Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty

Democrats Snub God, Reconsider

September 6, 2012 by  

Democrats Snub God, Reconsider
The Democratics' platform does not mention God.

Barack Obama’s name is found more than 200 times in the Democrats’ 40-page platform. Mitt Romney even makes an appearance. But one name was missing in the original platform presented to delegates: God.

In 2008, the platform read:

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.

This year, the platform excluded the reference to God.

Also omitted were references to Jerusalem.

In 2008, the document read: “Jerusalem is and will remain the capital of Israel. The parties have agreed that Jerusalem is a matter for final status negotiations. It should remain an undivided city accessible to people of all faiths.”

Senator Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) refused to address the issue in an interview on Fox News, saying: “God is not a franchise of the Republican Party.”

According to CNN, a Democratic official suggested that the omission of God is “about the growing middle class.”

In response to criticism, delegates voted on Wednesday on an altered version of the platform. CNN reported:

In an unscripted moment, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa asks crowd to affirm the suspension/adoption of the party’s platform–it took three voice votes to affirm. Though the final voice vote was taken as approval for adoption of the altered party language, it was unclear if a majority of delegates were in agreement

In 2004, the Democrats’ platform mentioned God seven times.

Republicans mentioned God 10 times in their official 2012 document.

Bryan Nash

Staff writer Bryan Nash has devoted much of his life to searching for the truth behind the lies that the masses never question. He is currently pursuing a Master's of Divinity and is the author of The Messiah's Misfits, Things Unseen and The Backpack Guide to Surviving the University. He has also been a regular contributor to the magazine Biblical Insights.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Democrats Snub God, Reconsider”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at

  • cawmun cents

    J’accuse Dick?
    Why would he immediately accuse Mr Baier of inappropriate behavior?
    Was there some kind of condescension in the line of questioning?
    One thing you have to learn about people who feel as if you are accusing them,is that very often in order to change the focus of the question,they will turn and point the finger of accusation back at you.
    This is a clear example of modern political conditioning.
    Change the focus from what you are asking about me,to what I assert about you.
    In no way does it ever serve to answer the question.It only serves to change the topic,and boldly accuse,making for confusion in the discussion.It is an obviously fallacial tactic.
    The progressive is in their own environment when they do this.It is where they thrive…in a world of confusion.

    “When you cannot defeat a foe by bludgeon,blade,or logical response,you bury them under a heaping pile of male bovine fecal matter.”-CC.

    It is a well known and even more often used technique in the progressive liberal democrat’s weak arsenal of fallacies.

    Bushbomb,race card,finger pointing……I have said this before.
    Dick lives up to his name in public in front of the populace.And does a bang up job of it I might add.
    A toast!
    To Durbin’s poisoning of the well.To arrogance.To hypocrisy.
    To progressive liberals everywhere….especially those who think gubment is the answer to all of lifes questions.Except those they find telling about their character,when it comes to looking bad in front of millions.Then out comes the finger of blame.
    A bushbomb couldnt work at that point.Nor could throwing the racecard.
    But accusation…thats a smoothe operator right there….or so he thought.
    Dick…you just showed the world the character of you and your congressional associates…and you probably didnt even notice the stain of contempt it left on your lapel.

    • carrobin

      The more a candidate talks about God, the less inclined I am to vote for him. (And I’m a 68-year-old woman who grew up Southern Baptist–which means I know hypocrites when I see them.)

      • Jay

        I agree, carrobin! It’s best that politician not take God’s name in vain. For once they are not being hypocrites. This is a good thing!



    • Robert Smith

      “This year, the platform excluded the reference to God.”

      Political parties have no business implying that they will bring their god to government. What part of “Will establisn no state religion” doesn’t the extreme right get?


      • Patriot1776

        Bad news, God was already there. It is our willingness to acknowledge Him that we bring to the table.

      • Ted Crawford

        Most of our Founders clearly disagree Robert, as they do with almost everything you post!
        ” We’ve staked the WHOLE FUTURE (emphasis added) of American civilization not on the power of Government, far from it! We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity….to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God” James Madison
        “We have no Government armed in power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion! Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is inadaquate for the government of any other” John Adams
        Before anyone goes off on a “your a radical Christian” rant, you need to know that I am a Diest and therefore hold NO belief in the Judeao Christian God! What I am not is an Historical Revisionist! Those who deny the Christian intent of our Founders are either disingenuous or ignorant!

      • GALT

        You mean Deist? as in some some acknowledgement of a cause with no
        further involvement?

        You do know that the Ten Commandments have nothing to do with Christianity?
        Nor does the Bible……..? ( except as a prequel )

        Or that the understanding of people in 1776 and later as to the scope and nature
        of the planet and the universe, was both limited and primitive?

        That when you use the term christian……as it applies both then and NOW……
        it is essentially meaningless…….

      • Ted Crawford

        Yes we know Galt ! Up was not truly up back then nor was down, down! The Earth didn’t revolve around the Sun! One didn’t get into economic trouble by spending too much and they couldn’t get out of debt by spending less! The Sun didn’t rise in the East, nor did it set in the West!
        Everything is “Relative” , inother words, it means what ever the he!! you say it does! I’ve seen the Progressive Platform!

      • GALT

        Good for you….I haven’t seen it, nor am I interested…….us P.L.F.s are like that…..

        as for the earth revolving around the sun, that only started in circa 1619 w. Kepler,
        and Newton who shows up in 1687……..who begins to penetrate the REALITY…..of what IS……….

        Still, since you failed to actually respond……..( yes I know at PLD ” labeling” is considered superior choice since the ability to reason logically from facts is not available to those
        whose willful ignorance must be maintained )

        I am somewhat curious as to what value reverence for historical ignorance serves…..

        christian nation……….more like alcoholic nation……..tavern attendance far exceeded
        church attendance……….and on a daily basis……….you might want to visit one soon, Ted

        Get in touch with the “real american’s”…………know any good Deist prayer’s……helps
        with the selection of football squares……… least that’s the rumor.

      • FreedomFighter

        Four freedoms: The first is freedom of speech and expression – everywhere in the world. The second is freedom of everyone to worship God in his own way, everywhere in the world. The third is freedom from want . . . everywhere in the world. The fourth is freedom from fear . . . anywhere in the world.–Franklin D. Roosevelt U.S. President

        Laus Deo
        Semper Fi

      • Ed Weber

        Actually,,,the Constitution forbids the establishment of a Federal religion. It does not mention anything about a State religion.

      • GALT

        14th ammendment took care of that.

      • William Eckhardt

        What religion does the word God refer too?. There are many that use the word God. Ever look at your money, it says In God We Trust.

    • Kinetic1

      If, as you say you are a Deist, then you are likely aware that many of our founding fathers held like beliefs. They believed in a creator, a God, but not necessarily in the same way as the Christians of their time, even though they were likely raised in a Christian faith. As a result, we do not see any references to God in the Constitution. Yes, most of our early leaders were members of a Christian church, as was the custom of the day, though whether they were devoted to the religion of the church is another matter. Having been raised Christian and as members of a mostly Christian community it is too be expected that they would frame our society around the moral beliefs shared by the majority, yet they purposely excluded the “God” (the name, not the broader idea) from the single most important document in our nation’s history.

      Why would the founders leave the name “God” out of our founding document? It was necessary to do so since, as is often the case differing beliefs between the various Christian religions were creating rifts throughout the colonies. State leaders were choosing State religions and excluding those members of their community who were not members. Were the Federal Government to officially adopt the beliefs of one or even a group of Christian churches over others the stability of our new nation would be at risk, so they opted to do the only reasonable thing, exclude all. Now the Democratic party has chosen to do the same in their platform, and the right wants to make a big deal about it.

      • Sirian

        Perhaps you should go to this website and do a bit of reading. May I suggest you learn as much as you can about the “Black Robe Regiment”. Whether you agree or not it would give you a more historically factual information source pertaining to the Christian faith in relation to our nations founding.

      • Vigilant

        Kinetic1 says, ““Why would the founders leave the name “God” out of our founding document? It was necessary to do so since, as is often the case differing beliefs between the various Christian religions were creating rifts throughout the colonies.”

        I don’t know where you got that assumption from, but it’s most likely pure speculation. Mention of the Deity would have had no effect one way or the other on the squabbles going on in the states, for two reasons: (1) they were all Christian denominations to begin with (and would have had no problem with the mention of God), and (2) the Ninth and Tenth Amendments underscored the severely limited role of government in citizens’ lives anyway.

        You imply that the Founders would have been willing to depart from their strict separation doctrine in all other areas of individual life except religion, but did not do so simply to prevent a row. That is patently false, and the First Amendment is ample testimony to it. The injunction against the Federal government’s establishment of a religion was but one of several sacrosanct areas within which the Feds were prevented from meddling.

        The Constitution is not a religious tract but a blueprint for government. The Natural Law right to liberty had already been divulged in the Declaration, and the truth that it was the Creator who endowed this right needed no amplification in the Constitution.

        To those who are historically literate, Jefferson’s statement regarding Natural Rights are the very foundation of the Constitution. As Lincoln said, the Constitution was created to adorn the “apple of gold” (Declaration), it was not the centerpiece.

      • Vigilant

        Kinetic1 also said, “Having been raised Christian and as members of a mostly Christian community it is to be expected that they would frame our society around the moral beliefs shared by the majority, yet they purposely excluded the “God” (the name, not the broader idea) from the single most important document in our nation’s history.”

        It can be argued that, in the absence of Jefferson’s statement of Creator-endowed rights, the Constitution is meaningless and has no moral authority. Abraham, Lincoln, in so many words, argued thus.

        The Christian upbringing did indeed influence the Founders, as did the Enlightenment (and popularly Deist) movement of the day. But to say that we just got lucky that the Founders had rubbed elbows with Christian morality for their whole lives underestimates the profound influence it had on them.

        Deism was around in many forms, and they didn’t all agree. Jefferson, however, was a Deist whose understanding of Christian morality was such that he revered Christ as a supremely good being. Jefferson was so impressed by Christ’s teachings that he excised all NT references to the miracles and “revealed,” supernatural aspect of the Gospels, and published the “Jefferson Bible.”

        Thus, the VALUES of Christianity, not necessarily the supernatural aspect of it, and not simply because they were “the moral beliefs shared by the majority,” became the basis upon which we were founded.

        This integral relationship between Christian values and the “worthiness” of the people to keep their new Republic was again and again touted by the Founders, and that’s undeniable. The state of affairs today, as we have turned out backs upon the VALUES that made us great, is evident.

      • Jay

        Vigilant, outstanding!

      • GALT

        I wonder how “manifest destiny” or the ‘enslavement or extermination of inferior races’ fits with the “values” that made us GREAT………..or “all men are created equal”…………?

        Actions speak louder than words…….only the IGNORANT keep falling for the words!!!!!

        My only regret as a P.L.F. is that the CREATOR you profess to believe in, is ONLY a FANTASY………simple death and oblivion is far too lenient.

      • Jay

        We should all be respectful of each other’s fantasies, Galt. Don’t you agree?

      • GALT

        No……but I will respect your unalienable right to fantasize……..provided you do no harm
        in it’s attempted realization………DEAL?

      • Kinetic1

        Agreed, it is the values, not the doctrine that is lacking in so many today. And yes, I agree that the name “God” would not have raised tempers in the colonies, but even the fact that they were all Christians does not negate the fact that they had deeply dividing differences, just as we see among the Christian faiths today.

        In todays America, things aren’t so clear cut. Yes, the majority of Americans are Christians of one kind or another, but the number of people who belong to another religion, or none at all has grown to the point that referencing “God” in a political platform may be a cause of division. The fact that the Democratic Party did not choose to include God in the platform certainly does not exclude God’s teachings from the decision making of it’s members.

        “The Constitution is not a religious tract but a blueprint for government. The Natural Law right to liberty had already been divulged in the Declaration, and the truth that it was the Creator who endowed this right needed no amplification in the Constitution.”
        And here again we agree. The “rights” under natural law, concepts that were accepted long before Christianity’s roots are without question. This big brouhaha about the Democratic platform is nothing more than the Republicans, once again implying their religious superiority, and the Democrats fear that voters will believe it unless they God up.

      • Vigilant

        GALT says that God is a myth,
        But can’t tell the difference, to wit:
        ‘Twixt the real and ideal,
        Check with Plato, you heel
        It’s his points that you’ll not admit.

        GALT says it’s just matter and stuff,
        That God’s just ridiculous fluff;
        That entropy rules
        And no need for the fools
        To counter with “that’s not enough.”

        His pedestrian outlook’s so blind
        That the answer he seeks he won’t find;
        That the scientist now
        Can only ask “how?”
        But the “why” will not enter his mind.

        A limited scope of the brain
        Is GALT’s curse and recurring refrain,
        So he builds a great wall
        With no forethought at all
        In this prison his mind will remain.

  • swampfox

    of course the heathens snub god,they are democrats after all.
    they seem to keep conveniently forgetting this is still a.Christian nation.
    they are only pissing off all the Christians in this whole nation who will swamp the polls come November and boot this socialist out,yeah keep it up morons!!!!!!!



      SIR – IT IS National Football League TIME!


      • http://none Charlie

        Horton,,,honk on ,,,but let us give you ,et al some sense from the Book that is being played out RIGHT NOW ,,,by King Jesus regarding the one page book of Obadiah…
        First off let us turn you question around just a little “when the old folks die off are you going to be the people King Jesus referred to at Matthew 7:22–24???
        Now, the so called Democrats and some others have rejected King Jesus, so , King Jesus will reject them as called out at Matthew 21:41–46…
        What does this have to do with Obadiah ? the people that are going to be destroyed at Obadiah 1:18 are , primarily the people located in the state of Israel,,,they are the lineage of Esau Edom,,, they ARE NOT Jews,,,because,,,King Jesus said that at Revelations 2:9
        and at Revelations 3:9,,, when King Jesus writes some thing twice one chapter after the
        other ,you can be assured it’s “”True””…
        What We have been telling people for years now is that according to The Bible AND World conflicts , in Our opinion Obadiah is only months away ,but, NO one knows the exact day or hour , BUT, many know the season … And, when Obadiah happens it will
        effect the whole world… At that time , the other Ob’ dude won’t be able to wipe his A O…
        So, heathen Horton , honk on and watch and see IF The Bible is correct or If Charlie is goofy…………….Meantime……….
        Praise King Jesus for Salvation and Healing… Acts 2:38 is salvation………






        “Charlie,” WHY ARE YOU SO OBSESSED WITH, “Acts – 2:38?”

      • http://none Charlie

        Horton,,, Can anyone build a house without a foundation ??? why??? The Law of Gravity demands the house be resting on something … That something IS the foundation…
        Science , what is it ? Who created it?…. Can you answer these question with logical ,understandable answers ?…
        Now, how does the above tie in with The Bible? Well “Acts 2:38″ is the foundation for anyone that wants the Favor of King Jesus Christ ,,,without Acts 2:38 one CANNOT become a “Spirit” filled Christian,,,Why? because , King Jesus and His Key Man , Peter , said it at Acts 2:38,,,but,
        you say Paul also said it , but, Paul does not have the “Rank” with King Jesus that Peter has,
        because Paul was not given the Keys to The Kingdom as Peter was at Matthew 16:19, so ?…
        Acts 2:38 IS, the only single one verse Scripture , that gives Salvation and The Gift of The Holy Spirit, all in just one verse, IN THE ENTIRE BIBLE…
        Now is Acts 2:38 a “Special” verse? YEP! , it’s simple , it’s short , it’s sets your foundation in The Solid Rock of King Jesus Christ … Does it get any better ? NOPE! , then why not go with the best???… Meanwhile,,,,,,,,,
        Praise King Jesus for Salvation and Healing … Acts 2:38 is salvation …




    • GALT

      Yo, Francis……how is it that YOU remember something that never was…..

      “their CREATOR”………equals christian?
      “establishment of religion”……….equals christian?
      “NO RELIGIOUS TEST…………….equals christian?

      A vote for Willard… a vote for Joseph Smith and Co. who were guided to their present
      H.Q. in Utah by a “christian nation”……?

      Staph writer for PLD pens another inciteful post in order to promote another exciting day
      of intelligent discourse…………

      Can you say TULIP? ( limited time offer…….before they shut it down )

      “To conquer, first DIVIDE!” ( and then HANG, separately )

      SPECIAL OFFER: Are YOU prepared to meet your MAKER and face FINAL JUDGEMENT?
      Why take chances…….the Wayward Christian Defense Fund* is here to help if you have
      strayed from the path……and We will be there for You on that fateful day with the best defense 30 pieces of silver can buy ( if it was good enough for Jesus, it’s good enough
      for us ) to insure that your FINAL REWARD is not that of your fellow HYPOCRITES. WE feel the love, so you don’t have to. ( offer not available to Joel Olsteen and/or other televangelists………and camels………special rates are AVAILABLE and can be negotiated
      upon request ) * W.C.D.F. is licensed to practice and a member of the bar in good standing in the court of the God of Abraham. ( all divisions, sects and variants are covered.)

      • Ted Crawford

        This is nothing but a revised form of the same idiotic nonsense spouted by Atheists, and other nincompoops in 1960! Remember,” If we elect Kennedy the Pope will rule the Country”
        The Congress, the People, and the Constitution are in place to prevent that! Thankfully, or Obama would have us even further under the gun!

      • cawmun cents

        The Constitution doesnt say that a party cant establish a religion.
        It says that congress shall establish no religion.
        You use incorrect motive,and fallacy to establish your ideals,then turn and accuse others of inapproriate behavior.
        What does that say about you?
        It says that by no means can anyone trust what you assert.
        So go ahead and shout from your soapbox.
        But remember that those of us who know what the document says,dont need you to remind us of something it doesnt say.

      • GALT

        For the Functionally Illiterate………seriously, can any of you people comprehend what you read? The proper label is P.L.F.! and “atheist” is way too weak a description…….

        P.S. The Law of Nature is and has been smacking you upside the head for some time now…………the “self evident one”….not your foolish, arrogant, interpretive fantasy.

        and if you pray hard enough your CREATOR will answer you in the same manner with which all prayer’s are answered…….NO!

      • Kinetic1

        cawmun cents,
        No, law does not prohibit the party from establishing a religious base, but why should they? Why imply that, despite the absence of a Federally sponsored religion members of the party will adhere to Christian doctrine?

    • Robert Smith

      “this is still a.Christian nation.”

      NO IT IS NOT.

      It is a nation with a lot of christians, but again, what part of NO STATE RELIGION don’t you get?

      For folks who claim to understand the Constitution you sure do want to violate it.


      • Patriot1776

        Crediting God and building a platform with Him as the foundation does not establish a state religion. The founding fathers wrote the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence acknowledging God’s greatness and reflecting His love, allowing free will without mandating one specific denomination.

      • GALT

        Patriot,,,,you think two words “their CREATOR” is a “foundation”?

        or that whatever it was, was credited with the “endowment of ” “unsecured rights”…….

        not a very reliable source or much of an acknowledgement……you might want to
        check the building codes…….because as foundations go, this structural design
        seems a bit limited?

      • cawmun cents

        The words noting that there is a CREATOR,would imply that they believed in a CREATOR,whether you do or not.
        This would also imply that you(as someone who does not believe in a CREATOR,which by the way I am not accusing you of personally),cannot take the rights that the CREATOR gave to me away.Which is why congress can establish no religion,especially one that leaves the CREATOR out of the picture(am I getting through to you yet?)
        So when you move to strike the CREATOR from the record,so that you can take the rights away that the CREATOR has given me,I take offense.
        Then you turn and accuse me of inappropriate behavior by stating the”facts”as you see them represented(incorrectly I might add),and tell me that I have no right to establish that there is a CREATOR,In my politics.
        So when you are asked why you leave God(that being who I understand is my CREATOR) out of your politics,you then become defensive because you think I am accusing you of being godless,when it is you,who chose to leave Him out of your politics.
        Nobody has ever correctly asserted that politics and religion cannot go together,as viewed in the Constitution,there is no such line of demarkation,in that document.
        It is those who choose to leave God out of their politics which assert to the undereducated that this is a principle of our founders,when clearly it was only stated in a private letter from one individual to another.
        So get your”facts”straight.
        Then form a cohesive argument.
        Ohterwise,do us all a favor,and leave us out of your wrong decision making process,and let us continue to keep the CREATOR in mind when we use our correct decision making process.
        But what do I know?
        Apparently very little……

      • GALT

        It’s “their CREATOR”……..why not “our creator”?

        And let’s check that endowment……

        Your “unalienable right to life”… force for as long as you can maintain it, or until you are alienated from it…….

        to liberty, which expires upon alienation!!!!

        to the pursuit of happiness, which expires on alienation!!!!!!!!!

        Feeling secure? Which leaves you with a “creator” who can’t or won’t secure what is supposedly unalienable……and a government who stepped up to accept the responsibility,
        but really had no clue what was involved……..nor do the idiot’s who claim to believe them.

        Faith in CREATOR’s or government’s doesn’t seem to be justified as likely to produce
        any probable expectation of a positive return from an historical perspective……

        but of course, THIS TIME THINGS WILL BE DIFFERENT.

      • cawmun cents

        Do you even realize Galt… insane you sound when someone actually reads what you are attempting to communicate?
        I doubt it….

      • GALT

        Yes, I imagine that someone who actually understands that which is truly “self evident”
        would appear “insane” to those such as yourself…….but as a e.i.P.L.F. I do not really concern myself with things of no consequence……..and I can’t think of anything more
        inconsequential than your opinion on anything……FYI….life existed long before “sexual reproduction” entered the scene…….see Life Ascending: by Nick Lane

        You might become a little less ignorant…..and won’t have to ask “But what do I know?”
        at the end of every post……..

      • Patriot1776

        Galt, you ask “It’s “their CREATOR”……..why not “our creator”?” If you are half of the guru that you tell us you are, then you know the answer…it is proper english. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator…”

        As for your other question; “Patriot,,,,you think two words “their CREATOR” is a “foundation”?

        Yes, the Creator is the foundation. He created heaven and earth and all that is therein. Good enough for me.

      • GALT

        inclusion of the word they is not necessary………”that all men are created equal and are
        endowed”……… just as well……..and the equal part…….is just another piece of B.S………………….why is it that all these ‘self evident’ things………that you all claim to believe……….turn out to be “self indulgent hypocrisies”………

        Accepting REALITY, saves a lot of time………then you might have a chance of making what you profess to believe in……..a potentially probable outcome since the foundational logic will actually be TRUE……..from which truly “enlightened self interest” becomes possible……….

        The Law of Nature does not recognize “rationalized self interest” as valid………even if
        YOU believe it’s good enough……….and the universe writes no epitaphs and couldn’t care less.

  • Harold Olsen

    One of my nicknames for the Democrat party has been the Socialist-Atheist party. So, omitting God is no surprise to me. Putting it back into their platform is nothing more than a political ploy, hoping to attract Christians to their Godless party and to help elect their Muslim leader, who isn’t even a good Muslim.

    • John Woodbury

      Harold, I disagree, President Obama is a true Muslim; why, just look at how many lies he tells to infidels.

    • Doc Sarvis

      By far, most of the Democrats I know are Christians as is President Obama.

      • momo

        That’s the funniest thing you said yet.

      • Doc Sarvis

        You can’t prove me wrong.

      • momo

        Now you sound like a little kid.


        “Doc Sarvis,”




  • Jeremy Leochner

    I do not believe there is a need to mention god in a party platform. I believe what is most important is are the ideas in the platform good. A bad idea can be attributed to god but it is still a bad idea. And I believe god would prefer people to do good rather then praise him. People can praise god but still do bad things and people can do good without mentioning god. I believe the latter is the better option.

    • Patriot1776

      In this great nation, founded on the principles of the rights and freedoms that are endowed by the Creator, God should be the foundation of the platform. It is, however, an oxymoron for a party platform to include God, perversion and murder (gay marriage and abortion). Yes, mankind has done many ugly things in the name of religion, but that does not mean that they are acting on God’s behalf. God’s Word says that He would prefer that we praise Him by doing good.

      • Robert Smith

        “perversion and murder (gay marriage and abortion)”

        Situational “morality.” It isn’t up to our government to establish or even enforce any particular religion.

        Shucks, looks like the right is advocating a christian version of the Taliban.


      • Patriot1776

        Gotta love the liberal mindset, “Situational morality…” Miriam-Webster defines morality as “a doctrine or system of moral conduct ” Morals are a system, they cannot be situational. Acknowledging gay marriage is the current administration’s act of establishing their religion inspite of the beliefs of all other religions. To acknowledge the laws of nature and stand for traditional marriage is not an establishment of relgion.

      • GALT

        The Laws of Nature? Are those in a book somewhere? How will those gerbils know how to act when they can’t read?

      • Ted Crawford

        “Laws of Nature and Natures God”
        Homosexuality defies the primary law of Nature, Sustainability. Homosexuality is therefore, by defination “Unnatural”, Egro: A Preversion of Nature
        Galt! Gerbils have no need to read, they do not violate Natures Laws, only man does that!

      • Ted Crawford

        I failed to respond to the Murder issue. These same proponants of Abortion as a form of Birth Control, would, on the other hand, cause someone to go to prison for destroying an Eagle Egg, because” it indangeres the future of the species” ! Seems thay are far more concern with an Eagle than with a Human! If it is wrong to destroy an Eagles egg, how much more so is it to destroy a Human egg?

      • cawmun cents

        So obviously you know what to do with your Gerbils,right?
        They are still made,male and female,so that they can breed.If you cannot respect the laws of God,then surely you can respect the design by which the individual species function,correct?
        You have to inject your own system of ideals and then call them what you will.
        Then you wildly accuse others of not understanding your system of facts as you see them represented.
        Even evolution has male and female design represented in its tenants.
        But when you choose to leave certain parts of design out,and consider that they only matter in the context of your explaination of things,you are promoting confusion.
        So when I wonder what the hell you are talking about,then you accuse me of being stupid.
        You misrepresent facts in order to cause confusion in others,and then turn and accuse them of doing what you have just done.
        And you expect others to see your facts as valid?
        Is it any mystery then when they view you with contempt?
        The only thing that this post contains that is actually contemptuous,is that I am attempting to convince the delusional that they are such.

      • GALT

        The Laws of Nature are determined by nature…….not what a particular species deems them to be……..if it can be DONE…….it can’t be unacceptable to the Laws of Nature.

        BTW Rumsfeld missed the “known unknown’s”……..which is sh*t you don’t know you know but really do……….of which your post is a perfect example……….and why most christian’s
        are hypocrites……..

      • Jeremy Leochner

        I will admit right off the bat Patriot I am an agnostic. I do not believe in god. As such I believe that we can do good without god. And I believe our country was founded not on christian principles but on republican principles which are principles of all religions not just Christianity. I believe Christianity and god play a role but I do not believe they are central to our nation. I believe our basic rights are self evident, not given by god.

      • Patriot1776

        Jeremy, I certainly respect your position. We will all find out one day who was right.

      • GALT

        Agnosticism is a specific position which rests on two points 1.) no evidence exists for god and 2.) Certain concepts are “unknowable”…….which is the word root gnostic nullified by the A. in addition to a god or creator, these concepts also include the Absolute, eternity, infinity, etc.

        Atheism is a denial of the existence of “an intelligent creator” based on the fact that “no evidence” exists for one, and because the burden of proof always rests on the positive assertion, since it is not logically possible to prove a negative…….

        As for what is “self evident” regarding the fact of your existence is that, you have the unalienable right to continue to attempt to survive…….and so does a virus, so it is not
        a particularly exclusive right……..which other life forms already understand……but homo sapiens seem to have forgotten……….

      • Jeremy Leochner

        The difference between humans and germs is we have the capacity for choice and reflection. We have the ability to make changes and improve our situation. All living things have a right to life. What makes humans what they are is not their abilities, its their choices.

      • GALT

        You are absolutely correct Jeremy…….every other life form operates in accordance within it’s basic programming instruction set adapting as best it can to the challenges presented by it’s circumstance and present environment……… succeed is to continue, to fail means extinction.

        Only homo sapiens have chosen to disregard this self evident condition……..

        How does it feel to be more ignorant than a GERM?

        “Are you NOT ENTERTAINED? ”

        Join the P.L.F.s it is the only SANE choice!!!!!!

      • Jay

        Sorry Galt, but i must respectfully decline your most generous invitation to accompany you on your cruise to Gilligan’s Island. I hope you understand…?

      • GALT

        It wasn’t an invitation…..but if you are seeking an island DavidH might have just the
        von mises link for you………although I hear the fish aren’t very co-operative.

  • Warrior

    In the “progessive” mind; little barry is the “idol de jour”.

    • Robert Smith

      “idol de jour”.

      Ron Paul
      Mitt Romney
      Ronald Reagan…


  • Doc Sarvis

    Is Ritt Momney even aware we have troops fighting in Afghanistan? I don’t think he even mentioned that in his speech last week. Someone running for President/Commander of our armed forces might at least acknowledge their sacrifice.

    • Ted Crawford

      Do you mean like Obama, who accused our troops of ” just airraiding villages and killing civilians” ?

      • Doc Sarvis

        A familiar twist of the truth so often found on this site. I just viewed this clip which I assume is what you were referring to:

        President Obama was not blaming the troops but the tactic being used. AND he is proposing a better strategy for our troops to get the job done.
        At least he is taking his role as commander seriously. Does Romney even understand that he would command the military? He does not seem to put much thought into it.

      • Jay

        Neither one has addressed the bogus 16 trillion-dollar-debt, Doc. I find that much more disconcerting than the issue of stream-lining our imperialistic endeavours abroad. Try as we might to point out the differences between the two simpletons, the fact of the matter is, there are no differences between the two establishment-puppets. The one that is the most willing to put his shoulders to the task of maintaining the plantation, and its status-quo, will be the one elected, while the rest of the nation sings “Swing low, sweet chariot”!

  • http://n.a. mort_f

    Snake oil by the gallon.

    Just 2 points:
    1. watch the video of the vote for the amendment to re-incorporate ‘God’ and ‘Jerusalem’. No way in Hell that there was the 2/3 majority required by their own rules.

    2. HST did provide recognition to Israel. But it was after the Soviet Union did so. And HST immediately followed that recognition with an embargo of all arms to Israel. No such restriction to the Arabs that were bent on destroying the newborn state,

    And now we have ‘friend’ Obama. Embargo of spare parts to maintain Israeli helicopters, while providing squadrons of new helicopters to Egypt. Cancellation of planned joint exercises. Denying access to radar sites in the Negev desert that serve to provide surveillance of missile attacks on Israel Restrictions on the future delivery of F-35s, denying Israel the ability to maintain them, if, they are ever delivered. And that is a big ‘IF’. With ‘friends’ like this, who needs enemies!

    • JeffH

      Point to mort_f for saying “watch the video of the vote for the amendment to re-incorporate ‘God’ and ‘Jerusalem’. No way in Hell that there was the 2/3 majority required by their own rules.”

      …and the DNC believes the Republicans are a bunch of idiots…WOW! It’s no wonder that either party can be believed.

      Stupid is as stupid does!

  • Veso Lukovic

    Well, this may shock some of you, but I am less alarmed over the democrats excluding God from their platform than I am about the fact the Republicans use His name in vain as part of their platform. The way the Republicans use God’s name today, is in fact, the ultimate violation of ‘Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.’ Put another way, it literally means ‘thou shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God’. Who is more guilty? Is it someone who willingly admits no interest in God, and proceeds accordingly, or someone who professes to follow God, yet violates His commandments at every turn? Isn’t it God who said I would rather you be hot or cold, but because you are lukewarm I will spew you out of my mouth? Thou shall not murder. Is not the current foreign policy of bombing/droning/sactions supported by the Republican party nothing more than murder? Thou shall not have any God’s before me. Is not the Republican policy of serving corporate interests overseas under the cloak and dagger cover of ‘national security’ an abomination before the Lord of the highest possible degree? Thou shall not steal.. Is not the support and/or lack of condemnation of the banker and fascist/corporate theft and fleecing of America anything less than supporting theft at it’s most effective and sinister level? I pity those who are more alarmed at the democrats than the republicans, and who add to their level of deception and sin by believing they are better than the democrats because they believe God is on their side while they blaspheme Him at every turn.

    • cawmun cents

      Do you know anyone who is perfect?
      Please explain to us how Republicans are less perfect than democrats.
      Was that what you were attempting to do?
      Is it then your assertion that leaving God out of something,suddenly makes you sparkling clean of contemptuous behavior?
      It seems to me that leaving God out of your politics has got to be the main reason why you cant seem to fix the conditions you find yourself in.
      Of course that is only my humble opinion,but if you are going to turn and accuse others,wouldnt you want to be sure that you werent guilty of that which you accuse them of?
      Otherwise the word hypocrite comes to the forefront and you lose credibility.
      All fall short.
      Not republicans,not democrats……all fall short.
      So then where is your condemnation leading you now?
      Down the road to perdition.
      But what do I know?
      Apparently very little.

      • JeffH

        :) Hear Hear!

      • vlukovic

        Well cawmun, apparently you know very little :-) First off, to throw out the argument (simple strawman) about being perfect is besides the point and is simply a diversion. Using this logic and axe murderer that has killed hundreds is the same as someone who gets mad and yells at his wife at times. Secondly, the ‘logic’ I used is not very complicated, and is pretty scriptural. God would rather us be hot or cold, but when we profess to know him, and use His name if vain, it’s bad news. Also, I am making a very simple point – to judge democrats for not including God in their platform while including God in your platform while condoning murder and theft (and at the same time thinking you are better), is a very big problem. The fact that you don’t see this, and that you take the time to argue against it, is quite possibly an indication of your current state. I am not trying to imply that the democrats are good or better – that is not the point. Both parties are on two wings of the same bird at this time – warmongering, civil liberties destroying, statist monopoly men supporting den of thieves – period. Peace.

      • cawmun cents

        I notice you are great at posting your opinions but leave no ability for anyone to reply to you…is that by design or just cowardice?

      • cawmun cents

        If I am a strawman for endorsing the word of God over that which you deem important,then call me scarecrow.
        I dont usually make my Chrostian faith the subject of one of my arguments,however I think that once you try me and my knowledge on thhe matter,you wont find me as easy prey as you think I be.

      • GALT

        Seems you were able to reply easily enough………..were you complaining about not being able to make any “cents” in your response? Inflation is a b*tch……2 cents, caw man, common or otherwise, doesn’t go far……..

        Don’t get me wrong………I shall defend your right to speak idiotically to the DEATH…….
        I also reserve my right to point out you ARE an “idiot”……

        Fortunately……the need to do so doesn’t really come up much ……..mostly it’s “self evident”!

      • vlukovic

        Cawmun.. no, I was not trying to leave out the ability to reply.. as you should have noticed, I replied to your comment, which doesn’t give a reply link.. just like your reply to mine does.. I am not attacking you personally, and have no need to compete or challenge your thinking or lack thereof.. I think it speaks for itself without my help. Peace.

      • vlukovic

        Cawmun, my ‘strawman’ comment was in reference to your ‘who is perfect’ point, which is a strawman argument and beside the point.. not a personal attack on you.. I think if you take what you believe about the Bible, and understand the heart of my point (more dangerous to misuse God’s name than to leave it out), check it with scripture, you will probably agree.. Peace.

    • Jay

      I think Veso Lukovic made an excellent point, CC. I find no fault in his statement!

  • Dhip

    Obama read and endorsed the party platform. It was what he wanted and how it got drafted like it was. He is anti-christian and pro-muslim. He is anti-christian and pro- palestinean. He is pro-muslim and anti-jewish. This is all a part of his hope and change thing.

    Get used to it. He is going to get re-elected.

  • Kinetic1

    Typical Nash headline. Imagine if he were a reporter in the late 18th century.

  • JimH

    Why did Durbin get so defensive, so fast? No body said anything about Dems being “Godless”, until he did.
    I think Dicky protests to much.

    • JeffH

      All I’ve seen in any of the Dem/DNC interviews that asks for any clarification on any issue is immediate deflection and distortion…deflect to the Republicans.

      The Dems are trying to make a world that no one could recognize…Godless and immoral are the forefront of their party line.

      They’re all to blame!

    • alpha-lemming

      Somebody should loop that voice vote w/ Dick Turbans “God-less Party” comment. Hilarious !!!!!

      All educated people know God is not a kindly, bearded gentleman living on a cloud, nor the devil a red dude with digs in Mt. Vesuvius, but rather symbolic of good, evil, and things greater than ourselves. That being said, I don’t think these “God-less” progs are inherantly evil (jury’s still out), but…… when you deny God, your ONLY legitimate position from which to argue is: There is no occurance, no person/people, no set of circumstanses, no ideas, goals, places, benefactions….. literally no THING anywhere in the universe that’s more important than me.

      Sums up pretty accurately nearly every lib-gressive, Commu-crat I’ve ever had to deal with and it speaks volumes as to the mind-set of last nights God/Jerusalem dissenters. What is the moderate, cross-the-aisle, can’t we just all get along, find common ground, bipartisan compromise when I don’t think you are the most important thing in the universe?

  • Charles C

    ‘the fool, has said in his or her heart, that there is no God! Durbin doesn’t know the real meaning of his statement, read Isaiah 40 for those who choose to be ignorant, it’s in the old testament. God is not mocked, what you sow, you shall also reap. God made a way, now it’s up to you to find it. Ask and you shall receive, seek and you will find.

  • samantha

    After reading most of these posts, it is no wonder that we have increased in violence in our cities and streets and no respect for one another. It’s time we Americans stop attacking one another and go after the real enemy…Satan..yes, I realize that most who read this will not have any fear or even doubt that he exits. And that is exactly why we are
    experiencing all the woes we have. If we don’t know or recognize our enemy , we can not begin to defeat him. It is not about being Republican or Democrat or any party. It’s about doing what is right, speaking out for injustice and have concern for others not just ourselves. That’s what America used to stand for. but I fear that all we have left in this great country are the whiners and crybabies that expect and demand that everything go their way.. grow up and take on some responsibility for your actions, and perhaps the world will become a better place after all.

    • GALT

      Your understanding of what is wrong with America ( by which I assume you mean the United States of ) and what America stands for have no basis in fact……….they are both fantasies and so while you may think your rather nebulous prescription represents some
      sort of inspirational formula for success……..cure by slogan is neither new nor particularly
      successful at delivering positive outcomes.

      What this country claims to stand for was not true when the words were written and the last two plus centuries have simply demonstrated that not only was this a supreme act of self deception and hubris but that any attempt to actually live up to them was gone shortly
      after they were written……..and we haven’t looked back………..

      The general state of “We the people” is complete ignorance compounded by insistent stupidity…….it is a lethal combination and its continuation is guaranteed by it’s future victims……..who having not suffered yet, believe this condition is due to their personal efforts and virtue………when it is simply a matter of probability……….and their number
      hasn’t come up……..yet.

  • Ed Weber

    Normally I enjoy reading other peoples opinions about various matters,,,but GALT is really a POMPOUS A–hole!!

    • Sirian

      Ed Weber,
      What you say is true but that’s what makes him so entertaining – he does put on quite a show. It’s fun to simply set on the sidelines and read what some of these “spin doctors” come up with.

      • GALT

        Sitting on the sidelines is learned behavior… didn’t take long to teach YOU….which shows you have some sense…….and the “spinning description” is quite entertaining…..

        Now all you have to do is provide a consistent explanation about what you “imagine” the goal or agenda might be……for the spin…….

      • Sirian

        Oh but an explanation would destroy the suspense, now wouldn’t it?

      • GALT

        No suspense involved………how could there be, since the only thing you would
        accomplish would be to demonstrate that you have no explanation……..and that just makes you typical of those who have gone before……..and you imagine that this site
        represents sort of “sacred ground” where you are safe from intruders and exempt
        from any requirement to engage or attempt anything resembling a consistently logical argument.

        Granted most of the “intruders” do not present much of a challenge because they allow themselves to be distracted and are often drawn into the mindless rhetoric of the irrelevant……….which descends into the incoherent babble that is the “norm” for
        those conditioned to respond to a specific mantra which can not tolerate any
        challenge that suggests a self examination of their particular understanding may be
        the most productive application of whatever reasoning skills they may possess.

        Unfortunately, those tactics do not work when one is forced to deal with fundamental
        propositions where no distraction is possible……….and the deconstruction of language
        can not be relied on to obfuscate the lack of logical foundation upon which most of
        the attempted arguments rest.

        I suppose that under the circumstances, you should be commended for simply posturing
        a claim which you can not support………rather than choosing to descend to the childish
        level of response that is common here……..

        It may be possible at some point for you to realize that I am not interested in that level of
        engagement and that in order for us ( homo sapiens ) to establish a often claimed
        goal of “common cause” will require finding the actual “common ground” from
        which reasonable logical construction can proceed.

        While this seems simple………there is no evidence to support that assumption and much
        of the problem rests with the undeserved reverence for “ideas” that while having historical
        significance…….and are useful in understanding motivational concepts at the time they were offered………they have no valid purpose with regard to our present situation, since our empirical knowledge has completely destroyed any possibility that these assumptions
        could be either true or useful……….

        This problem is further compounded by the fact that empirical knowledge has increased
        to exponential levels………and at such a rapid pace in the last century, that it has exceeded both our ability to both comprehend its significance or adapt to the REALITY
        that has been revealed………and this is true for those who have actually experienced
        the benefits and have access to the information…….in a world where most live in both poverty and primitive conditions……

        The exercise here today ( which has been underway for sometime ) involves a simple
        adjustment to understanding, and has met with pointless resistance regarding a
        “self evident” truth whose denial is pointless. Yet this denial persists because once
        it is acknowledged…… poses threats to other “historical ideas” which can no longer
        be defended……..yet can not be abandoned even though they are inherently destructive.

        There are consequences for this choice, and they will not be pleasant…….

    • http://none Charlie

      GALT,,,give us your spin on “Obadiah”,,,be careful ,,,truth will get you heathens in trouble

      • GALT

        be happy to….with the exception that I don’t do spin……and I have no clue to what you are referring……..

        As a P.L.F. most of the things that concern you A.L.F.s are inconsequential and beneath notice………

        BTW……P.L.F.s are not the enemies of A.L.F’s, you all manage way more self destructive behavior amongst yourselves……..than we could ever hope to achieve…….

        But if you are willing to elucidate?

      • Jay

        Galt says: As a P.L.F. most of the things that concern you A.L.F.s are inconsequential and beneath notice………

        Strange, but you seem to spend a great deal of time and effort noticing, and arguing against that which you consider to be of no consequence…

        Are all P.L.F.’s as confused as you?

      • GALT

        My apologies…….I missed your nonsense post above……do you comprehend?

      • GALT

        And for Jay…… argument has been necessary…. where do you see an argument?

        That which is self evident requires no argument and citing that which is inconsequential
        is simply a statement of fact……..

        Here’s something for you……The Folly of Fools…….

        It would seem that deception and SELF DECEPTION are built into the basic coding structure of life forms…………for a purpose.

        This does not conflict with “self evident” natural law that actually exists……

        But there is no way it can be claimed as a product of an “intelligent designer”……

        BTW I am not just a P.L.F. I am a e.i.P.L.F………you are an w.i.A.L.F.

        It is impossible for a P.L.F. to be confused……..

      • http://none Charlie

        Heathen, you have spun out…

  • The Christian American

    Well at least they’re honest. We’ve got “In God we trust” on our counterfeit coin and act like he didn’t exist.. How does the bible say it? Be hot or cold but if your luke warm I’ll spew you out of my mouth. Another passage says “Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Lord is; there is liberty. Our liberty has left with Lord.

    • vlukovic

      well said :-)


Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.