they are withholding or recalling their National Guard troops from the U.S.-Mexico border until this policy of separating children from their parents is rescinded.

Adding to the media stunt nature of this entire "crisis," it turns out this defiant announcement from these five governors is mostly symbolic. Because two months ago, when President Trump called for 4,000 additional National Guard troops to help patrol the border, large numbers of troops were not requested from those five states. In fact, no troops were requested at all from Rhode Island. But that didn't stop Rhode Island's Democratic governor, Gina Raimondo, from announcing she would refuse to send troops if she were asked. She called the family separation policy, "immoral, unjust and un-American."

There's so much outrage, we're running short on adjectives.

The governors of Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New York all used the word "inhumane" in their statements condemning the Trump administration policy. There's so much outrage, we're running short on adjectives.

In a totally unrelated coincidence, four of these five governors are running for re-election this year.

I've made my position clear — separating these children from their parents is a bad policy and we need to stop. We need to treat these immigrants with the kind of compassion we'd want for our own children. And I said the same thing in 2014 when no one cared about the border crisis.

If consistency could replace even just a sliver of the outrage in America, we would all be a lot better off.

I think we can all agree, both on the Left and the Right, that children who have been caught up in illegal immigration is an awful situation. But apparently what no one can agree on is when it matters to them. This past weekend, it suddenly — and even a little magically — began to matter to the Left. Seemingly out of nowhere, they all collectively realized this was a problem and all rushed to blame the Trump administration.

RELATED: These 3 things need to happen before we can fix our border problem

Here's Rachel Maddow yesterday:

I seem to remember getting mocked by the Left for showing emotion on TV, but I'll give her a pass here. This is an emotional situation. But this is what I can't give her a pass on: where the heck was this outrage and emotion back in 2014? Because the same situation going on today — that stuff Maddow and the rest of the Left have only just now woken up to — was going on back in July 2014! And it was arguably worse back then.

I practically begged and pleaded for people to wake up to what was going on. We had to shed light on how our immigration system was being manipulated by people breaking our laws, and they were using kids as pawns to get it done. But unlike the gusto the Left is using now to report this story, let's take a look at what Rachel Maddow thought was more important back in 2014.

On July 1, 2014, Maddow opened her show with a riveting monologue on how President Obama was hosting a World Cup viewing party. That's hard-hitting stuff right there.

On July 2, 2014, Maddow actually acknowledged kids were at the border, but she referenced Health and Human Services only briefly and completely rushed through what was actually happening to these kids. She made a vague statement about a "policy" stating where kids were being taken after their arrival. She also blamed Congress for not acting.

See any difference in reporting there from today? That "policy" she referenced has suddenly become Trump's "new" policy, and it isn't Congress's fault… it's all on the President.

She goes on throughout the week.

On July 7, 2014, her top story was something on the Koch brothers. Immigration was only briefly mentioned at the end of the show. This trend continued all the way through the week. I went to the border on July 19. Did she cover it? Nope. In fact, she didn't mention kids at the border for the rest of the month. NOT AT ALL.

Do you care about immigrant kids who have been caught in the middle of a broken immigration system or not?

Make up your minds. Is this an important issue or not? Do you care about immigrant kids who have been caught in the middle of a broken immigration system or not? Do you even care to fix it, or is this what it looks like — just another phony, addicted-to-outrage political stunt?

UPDATE: Here's how this discussion went on radio. Watch the video below.

Glenn gives Rachel Maddow the benefit of the doubt

Rachel Maddow broke down in tears live on her MSNBC show over border crisis.

Progressives think the Obamas are a gift to the world. But their gift is apparently more of the metaphorical kind. It doesn't extend to helpful, tangible things like saving taxpayers money. Illinois has approved $224 million to pay for street and transportation upgrades around the planned site of the Obama Presidential Center. The catch is that Illinois taxpayers will have to cover $200 million of that cost. For a presidential museum.

Eight years of multiplying the national debt wasn't enough for Barack Obama. Old fleecing habits die hard. What's another $200 million here and there, especially for something as important as an Obama tribute center?

RELATED: Want to cure millennials' financial woes? Reform the payroll tax.

That's all well and good except Illinois can't even fund its pension system. The state has a $137 billion funding shortfall. That means every person in Illinois owes $11,000 for pensions, and there is no plan to fix the mess. Unless Illinois progressives have discovered a new kind of math, this doesn't really add up. You can't fund pensions, but you're going to figure out a way to milk the public for another $200 million to help cover the cost of a library?

It's hard to imagine who in their right mind would think this will be money well spent. Well, except for maybe Chicago Mayor and former Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel who said, "The state's… investment in infrastructure improvements near the Obama Center on the South Side of Chicago is money well spent."

Some presidential overreach lasts longer than others.

The spending has already been signed into law, even though the Obama library has not received construction approval yet. Part of the holdup is that the proposed site is on public land in historic Jackson Park. That doesn't seem very progressive of the Obamas, but, you know, for certain presidents, you go above and beyond. It's just what you do. Some presidential overreach lasts longer than others.

Here's the thing about taxing the peasants so the king can build a fancy monument to himself – it's wrong. And completely unnecessary. The Obamas have the richest friends on the planet who could fund this project in their sleep. If the world simply must have a tricked-out Obama museum, then let private citizens take out their wallets voluntarily.

As the Mercury Museum proved this weekend, it is possible to build an exhibit with amazing artifacts that attracts a ton of visitors – and it cost taxpayers approximately zero dollars.