A Virtuous Government

“[T]he only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be laid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments.” — Benjamin Rush, On the Mode of Education Proper in a Republic — 1806.

Super Bowl advertisers paid as much as $4 million for 30 seconds of time in hopes of making a lasting impression. And they tried every gimmick in the book to do it. But one of the ads everyone is still talking about is the Dodge Ram Trucks ad, featuring images of American farmers set to a speech written and delivered by a giant of radio, Paul Harvey. It was called “God Made A Farmer.” Viewers so young that they might not even remember Paul Harvey were moved to tears by the commercial. Because amid all the CGI effects, vulgar jokes and sexual innuendo, what proved the most memorable was the power of Paul Harvey’s words and his unique, heartfelt delivery. By the way, if you’d like to hear the full speech, you can find it by clicking here. Paul Harvey made it in 1978 — 35 years ago.

This was a rare time where you would see God 11 times in 2 minute and 36 second TV Commercial. While watch the Super Bowl with a group of rowdy friends who mocked most of the commercials when the Dodge Ram Truck commercial began and the voice of Paul Harvey boomed out of the TV set the rowdy bunch of football fans fell silent. This was the few times in 15 years of our traditional Super Bowl party this has ever occurred. The other times usually were during the Budweiser commercials portraying their famous Clydesdale horses.

Another event over the weekend was the murder of former Navy SEAL Chris Kyle by a deranged veteran who was suffering from PTSD at a gun range. Eddie Ray Routh, a former Marine and Iraq veteran said: “He "traded his soul for a new truck." Why Kyle was working with Routh at a gun range may be questionable, but evidently the psychiatrist who was treating Routh cleared him for such activities. What made this event more horrific was a Tweet attributed to former Congressman Ron Paul. Dr. Paul tweeted: “Chris Kyle's death seems to confirm that "he who lives by the sword dies by the sword." Treating PTSD at a firing range doesn't make sense.”

Yesterday, according to a report in the Blaze, on his nationally syndicated radio show Glen Beck took Dr. Paul to task for his ill-advised tweet. The Blaze report states:

“Rather than coming from the lips (or keyboard, in this case) of a seasoned elder statesman, Beck said that Paul’s tweet sounded like something that would come from radical groups like Code Pink or Westboro Baptist Church, calling the social media statement “beneath” the former representative. The host said that one of the main problems that abounds in today’s society is a failure for individuals to treat one another decently and he even wondered if Paul regrets his “serious, serious error in judgment.

Acknowledging that some would potentially point the finger at him as someone who has fallen prey to uttering unfavorable statements in the past, Beck admitted that “we’ve all said things that we shouldn’t have said,” but that people should learn and grow from these experiences. And while he stands fervently against Paul’s statements, the host affirmed that he is a big believer in the First Amendment.

“I find Ron Paul’s speech ugly and offensive, but I defend his right to say it and I would not violate it or ask anyone else to violate it by having him silent,” Beck proclaimed “More speech — not less speech — but it requires all of us in responsible ways to respond because that is the right that so many like Chris Kyle fought for.”

The host also noted that for those wondering why he has never — and could never — support Paul, this example provides both explanation and corroboration.

“This should finally answer your question,” Beck said.”

On one hand we have a car company willing to use the words of a conservative radio host to promote it’s truck and the American Farmer and on the other hand we have a former Libertarian congressman using social media to make a comment beneath his dignity and doing harm to his reputation.

Yes we have free speech, but we also have responsibilities in exercising that right. Why post a disparaging comment about a recently murdered decorated SEAL while his family and friends are grieving his death. To me this is not only in poor taste it is a cruel exercise of the First Amendment. Dr. Paul may think this and discuss it with his followers, but why put such a comment on public social media for millions of people to read. Why cause more pain to his family. As a medical doctor Ron Paul should have known better. On the political side of the issue Dr. Paul’s comment will no doubt haunt his son, Rand Paul, in a future run for the presidency.

This is the problem with today’s social media. Politicians, celebrities, and just everyday folks are able to post ill-advised, nasty, vicious, and false statements on Facebook and Twitter without giving thought to what they are saying. These comments do harm to others and themselves. Where has virtue and honor gone?

A nation without virtue and honor is a nation without a future. Today the United States finds itself in a quagmire of ever-increasing self-doubt and foreboding. Chief among the factors that have brought America to this point has been the abandonment of a sense of what is right, just and true as it relates to the duty imposed by conscience. Virtue and honor is being abandoned and replaced by duplicity, avarice, self-aggrandizement, cowardice, and an unbridled lust for power and notoriety.

These characteristics are symptomatic of the bulk of the American governing class that has increasingly adopted, as their sacrosanct tenet, the concept that the end justifies the means. In their position atop the societal pyramid they have been devastatingly influential in undermining the morality and integrity of the citizenry. As Herbert Hoover once observed: "When there is a lack of honor in government, the morals of the whole people are poisoned."

As the greatest fear of the founding fathers comes to pass — an overwhelmingly powerful central government — the base nature of the human race comes increasingly to the fore. This evolutionary process, while underway for some time, has thoroughly permeated society as the nation is now reaching the tipping point.

Whether in the various state capitols or the once hallowed halls of Congress or the now tarnished grandeur of the White House, the acquisition and retention of political power by any means necessary, and the attendant access to ever larger sums of money, either borrowed, created out of whole cloth or coerced from the taxpayers, has become firmly entrenched in the nation's political psyche. Party identity notwithstanding, in order to achieve this end, nothing is beyond the pale — be it fraud, corruption, outright lies, or immorality.

No one person on the American landscape today more epitomizes this descent into dishonor than Barack Obama. His earliest days in politics were marked with unethical and oftentimes dishonest tactics in eliminating his opposition. He has revealed an untroubled willingness to prevaricate and make up so-called facts to suit his personal agenda. He has proven himself to be untrustworthy and a man whose word is meaningless. His narcissism knows no bounds as he oversees the premeditated decline of the United States concurrent with seeking to transform the nation into his vision of a socialist state. All the while exploiting his skin color as he calculatingly divides Americans into groups which he coldly and with forethought pits against each other.

The recent re-election campaign of Barack Obama encapsulated all these traits into the strategy employed as he set out to not only personally destroy his opposition by innuendo and falsehoods but to hoodwink the American voter. Unfortunately, the voters have become receptive to these tactics as they have been conditioned over the past forty years by an education establishment — dominated by greed, self-absorption and fealty to statist ideology — to believe that government, as controlled by the American left, is the source of wealth and salvation. Adding to this indoctrination, the entertainment industry, whose primary concern is an unfettered lifestyle, has slowly but surely convinced a near majority of the people that there are no moral absolutes. Honor and virtue are not words in their vocabulary.

The mainstream media, also concerned with an unfettered lifestyle but more importantly with access to the politically powerful, have chosen sides and become an extension of the state propaganda machinery as well as pawns in the hands of Barack Obama and the Democrats. Many in the media, also greatly influenced by the education and entertainment establishment, have left any semblance of honor at the doorway of cronyism as they safeguard their standard of living.

Far too many in the corporate and financial sphere have cast their principles aside as they too are increasingly operating their enterprises with the end justifies the means mindset. Further, as much of the free market is effectively under the thumb of government bureaucrats and politicians, many are convinced that in order to survive and prosper they must "play the game" with Washington D.C. and financially support those who have amassed the power to destroy them. Others have willing prostituted themselves and openly become crony capitalists eerily reminiscent of the relationship between industry and the government in fascist Italy and Germany.

This debasement of honor has extended its tentacles into many religious institutions who are now preaching the gospel of big government, abortion, euthanasia, and the toleration of any lifestyle. They are doing so in order to maintain some semblance of a congregation and the income derived from the same as well as groveling before the almighty monolith on the shores of the Potomac River.

The ultimate bulwark of honor and independence is supposed to be the Judiciary. Yet it has become what Thomas Jefferson feared: "an irresponsible body". Far too many judges have increasingly allowed their personal biases and ideological beliefs to dominate their decision making process as they usurp legislative power. They have allowed themselves to be swallowed into the vortex of self-aggrandizement and faux omnipotence rather than adhere to the Constitution and act as men and women imbued with humility, virture, and honor.

After the defeat in the 2012 presidential election, the primary and only topic of conversation among the conservatives and the Republican Party establishment is how to regain the White House and the Senate in future elections. These discussions invariably center on tactics and campaign strategy to counter the tactics and campaign strategy of the Democrats. To many principles are not part of the conversation. They want to win!

But all the grand plans to win elections cannot reverse the course the United States is presently on; only by being brutally honest with the American people and offering viable political/economic alternatives as well as emphasizing the overarching importance of honor can the nation be potentially rescued. That, first and foremost, requires honorable men and women to step forward and suffer the slings and arrows certain to come their way. Unless and until that happens all else is meaningless and America will continue to careen down it's self-destructive path.

As George Washington stated in his 1796 Farewell Address:

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism who should labor to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness.”

I leave you with the words of William Henry Harrison, words he spoke during his inaugural address in 1841:

“Limited as are the powers which have been granted, still enough have been granted to constitute a despotism if concentrated in the Executive branch. The tendency of power to increase itself, particularly when exercised by a single individual would terminate in virtual monarchy. The tendencies of governments in their decline is to monarchy. The spirit of faction in times of great excitement imposes itself upon the people as the genuine spirit of freedom, and, like the false Christs whose coming was foretold by the Savior impose upon the true and most faithful disciples of liberty. It is in periods like this that it behooves the people to be most watchful of those to whom they have entrusted power."

It Didn’t Take Obama Long

“For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. They have exchanged the truth of God for falsehood, by worshipping and serving created things, rather than the Creator.” — St. Paul, Romans 1:21, 25 (CEV).

On Friday in Newtown, Connecticut at the Sandy Hook Elementary School, more than two dozen, mostly children, were gunned down in an act of evil.

Children cry out for their mommy and their daddy. Young men on the battlefield, as death comes over them, do the same. It is a natural instinct at life’s end for the young. Just the thought of the children crying out for their moms and dads as they died overwhelms the senses of those of us far removed from the tragedy. It is an instinct, though, that we should confront.

Instead, two days removed from the horror of Friday, we are beginning again the debate and confrontations about gun control. It is a debate probably worth having and, whether we want to or not, we will have it. Much, if any, of what will be proposed would not have stopped the massacre.

It only took Obama a mere sixty hours to bring his entourage of black GM SUVs with flashing red and blue lights and a myriad of armed secret service agents, staff members, and teleprompters to Newtown for national televised address where he could bathe in the light of the tragedy.

President Barack Obama used the Sunday evening memorial service for the murdered kindergartners and adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School to launch a partisan campaign that could expand government intrusion into parenting and gun control.

“The job of keeping our children safe, and teaching them well, is something we can only do together, with the help of friends and neighbors and the help of a nation,” Obama said at the vigil, which was held only a short distance from Sandy Hook Elementary School.

“We will have to change. If there is even one step we can take to save another child, or another parent, or another town, from the grief then surely we have an obligation to try.”

It is not clear if Obama actually will develop a national anti-violence crusade that would reshape families’ ability to raise their children. He may simply be using the Sandy Hook shooting to paint Democrats as defenders of the nation’s children from the GOP-backed gun industry.

But Obama promised imminent action via Democratic-affiliated lobbies, such as the mental-health sector and the teachers’ unions.

“In the coming weeks, I will use whatever power this office holds to engage my fellow citizens — from law enforcement to mental health professionals to parents and educators — in an effort aimed at preventing more tragedies like this,” he declared.

Through his 18-minute speech, Obama’s language promised a partisan and divisive project.

For example, he suggested the voters’ only choices are either to do nothing, or to follow his yet-to-be-described plan to combat gun violence in schools and street corners throughout the U.S.

I recall his emotional tearful speech at the University of Arizona Memorial service for the victims of the shooting at the Tucson shopping center where 6 people, including a 9-year old girl were murdered, and 12 were wounded including a U.S. Congresswoman. In this speech he blamed our uncivil society and the ranker of his political opponents, especially conservative talk radio. At the time he called for a more “civil society” with tolerance towards those with whom you do not agree. Yet, in 2012, he and his minions ran one of the most uncivil, divisive political campaigns in the history of the country. What hypocrisy utters forth from this man’s mouth.

Now as Rahm Emanuel his close advisor and Mayor of Chicago, one of, if not the most, the most gun violent city in the United States where gangs rule the streets, says; “never let a good crisis go to waste.” Obama, tutored on the writings Saul Alinsky, is taking Emanuel’s advice to the nines. It should be noted that Obama made no such speech after the shootings at the Aurora, Colorado theater complex because he did not want to broach the subject of gun control during the presidential campaign.

“We can’t accept events like this as routine,” he said. “Can we honestly say that we’re doing enough to keep our children — all of them — safe from harm?” he added. “Are we really prepared to say that we’re powerless in the face of such carnage, that the politics are too hard?”

Before the bodies of murdered children had been removed from Sandy Hook Elementary on Friday, Barack Obama was, shamefully, stacking up the coffins of innocent kindergartners as a platform for his disarmament agenda, which he and his socialist cadres will conceal behind a thin façade of "concern for public safety."

Just one paragraph into his brief remarks, on Friday, about the murders in Newtown, Obama tearfully exclaimed:

"We've endured too many of these tragedies in the past few years. We're going to have to come together and take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the politics." (Emphasis added)

New York Democrat Rep. Jerrold Nadler was less discreet in his insistence that Obama use the deaths of these children to advance the Left's gun prohibition agenda: "I think we will be there if the president exploits it." Sen. Charles Schumer added, "I think we could be at a tipping point where we might get something done."

Within hours of the deaths, Sen. Dianne Feinstein promised, "I'm going to introduce in the Senate — and the same bill will be introduced in the House — a bill to get weapons of war off the streets." That should solve the problem. What about commando knives and bayonets?

At the Sunday evening vigil in Newtown, Obama again politicized the attack, framing his remarks around his gun-prohibition agenda. He asked rhetorically:

"Can we say that we're truly doing enough to give all the children of this country the chance they deserve to live out their lives in happiness and with purpose? If we're honest with ourselves, the answer is no. And we will have to change. What choice do we have? Are we really prepared to say that we're powerless in the face of such carnage, that the politics are too hard? Are we prepared to say that such violence visited on our children year after year after year is somehow the price of our freedom?" (Emphasis added)

For the record, Connecticut already has banned "assault weapons," and the Newtown school was already a "gun-free zone," but that didn't prevent the murders of these precious children and six adults.

Of course Obama’s rhetoric ignored many measures that could reduce gun violence without further increasing government’s role.

At the federal level, such modest reforms could include funding for the institutionalization of disturbed people, or for training teachers who choose to carry a weapon to work. The federal government also has some authority to restrict the sale of high-capacity bullet magazines and body armor, as well as the ability to boost the financial rewards (through the tax code) for parents who stay married.

State and local government are also free to adopt similar measures.

In Texas, for example, at least one school district — Harrold Independent School District — encourages teachers to bring guns to work.

Some states, including Connecticut, have experimented with stringent control on guns, partly because many influential university-trained professionals abhor guns being sold to poor Americans. But Connecticut’s stringent anti-gun laws did not stop the murders at Sandy Hook

Any honest American should be deeply offended by politicians who are so calloused that they would use the deaths of innocents as political fodder for their agenda.

Could Obama not exercise the most basic decency and allow time for genuine grief to pass before exploiting this incident? Obviously not, according to the first chapter in his political playbook: "Never let a crisis go to waste."

It is no small irony that the political party that has made killing children prior to birth a pillar of their platform expresses such indignation when a sociopath places so little value on life that he murders children. Of course, it's easier to kill children who are faceless — and I am certain that in the eyes of the sociopathic killer in Newtown, his victims also had no faces.

"Obama has asserted erroneously, “The vast majority of Americans would like to see serious gun control, but it doesn't pass because there is this huge disconnect between what people think and what legislators think and are willing to act upon.” Endeavoring to close that gap every time there is tragic mass murder where the assailant used a gun Democrats offer the disingenuous rationale that violence is a "gun problem" rather than a cultural problem. Of course it's easier to blame guns than culture, and that serves the Left's political agenda.

After years of arguing that Democrats should be willing to bear the political costs — lost votes in the South, in particular — of gun control measures, advocates Saturday began cautiously to make a different case. Gun control leaders and other progressive figures told BuzzFeed that, whether or not Democrats can get new legislation through Congress, they should be winning elections on the issue of guns.

Gun regulation "is moving to the center, and past it,” said Jim Kessler, who helped Sen. Charles Schumer pass gun control policy in the 1990s before founding the D.C. think tank, Third Way.

“For the first time in decades, Republicans are losing on social issues — they’re losing on same-sex marriage, they’re losing on contraception, and now they could lose on guns because their position is so intractable,” said Kessler. “Except for a vocal minority, people know and expect that something can be done.”

However, acknowledging that the majority of murders and other violent crimes in our country are the direct result of social and cultural degradation on urban welfare plantations would be, first and foremost, an indictment of the socialist welfare state advocated by Democrats. Thus, they call for more gun control — on top of the myriad of gun control laws now on the books.

Fact is, on average almost 50 people are murdered every day, two-thirds of them with guns. It is statistically notable that about one-third of murders are not committed with guns, and moreover, blacks and Latinos commit a grossly disproportionate number of all murders and the victims are predominantly blacks and Latinos. Just watch the 11 pm local news.

In fact, the very weekend that Obama and his race hustlers attempted to politicize the shooting of Trayvon Martin by "white Hispanic" George Zimmerman earlier this year, the Chicago Sun-Times (Obama's hometown paper) reported that in just 48 hours, 10 people were murdered and at least 40 others were seriously wounded. Most of the assailants and victims were black or Latino, but not a word from Obama about those murders.

As for the media misrepresentation of the Newtown attack, though virtually every news outlet is reporting that this was the "worst school attack in history," the most lethal attack on a school occurred in 1927, when a disgruntled Bath, Michigan, school-board member murdered 45 people, including 38 elementary students — with a bomb.

Additionally, virtually every media reference to the assailant in Newtown refers to him as "the shooter." Well, there are some sixty million Americans who are "shooters." The assailant who murdered 27 women and children in Newtown was a sociopathic murderer who used a gun. He murdered them, not the gun.

"Arguments over the merits of gun control are made all the more difficult to navigate by the Left's stubborn denial that we are already having a debate on the issue. Gun control propositions are by no means new, and nor is there a lack of a 'national conversation on the subject.' Instead, the national conversation is ongoing, and the Left is losing it badly. Gun control advocates may talk of national soul searching and dialogue, but in truth that already exists; what they mean is that they'd like to win for a change. ... There are at least two hundred million privately owned guns in America, and Connecticut regulates access to them more strictly than most. To believe that [Friday's] crime could have been prevented, you have to presume either that a man willing to go to such grievous lengths could have been deterred from doing so by stronger laws, or that those stronger laws could rid America of privately available guns completely -- thus making the killer's task an impossible one. I believe neither thing. To pass a law is not to achieve its aims, and one suspects that any attempt at gun control in America would be destined to be filed next to Prohibition and the War on Drugs in the annals of man's folly. American liberties, including the Second Amendment and the 40-plus state-level guarantees of the right to bear arms, pre-exist the federal government, and are defined and protected in the same document from which the state derives its authority and its structure. In a free republic, the people cannot be disarmed by the government, for they are its employers, and they did not give up their individual rights when they consented to its creation. There is no clause in our charters of liberty that allows for the people to be deprived of their freedom if and when a few individuals abuse theirs." National Review's Charles C. W. Cooke

Of course it is not possible to enforce laws against illegal immigrants, but the progressives want to have law enforcement take on citizens who have not broken and laws. 11 million illegals who can get away with anything from illegally entering the country to drunk driving and murder, yet the progressives want to impose sanctions against 30 million constitutional and legal gun owners.

On September 10, 2012 John Lott wrote for Fox News:

“So why did the killer pick the Cinemark theater? You might think that it was the one closest to the killer’s apartment. Or, that it was the one with the largest audience.

Yet, neither explanation is right. Instead, out of all the movie theaters within 20 minutes of his apartment showing the new Batman movie that night, it was the only one where guns were banned. In Colorado, individuals with permits can carry concealed handgun in most malls, stores, movie theaters, and restaurants. But private businesses can determine whether permit holders can carry guns on their private property.

Most movie theaters allow permit holders carrying guns. But the Cinemark movie theater was the only one with a sign posted at the theater’s entrance.”

As you can see James Holmes, like most of these killers, pick their targets very carefully. They do not want someone shooting back at them. I doubt a killers like Holmes or Lanza would select a school in the Harrold Independent School District.

But though the proposals that will soon be most seriously considered would most likely not have prevented what happened, men and women of goodwill — and most are — will make the proposals because it lets them feel in control. People want to do something. People, acting corporately, want to legislate and regulate because it is, next to election of leaders, the most powerful act of a democracy.

The efforts, even if they are successful, will not stop this cycle of violence.

Discussions of gun control are easier to have than discussions about mental health. But they too are easier to have than those about the collapse of the American family. History and multiple studies show that the most stable foundation of a society is a two parent nuclear household with multiple children.

God and good exist. The devil and evil do as well — the incarnation of the absolute void left in the absence of God.

Colossians 1:17 states, “[Christ] is before all things, and in him all things hold together.” As our society drifts further and further from Christ, our society holds itself together less and less. The rise of secularism coincides with the decline of family and the rise of societal chaos.

In our society, it is political incorrect to say this. Many who reject this mock Christians. They wonder why God or Jesus was not in that school room protecting those children. Liberal gay-rights activist Dan Savage on Friday was openly ridiculing Christians and mocking God when he tweeted: “God is everywhere. Except your kid's school. God too busy pouting about separation of church & state to save your kid”. Liberal pundits were retweeting him.

They choose not to understand. They have chosen the very society that generates the heinous act we saw on Friday — a society replacing ourselves and our standards with those of God. It is a society St. Paul described quite accurately in Romans 1.

“For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator. Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy.”

On Friday in Connecticut, an evil creature entered a classroom and gunned down children in our ever increasing Romans 1 society.

At this Christmas season we should remember the part of the Christmas story we often do not dwell on. Two thousand years ago, King Herod sent his soldiers to Bethlehem where they slaughtered all the boys age 2 and under. The coming of the Risen Lord was answered by this world with the loss of the innocents.

The world is full of sin. It is easy for the non-Christian to look at what happened and rationalize away that the person was mentally ill, we need gun control, etc. It is harder, especially at this time of year, for those who do believe in God to find comfort in him instead of demanding “why?” But God does not spare us the effects of sin in the world, nor does he spare the little children.

But we know by faith that “Jesus wept.” He weeps now. He welcomes home the little children and calls for us to persevere and, if we will, to turn back toward him and bring our society with us. But our society must be prepared to have larger conversations than whether or not we should regulate guns or bullets.

As a person who had a family member murdered by an alcoholic, abusive, and sociopathic husband with a shotgun I understand the difference between the weapon and the killer.

In the words of Lucius Annaeus Seneca, circa 45 AD, "Quemadmoeum gladuis neminem occidit, occidentis telum est." (A sword is never a killer, it is a tool in the killer's hands.)

Final Thoughts on the DNC Carnival in Charlotte

Final Thoughts on the DNC Carnival in Charlotte

"Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it." — John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776.

The northeastern town of Borja, Mexico garnered global press attention after residents decried the well-meaning restoration efforts of Cecilia Gimenez, described as being in her 80s, who made a horribly botched attempt to restore a flaking oil painting of Christ wearing the crown of thorns. Gimenez’s restoration did not work out very well, the "restored" painting looks like a pale monkey's face surrounded by fur, with misshapen eyes and nose, and a crooked smudge for a mouth. Some media have called it the worst restoration in history.

Just as she attempted to refurbish the cracked and peeling fresco, however, Democrats at their North Carolina convention tried — and failed just as miserably — to improve the image of their own tarnished and faded messiah.

In a video produced for the opening of the convention, Democrats succinctly summed up their entire philosophy: "Government is the only thing we all belong to. We have different churches, different clubs, but we're together as a part of our city, or our county, or our state, and our nation." Everything separates us but government. Indeed, the rest of the convention paid homage to government as the be all and end all, the Alpha and Omega, the solution to every problem. Because, let's face it, as someone once said, "You didn't build that."

The Obama campaign quickly denied having anything to do with the video, but no one doubts it's Obama's vision. And nothing could be further from what our Founding Fathers established — a republic with limited and enumerated powers in which "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" were the rights and values to be cherished, not the bureaucratic labyrinth at the Department of Health and Human Services.

It was also no small irony that the gavel came down on the convention just as our national debt passed $16,000,000,000,000. Democrats have done more than their "fair share" to help us reach that horrendous number.

With all that in mind, we chose a few of the more egregious quotes from the DNC floor — and believe us, the choosing was hard — with concise rebuttals to the various attacks, distortions and outright lies.

On Thursday, Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) made some bold claims about the GOP’s handling of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid — the nation’s largest, most intensely valued — and most controversial — entitlement programs. The congressman said that “Republicans stood on the sidelines” when these programs were created, a notion that PolitiFact found to be false.

“When too many of our senior citizens who were living their golden years in the darkness of economic security, Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt and a Democratic congress created Social Security, lighting a candle, while the Republicans cursed the darkness,” Clyburn said during his DNC speech.

And he wasn’t done there.

“When too many of our elderly found their lives darkened by unaffordable and inaccessible health care, Lyndon Johnson and a Democratic Congress lit the candles of Medicare and Medicaid, while Republicans stood on the sidelines and cursed the darkness,” he then added.

But, here’s what PolitiFact had to say about these claims:

“Although some of the biggest and most vocal opponents of the bills were Republicans, it’s wrong to say that “Republicans stood on the sidelines” when the bills were being considered. On the final vote on Social Security, Republicans overwhelmingly supported the bill. On Medicare and Medicaid, a majority of Republicans voted for the bill in the House, as did a significant minority in the Senate. We rate Clyburn’s claim False.”

This statement came from Clyburn just days after he made the bold — and factually inaccurate claim — that Republicans who happen to be Christians think “there‘s something wrong with feeding people when they’re hungry. I refer to what Frederic Bastiat said 150 years ago (Just substitute progressivism for Socialism):

"Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain."

Vice President Joe Biden took the stage, too, last night, where he made a statement about Romney and Osama bin Laden that wasn’t factually accurate. Rather than placing the comments in their proper context, Biden claimed that Romney once said “it’s not worth moving heaven and earth” to catch the infamous terrorist.

Under a section called “Biden’s bin Laden Baloney,” FactCheck.org wrote:

“The claim, which Republicans disputed, fails to include the rest of Romney’s quote from an Associated Press story. Romney said the country’s focus should not be on one person, but it should be a “broader strategy to defeat the Islamic jihad movement.”

President Barack Obama, too, had some verbal blunders. Among his misleading statements was a claim that his tax plan would merely restore rates to what they were under President Bill Clinton’s administration. This, though, doesn’t take into account the tax increases that the wealthy will face as a result of Obama care; these additional taxes kick in next year. FactCheck.org writes:

“Obama refers to his wish to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire for families with over $250,000 annual income, or for individuals with over $200,000. The top marginal income tax rate would return to 39.6 percent, where it was set by Clinton’s 1993 tax increase, up from 35 percent, where it has been since 2003.

But that’s not the whole story. Obama has signed some ”new” taxes to help finance the Affordable Care Act, increasing the burden on those upper-income taxpayers. Starting Jan. 1 next year, they will pay an additional 0.9 percent of wages for Medicare payroll taxes. And they will also be subject to a 3.8 percent tax on investment income from such things as stocks, bonds and sale of real estate. Those are taxes that didn’t exist when Clinton was president. If Obama succeeds in raising the top income tax rates to Clinton-era levels, total taxes on those making over $250,000 family income are thus likely to be higher than they were under Clinton.”

Obama also repeated the same claim that Clinton was called out for on Wednesday — that the current president has a plan that will cut deficits by $4 trillion. During his speech, Obama said, “Independent analysis shows that my plan would cut our deficits by $4 trillion. Last summer, I worked with Republicans in Congress to cut $1 trillion in spending.”

The Washington Post’s The Fact Checker debunked this claim, once again, writing:

“But, while the numbers seem large, the results are unimpressive. At the end of the 10-year budget window, Obama would have the national debt at a 76.5 percent of gross domestic product. That actually would be an increase over the 74.2 percent of GDP in this year. In contrast, the debt reduction plan envisioned by the Simpson-Bowles commission — cited by the president — would reduce the debt-to-GDP ratio close to 60 percent.

Moreover, independent analysts have criticized the administration for claiming some $800 billion in phantom savings from winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, even though the administration had long made clear those wars would end. (The Bush administration had started the wars on borrowed funds.) Then, the president proposes to spend a good chunk of the nonexistent money on other spending — as he put it in his speech, “rebuilding roads and bridges; schools and runways.”

The $1 trillion in savings negotiated with Republicans, mentioned by the president, actually accounts for the bulk of his proposed reduction in spending. Indeed, much of the president’s debt reduction would come from tax increases on the wealthy, not spending cuts.”

The final lie comes, again, from Biden. During his speech, he contended that “the experts” claim that Romney has a corporate tax plan that would create hundreds of thousands — 800,000 jobs, to be exact — overseas. In reality, only one expert asserted that this is the case and she was careful to say that it depends on the details.

Even if these jobs do grow in other countries, she said it was possible for that to happen without hampering U.S. employment. FactCheck.org explains:

“She notes in her study that “jobs abroad need not displace jobs at home” — that is, provided that the present economy improves, and U.S. unemployment drops to a low level. So depending on the economic circumstances, creating jobs overseas doesn’t necessarily mean losing jobs in the U.S., as Biden’s listeners might have assumed.

Furthermore, a critique of Clausing’s figure by the Tax Foundation (a group supported in part by corporate donations) says that she based it on current corporate tax rates — not on the lower 25 percent rate that Romney proposes. The lower rate, it is argued, would attract foreign investment and lead to importing jobs.”

I could on with more exposé of the lies and half that were uttered at the Dependency National Convention, but I would need 100 pages to tell all.

Now to some other observations on the convention.

A Godless Party Expels the Creator

“The authors of the Democratic platform have inadvertently revealed to the world the sea change that has taken place in that party we once knew. Pat Buchanan writes in Human Events:

“For the first time — and in the longest Democratic platform in history, 26,000 words — there was not a single mention of God, the Creator, whom Thomas Jefferson himself, father of the party, proclaimed to be the author of our right to life and liberty.

The convention had approved the new platform, but when a firestorm erupted, a panicked Barack Obama hastily ordered “God” reinstated.

But when the amendment was offered to the convention by its chairman, Antonio Villaraigosa, the idea of restoring the name of God to the platform was hooted, jeered and booed by half the delegates on the floor, who three times howled, “No!”

The omission of God is being called an oversight. But the viral reaction to returning God, even when Obama asked that it be done, testifies that this was no accident. God was deleted deliberately.

This process has been under way for a decade. In the 2004 platform, there were seven references to God. In 2008, one.

Like the European Union, whose Christian heritage is being excised from official documents by its secularist elite, the country led by the Democratic Party of Obama is being de-Christianized.

Still, why would Democrats do something so seemingly stupid, something that will inevitably cause a backlash among believers?

Answer: Millions of Democrats are themselves offended when God is included, because for them, the God of the Old and New testaments is an impediment to the progressive march of mankind.”

What would you expect from a party dedicated to killing the unborn, at any stage of their gestation and embracing every deviant form of behavior on the planet?

Thought Police Patrol Convention’s Radio Row

Conservative talk-show hosts who came to Charlotte to interview political figures are furious. For the first time in anyone’s memory, Radio Row — the designated set of booths available to visiting talk-show hosts — has seen restrictions placed on its use by Team Obama. DNC staffers at Radio Row will book leading Democrats for slots on conservative stations but then cancel the appearances an hour or so before broadcast “because you’re not our audience.”

John Fund writes in the National Review Online:

“Roger Hedgecock, a former mayor of San Diego now hosting a nationally syndicated talk show, decided to pack up and leave Charlotte early because “we were blocked from getting any guests that mattered. It was a complete freeze.” Larry O’Connor of Breitbart Radio told me, “It was the most bizarre act of censorship. These shows paid large fees and spent thousands on equipment setup and they couldn’t do their programs because of interference.”

“According to sources at Talk Radio News Service, placing a stringer outside the designated TV area to ask high-level Democrats to stop by radio row has also been banned by the DNC,” Ben Shapiro wrote at Breitbart’s Big Journalism:”

“When I approached liberal activist John Podesta about appearing on KRLA’s “Heidi Harris Show” along with me and my co-hosts Heidi Harris (conservative) and Brian Whitman (liberal), his handler quickly intervened. Later, the handler stopped by to clarify: did the show have two liberals and one conservative, or two conservatives and one liberal? When I stated that it had two conservatives and one liberal, he quickly shook his head and sprinted away.”

So much for the transparency, openness, and tolerance to contrary thought of the Obama era. It should be pointed out that Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Sandra Fluke were busy traversing the floor and giving interviews to MSNBC, MediaMatters, and other left-wing organs at the Republican National Convention without being harassed or evicted.

Steelworker Featured at DNC Didn't Work for Bain.

The Democratic National Convention on Wednesday featured three speakers billed as "former employees of companies controlled by Bain Capital."

They each told compelling stories about jobs lost, allegedly because of the actions of Bain under Romney's leadership.

According to Yahoo News one of these workers did not work for Bain, but was a union official:

“But it turns out one of those employees never actually worked for a company controlled by Bain Capital. David Foster was supposedly one of those former employees on the convention schedule. He told the story about 750 steelworkers who lost their jobs when the Bain-controlled company GST steel filed for bankruptcy in the early 1990s.

"In 2001, with GST bankrupt and Romney still CEO of Bain, I stood in front of hundreds of steelworkers in their 50s and 60s, and retirees in their 70s and 80s, and told them Romney and Bain had broken their promises. Jobs, vacation pay, severance, health insurance and pension benefits that were promised - they were all gone," he said. Read his full speech here.

But Foster, according to a former spokesman for GST Steel, never actually worked for the company. "David Foster was never an employee of GST Steel's Kansas City plant. He was employed by the United Steelworkers of America as their regional union director to represent GST Steel, but was not employed at our facility," according to BC Huselton, who was head of HR at GST. Instead, Foster was a union organizer, who negotiated for workers that did work for the company. Foster explained in his remarks that he was an organizer during his dealings with GST Steel.”

Lack of Support, Not Rain, Chased Obama from 74,000-Seat Stadium.

Republican strategist Bradley A. Blakeman, who organized a number of presidential campaign events in his career, tells Newsmax that he simply isn’t buying the Democrats’ argument that the threat of inclement weather chased President Obama’s acceptance speech from a 74,000-seat outdoor stadium to an indoor arena that will accommodate considerably fewer supporters.

Paul Scicchitano writes in NEWSMAX:

“It’s not going to rain. It’s going to be crystal clear,” Blakeman confidently predicted in an interview on Thursday some six hours before President Obama was set to formally accept his party’s nomination for a second term at the slightly more than 20,000-seat Time Warner Cable Arena in Charlotte, which has hosted all of the major DNC speeches.

“Back in 2008 the Obama supporters would have stood in a torrent of rain for the anointed one,” he explained. “The president was messianic. Does that mean that nobody plays football, nobody plays baseball? Why do we have open-air events? If there’s even a hint of rain we don’t play baseball? We don’t play football? We don’t play soccer?”

Blakeman, who oversaw the convention schedule for Presidents George H.W. and George W. Bush during the ‘88, ‘92 and 2000 campaigns, said it is routine to set up a back-up location along with the main venue for campaign events, but that decisions to make weather-related changes are typically made on the day of an event, not several days before as in the case of Obama’s acceptance speech.

The speech was moved earlier this week from the Bank of America Stadium, which is the home to the NFL's Carolina Panthers.

He said he “never, never” would have moved an outdoor event like Obama’s speech on a weather-related “threat as it existed this week.” Such decisions would have typically been made after consulting the Secret Service, media and campaign earlier in the day.

“I would have had a backup venue like they did, and I would have pulled the plug probably this morning,” he said. “But not just drizzle. It would have to be something substantial.”

He believes that the Obama campaign doesn’t want to say publicly that it couldn’t fill the outdoor venue. “He wasn’t going to fill the arena. I’ve been told college students were not taking tickets, that they were trying to give people tickets in bars,” said Blakeman. “Then they demanded that the unions come. . . The unions said ‘we’re not going to come and save the day. We’re not going to come and pour union workers into a place that wasn’t built with union labor.’”

With the smaller venue, thousands of hardcore Obama supporters, who had been given credentials for the outdoor event, were suddenly left with no chance of hearing the president’s acceptance speech, a highlight in every campaign.”

The Anointed One’s Speech

When you are in a tight race with your political opponent, you should not recycle a Jobs Act speech that failed to even persuade Democrats in Congress to pass your signature re-election initiative.

But that’s what Barack Obama did. A day after Bill Clinton brought the house down, Barack Obama took to the stage and reduced, reused, and recycled old states of the union speeches that have failed him for four years.

It was boring. It was unoriginal. And it was filled with promises when he hasn’t kept his past promises. Clint Eastwood’s empty chair could have given a better speech than what Barack Obama offered up. And to think he wanted to give that in a stadium.

This was a safe speech you give when you have a lead. This was not a speech you give in a tight race. Don’t believe me? Here are excerpts from his past States of the Union and Jobs Act speech. Lots of platitude, lots of rhetoric, little in detail, and a lot of worn out lines that have failed him before.

I’m honestly stunned he did this, particularly after Bill Clinton.

Listen to these lines. This speech was unoriginal. He stacked it with straw men and ignored his own two major initiatives from the first term: ObamaCare and the Stimulus.

This was a failure and you know it was because he failed to even bring up his own major initiatives. On ObamaCare, he mentioned parts of it, but never defended it or referenced the “Affordable Care Act.”

Thursday night in his speech to Obama belittled Republican tax cuts. Instead, he proposed more of the same with his tired policies: still more subsidizing “green” energy production, still more special tax treatment for select manufacturing industries, and still more money towards public schools and the teachers’ unions. But rather than letting individual investors determine where they can get the highest return for their money, Obama wants to pick the winners himself by using tax dollars to help them out.

American investors were smart enough not to invest their own money into ethanol, solar, or wind energy. Only government invests in businesses where costs greatly exceed revenue

Despite Republican attempts to cut taxes, the United States still has by far the highest marginal corporate income tax rate in the world. The US also has the most progressive tax structure, with the richest Americans paying a larger share of total tax revenue. The richest 10% of Americans pay 45% of the taxes. The average for the 34 Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries is only 32%.

The top income earners are not the only ones who face penalties from earning more. President Obama has increased the effective penalty even for low- and moderate-income families earning more money. Not only do people lose federal earned income tax credits as well as pay federal and state taxes as their income increases, but they also lose the ever expanding government handouts including housing subsidies, Medicaid, Children’s Health Insurance Program, and food stamps.

The loss of these welfare programs and taxes is so large that when the average person earning between $10,000 and $40,000 makes an additional dollar they lose 82 cents — 53 cents worth of government welfare programs and another 29 cents is lost through reduced tax credits and higher taxes. Who wants to work more when they lose 82 cents of each additional dollar that they earn?

And finally there are the F**k Cardinal Dolan tweets from the tolerant Democrats.

Cardinal Timothy Dolan surprised people on both sides of the aisle last week when he announced that he would be offering the benediction at the Democratic National Convention — an odd occurrence, considering the Catholic Church’s ongoing debate with the Obama administration over the controversial contraceptive mandate.

The Blaze reports:

Following his prayer, detractors went on an anti-Dolan extravaganza — or, as LifeSiteNews puts it, they “tweeted F-bombs” to the Catholic leader. According to the news site, hundreds of angry liberals took to Twitter to deride Dolan. The outlet collected and posted this sampling of tweets. Click here to view some of the vulgar and obscene tweets. (Warning: graphic language)

So with its lineup of Sandra Fluke, Caroline Kennedy, Elizabeth (Pocahontas) Warren, Jennifer Granholm (the Canadian born ex-governor of Michigan), and a host of other misfits the Democratic Convention came to an ignominious end — thank the God the Democrats don’t believe in. Now it’s on to the debates and more spin from the mainstream media.

We Belong To The Government

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” — The Declaration of Independence of the United States of America, July 4, 1776.

Last night the Democratic National Convention started 2012 convention with a short video clip on the big screen at the Charlotte Convention Center proclaiming proudly that “We all Belong to the Government.”

In a statement right out of a communist state, the Democrats started their convention with a bit of propaganda declaring we all belong to the government. Seriously. They started their convention with this video:

“We do believe you can use government in a good way. Government is the only thing we all belong to,” the narrator says, with the words “Democratic National Convention” appearing in the bottom left. “We’re different churches, different clubs, but we’re together as a part of our city, or our county, or our state — and our nation,” the narrator adds. But despite the video playing on the convention floor, the two major players at the convention quickly passed blame.

“The video in question was produced and paid for by the host committee of the city of Charlotte. It’s neither an Obama For America (OFA) nor a DNC video, despite what the Romney campaign is claiming,” the Obama campaign told Buzzfeed. “It’s time for them to find a new target for their faux outrage.”

Dan Murrey, executive director of the host committee, fell on his sword:

“The “Welcome to Charlotte” video was solely produced and paid for by the Host Committee’s New American City Fund, which promotes the city of Charlotte and welcomes our guests. The intent of this video was to tell the story of this region and it is completely unaffiliated with the Obama campaign or the Democratic National Committee.”

This is still unreal. The founders, like Madison, Jefferson, Adams, and Washington, must be rolling over in their grave. The constitution starts with “We the People,” not we the government. The government belongs to us, we do not belong to the government. The government is our servant. We do not serve government. We are Americans. We are not all wards or property of the state, despite Barack Obama’s best efforts.

But even though the campaign and the DNC want to distance themselves, the idea of the preeminence of government is alive and well at the convention, meaning the video fits right in with the message and the disavowing is curious. For example, Fox’s Chris Wallace observed after Michelle Obama’s Tuesday night speech:

“I’ve got to say, listening closely to the speech one of the things that struck me was it was all about government,” Wallace said Tuesday night during Fox News’ coverage of the DNC. “When she talked at the beginning about the people who exemplify the best of the American spirit, she talked about teachers”

He continued:

“When she talked about ways to build the middle class, it was all about the auto bailout and student loans and health care reform, once again, all government programs…That was a subtle subtext to the entire speech.”

I think we can say the Democrats are fully embracing Barack Obama’s claim that “you didn’t build that.” It’s clear from this we did not take Barack Obama out of context. The Democrats really do believe government built it all.”

I think we can say the Democrats are fully embracing Barack Obama’s claim that “you didn’t build that.” It’s clear from this we did not take Barack Obama out of context. The Democrats really do believe government built it all.

This is what the Soviets did in their propaganda. They portrayed the people in service to the state. The collective overrode the individuals. The Democrats are finally embracing their inner Marxists. Consistent with this, they’ve ditched God from their platform. This is the paragraph that was in the 2008 platform:

"We need a government that stands up for the hopes, values, and interests of working people, and gives everyone willing to work hard the chance to make the most of their God-given-potential."

Now the words "God-given" have been removed. Religion is, after all, the opiate of the people and is unnecessary when we are all collectively creatures of the state.

By the way, you’ve now heard the Democrats’ audio that “we all belong to the government.” I’ll see you that and raise you Clint Eastwood. Listen to what he had to say on this topic and tell me who is more in touch with America?

American history can be divided into three phases: the American Founding, the crisis of slavery and the Civil War, and Progressivism.

The meaning of the American Founding can best be understood by considering two primary source documents: the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Looking to the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” as the source of their arguments, the Founders established a constitutional system of limited government, marked by the separation of powers, and based on the consent of the governed through a system of representation. We are now in the throes of the progressivism of the masterminds who would rule us with their vision of a state run utopia where government, not natures God doles out our rights. No matter what the talking heads and spin doctors of the Democrat party will tell you this is what the Democrats really believe.

The idea of a “living constitution” takes concrete political shape in the form of a bureaucratic administrative state. As a result, modern American government to a large degree consists of thousands of unelected masterminds, bureaucrats and numerous unaccountable regulatory agencies. By their very nature, they undermine the Founding principles of limited government, representation, and the separation of powers. Unless the American people—the sovereign rulers of the United States of America—halt the growth of bureaucratic despotism, we risk losing the last vestiges of constitutional government. And the Democrat spin doctors call this a “distraction” from their real issue of providing government sponsored social justice.

Both the pro-slavery proponents in the Civil War and the tenets of Progressivism challenge and offer a critique of the American Founding. They both assume that the principles of the Declaration—natural rights, equality, consent of the governed—are historically and scientifically false. The forward march of science and an ever-improving human nature—progress—have disproved them, which in turn requires that the government instituted by the Founders be discarded and replaced.

For over one hundred years, Progressives have systematically derided the principles of the American Founding as outdated and inapplicable to the complexities of contemporary politics. According to Woodrow Wilson, the Founders’ Constitution is mechanistic and Newtonian, rather than evolutionary and Darwinian. Wilson sought to substitute the notion of a “living constitution” for the Founders’ Constitution. The Newtonian axioms got us to the moon and beyond while the evolutionary theories of Darwin produced Auschwitz.

The idea of a “living constitution” takes concrete political shape in the form of a bureaucratic administrative state. As a result, modern American government to a large degree consists of thousands of unelected masterminds, bureaucrats and numerous unaccountable regulatory agencies. By their very nature, they undermine the Founding principles of limited government, representation, and the separation of powers. Unless the American people—the sovereign rulers of the United States of America—halt the growth of bureaucratic despotism, we risk losing the last vestiges of constitutional government.

Progressive political science was based on the assumption that society could be organized in such a way that social ills would disappear. Frank Goodnow, president of Johns Hopkins University and the first president of the American Political Science Association, helped pioneer the idea that separating politics from administration was the key to progress. In his speech, given at Brown University in 1916, he addresses the need to move beyond the ideas of the Founders when he stated:

“In a word, man is regarded now throughout Europe, contrary to the view expressed by Rousseau, as primarily a member of society and secondarily as an individual. The rights which he possesses are, it is believed, conferred upon him, not by his Creator, but rather by the society to which he belongs. What they are is to be determined by the legislative authority in view of the needs of that society. Social expediency, rather than natural right, is thus to determine the sphere of individual freedom of action.

…..

“As our conditions have changed, as the importance of the social group has been realized, as it has been perceived that social efficiency must be secured if we are to attain and retain our place in the field of national competition which is practically coterminous with the world, the attitude of our courts on the one hand towards private rights and on the other hand towards social duties has gradually been changing. The general theory remains the same. Man is still said to be possessed of inherent natural rights of which he may not be deprived without his consent. The courts still now and then hold unconstitutional acts of legislature which appear to encroach upon those rights. At the same time the sphere of governmental action is continually widening and the actual content of individual private rights is being increasingly narrowed

We no longer believe as we once believed that a good social organization can be secured merely through stressing our rights. The emphasis is being laid more and more on social duties. The efficiency of the social group is taking on in our eyes a greater importance that it once had. We are not, it is true, taking the view that the individual man lives for the state of which he is a member and that state efficiency is in some mysterious way an admirable end in and of itself.”

A few more observations on last night’s Roman Carnival called the Democratic National Convention, or as I like to call it — The Vagina Monologues.

Last week the Democrats trotted out their outrage specialists to lament on televisions everywhere that Mitt Romney did not talk about any of the wars.

Yesterday, the Democratic National Convention started in Charlotte and the Democrats are doing their best to not mention one word: sixteen, i.e. the $16 trillion in national debt the nation faces as of close of business this past Friday. If you have a problem getting your head around the number 16 trillion here are a few breakdowns that may help you:

• $16 trillion translates to $135,000 for every family in the United States
• With 16 trillion you could buy the New York Yankees 8,600 times
• With $16 trillion you could buy Apple 25 times
• $16 trillion is greater than the combined GDP of all of Europe

In fact, the Democrats spent Monday night attacking the GOP for a so called war on women while remembering Ted Kennedy. Mary Jo Kopechne was unavailable for comment.

The entire night seem focused on “reproductive rights” which is just a politically correct euphemism for abortion which is itself a politically correct euphemism for killing kids.

So no talk about debt or entitlements or jobs, but abortion was a fixation. It’s just as galling that the media spent several weeks painting the GOP as out of touch on abortion when, in fact, the Democrats’ abortion on demand position is even more out of touch with both American men and American women.

The most striking thing about the whole convention so far is that, for a President campaigning on the motto “Forward” we saw Kennedys, a celebration of Ted Kennedy, Jimmy Carter, and a whole lot of the past.

As an aside, there is a whole lot of Republican outrage that the Democrats used now deceased Ted Kennedy to attack Mitt Romney from beyond the grave. In their tribute, they used bits of Kenney’s campaign against Mitt Romney for the Massachusetts Senate in 1994.

I’m not upset they used Ted Kennedy to attack Mitt Romney from beyond the grave. I’m upset they accused Mitt Romney of killing a woman and used a man who really did kill a woman to attack Mitt Romney.

I will have a difficult time watching tonight’s coverage of the DNC Convention as the New York Giants will be playing the Dallas Cowboys at Met Life Stadium at the same time — what a shame. The NFL should be more considerate of the DNC as this is night Bill Clinton will speak. So the question is Eli Manning or Bill Clinton. I think I will go with Eli and read Clinton’s speech without the fanatical applause. It is also a shame I will miss the brilliance of the oration of Sandra Fluke who wants the government to pay for transgender operations.

The Genesis Code

“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.” — Genesis, Chapter 1, Verses 1-3.

Last night my wife and I watched the Genesis Code on our cable pay-for-view. I had heard about this Christian themed film (both positive and negative) and I wanted to see for myself what the film was about.

The Story:

Kerry Wells (Kelsey Sanders), a college journalist and committed Christian with an effervescent personality, has been assigned to do a story on Blake Truman (Logan Bartholomew) the college’s newest and very popular hockey superstar. As a relationship between them begins to develop Kerry finds that Blake, who hides behind a tough and independent façade, is actually struggling through a difficult personal crisis and that he bears the cross of a secret he has kept hidden for years. Blake rebuffs Kerry's suggestion that prayer might help ease his burden; he is convinced that modern science completely disproves the Bible, especially the opening verses of Genesis. Kerry — who is herself suddenly confronted with a challenge to her faith on another front — sets out to prove that science and Genesis are not in conflict and her quest leads to a startling revelation. Could it be that what science teaches us about creation and the story as told in Genesis are both true! The Genesis Code takes on three current social and cultural issues: Evolution vs. creation, End-of-life decisions and perceived discrimination against Christians on the college campus.

Before writing this blog I read two on-line reviews and found critical opinions of the film from a pseudo-scientist (a dentist) and an Evangelical Christian Minister. Both reviews blasted the film, but for different reasons.

The Dentist, a graduate from the University of Michigan, review is critical based on his interpretation of Cosmology and physics. In his review he states:

“The real purpose of the movie, however, is to serve as a vehicle to promote the idea that science and the Bible can be reconciled, with particular emphasis on the creation account of Genesis. Of course, operational science (measurable, testable, and observable science) is a “friend” of the Bible, and when properly understood, we can use science to support the historicity of Genesis (see Creation: Science Confirms the Bible Is True). Unfortunately, this movie immediately gets off on the wrong foot by unquestioningly embracing, as indisputable scientific fact, the speculative claims of scientists regarding the age of the universe—that the universe is about 15 billion years old. The movie then tries to startle viewers with the revelation that there is a special “code” hidden in the Book of Genesis that roughly agrees with a long age of the universe.

The film has much discussion about the physics of time dilation: how the perceived passage of time is dependent upon the perspective of the observer, and how the passage of time can be affected by mass, acceleration, and the stretching of the fabric of space. Some of this is operational science, and can be experimentally verified, and it actually may well help biblical creationists explain how we can see light from distant stars in a young universe. But by taking extensive liberties with the interpretation of certain Hebrew words in the Bible, along with the use of time dilation and God’s perspective from heaven, the movie seeks to impose a billions-of-years, progressive-creation timeline into the Genesis account. The movie claims that this is a better explanation of what is observed in the rock layers and the fossil record as opposed to molecules-to-man evolution.”

The second review I read was from a Christian minister who was also critical for its loose interpretation of the Bible. He writes:

“The Genesis Code is a full-featured film that pits the biblical six-day creation against the big bang theory of origins. In this contest, the viewer will notice that The Genesis Code never contemplates that the Bible should govern science; rather its presupposition is reversed. It is ‘science’ that is established as a seemingly inerrant source of ultimate truth.

However, science (and there are multiple definitions of what science, and even the ‘scientific method’, actually is anyway) can never be a standard of absolute truth. The sort of science with which most of us are familiar involves watching things happen (observation), and using repeatable experiments. Call it operational, or observational science if you like. But, when we try to understand events of the past, we are asking an historical question, which means that ultimately we have to use historical, not scientific, categories (see ‘It’s not science!’ and Naturalism, Origins and Operational Science). This doesn’t mean science can’t contribute to historical questions, but only that science can never provide us with the final answer. And the science involved in such things is a different sort of science—we can call it historical, forensic or even ‘origins science’.

That sort of science, which is what cosmology (the discipline that proposes ideas such as the ‘big bang’) is categorically placed in, involves a great deal of speculation, because it attempts to determine events of the past based upon fragments we have in the present. Events from the past cannot be directly observed or experimented on, tested, or repeated in the same way as observational science can.”

In fact, one expert has recently gone even further by claiming that cosmology is not even science, period! A recent article in the prestigious journal Science stated:

“‘Cosmology may look like a science, but it isn’t a science,’ says James Gunn of Princeton University, co-founder of the Sloan survey. ‘A basic tenet of science is that you can do repeatable experiments, and you can’t do that in cosmology.’”

This film attempts to win over unbelievers through argumentation in the name of ‘science’, or rather, commonly understood scientific principles. But it really uses origins science instead; this misleads viewers into thinking that a historical science like cosmology can determine such things.

The story is driven by a growing relationship between college hockey star, Blake Truman, who is an unbeliever, and a college news reporter, Kerry Wells, who is a professing Christian who interviews him.”

I can only guess at the agenda of the dentist who used his knowledge of science to dispute the Bible, but the minister is using his knowledge of the Bible to dispute the film.

What both reviewers are missing is the point that this is a fictional movie not a documentary you would see on the History, Science, National Geographic, or the Investigative Discovery channels. If it were not many people would pay money to see it.

Movies are meant to entertain by telling stories and this movie tells a compelling story. I am not a Biblical scholar or a Cosmologist or Astrophysicist so I cannot critique the theology or science portrayed in the film. However, I have read the Bible and watched numerous documentaries on the origins of the universe and believe there are multitudes of interpretations of both. It was Albert Einstein who said; “God does not place dice with the universe.” Science is continuing to evolve as man gains more knowledge and understanding of the world we live in. The Bible, while being believed to be absolute truth has been debated by theologians for centuries.

The average person of faith (such as me) believes in both. As a person with a technical education I have seen scientific evolve from theory to fact over the years. When in high school many years ago our physics books stated that the atom was the smallest particle known to man. Of course the book was written before the Atomic Bomb was exploded.

Likewise our understanding of the Bible has increased over the years. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and other ancient texts have allowed Biblical scholars to gain a better understanding of the Aramaic language — the language it was originally written in.

Beside the contrast between science and the Bible the film touched on an issue that I do understand — he conflict between those of faith and the secular non-believers who dominate academia today. There is a scene in the film where Kerry meets with her academic advisor to discuss her potential for going on to pursue a doctorate paleontology — a subject near and dear o Kerry. The female advisor tells Kerry that she needs two letters of recommendation and that her “dogmatic” Christian beliefs should be tempered if she wants to go on. The advisor goes into a diatribe telling Kerry that is she wants to become a part of the elite intelligentsia and a member of the masterminds who will mold the “new world order” she needs to abandon the absolute morality of her Christian beliefs. The advisor believes we live in a world of changing morality based on relativism. To me this was one of the more important scenes in the film — something the reviewers did not touch on.

Jeffery Osontisch writes a very good piece on the Paradox of Secular Scientism in American Thinker. He writes:

“It has become an accepted tenet of conventional wisdom to begin all discussions about science and nature with the understanding that religion has no place in such debates and that, in fact, faith is diametrically opposed to reason and scientific thought. To this end the concept of classical education, including any mention of God has been thoroughly removed from all Western public schools and replaced with a rather drab and mundane scientism.

This, however, need not be and was not always the case; in fact, Christian scholars had been on the cutting edge of scientific thought since the Middle Ages and the application of human reason to theological and later scientific questions has been a hallmark of Christianity since its very beginning - a fact which is evident to anyone who has read the work of Augustine and Aquinas, among others. How, then, did this notion of religion as the enemy of science first take root? And what are the dangers it poses to man and society?

The rise of radical secularism in philosophy and government first emerged as a formidable force in eighteenth century France and was characterized by an antipathy to objective moral standards and a belief in the perfectibility of man which spawned the humanist search for an egalitarian utopia and led to the horrors of the French Revolution. When this political philosophy was apparently validated by science, it proved to be a witches' brew which led directly to the bloodiest century in human history, the twentieth.

Its manifestation in science came about a century later with the publication, in 1859, of Charles Darwin's Origin of Species. In this landmark book the British naturalist was the first to present a cogent evidentiary argument in favor of the theory he labeled natural selection - the theory that all life on earth evolved naturally - and quite by accident - from a single common ancestor over millions of years. This work and the strong feelings it inspired in its supporters and opponents alike marked the fork in the road which permanently split science from religion.

In his much vilified, yet misunderstood Papal address at the University of Regensburg on September 12, 2006 Pope Benedict XVI lamented this gradual severing, by Western academics, of faith from reason - a process he believes has done great harm to both theology and science. He also compared the secular left's adherence to relativism to Islam's concept of the nature of God as not bound by reason, contrasting these concepts with the Christian tradition (inherited, in part, from the Greeks) of a rational God in whose image rational man was made. Christian doctrine teaches that God in creating the physical universe bound it to immutable laws and thus there is a divine order to it that may be theorized upon, observed, and explained by man. To Christians proof of God's adherence to His laws may be deduced from His incarnation in the person of Jesus Christ for the purpose of the redemption of man before God. Were He so inclined and not bound by His own nature, God may have simply forgiven man for his rebellion without ‘putting on' human form to suffer and die on the cross. That He chose the latter is clear proof to Christians of the existence of a Divine order to the universe.”

With the recent shootings in Aurora, Colorado we are hearing a great deal about evil and why psychopaths like James Holmes do what they do. It is this age of relativism we live in today that lies at the root of these actions.

It was Ayn Rand in her book Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, who said:

“The spread of evil is the symptom of a vacuum. whenever evil wins, it is only by default: by the moral failure of those who evade the fact that there can be no compromise on basic principles.”

As Mr. Osontisch states:

“Clearly faith in God need not and should not be a disqualifier when discussing scientific questions. A proper foundation in the moral as well as the physical laws of God's glorious creation should be a requirement of a well-rounded educational curriculum. And the moral restraints placed upon science by faith need not be a hindrance to discovery and progress, but merely a rudder to help point progress in the proper direction. And if this means that certain core beliefs of the secular scientific community need to be re-evaluated this does not mean mankind is regressing to a past mired in superstition and unreason. To paraphrase C.S. Lewis, if we have made a wrong turn somewhere along the line we will be no nearer our destination by stubbornly continuing on; it is truly progressive at such times to double back to where you veered off track and find the proper path.”

The conflict between those who only believe in science and the fundamental creationists will not be tempered by one film but is is a start. Hollywood is loath to produce films of this nature as they believe they will not be box office hits. My hat’s off to the producers, directors, actors, and writers for taking the risk to give us the Genesis Code. I suggest you view the film yourself and make your own decision on the value of the film.