Dr. Jan Dudt, a fellow for medical ethics with The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College, is interviewed by Lee Wishing, administrative director of the Center. In this video, Dr. Dudt comments on a concept that futurists like Ray Kurzweil refer to as the techhnological “singularity.” Is the day coming when the merger of technology and humanity renders death a thing of the past? Dr. Jan Dudt addresses this fast-approaching issue in a 10-minute video.

Kengor argues convincingly that Obama strategist David Axelrod is salivating as he prepares to serve up Romney as a piece of “red meat for the Occupy movement.” And why not? Class warfare is the favorite team meal of the all-star progressive squad. Consider the man who wrote the playbook, Saul Alinsky. The author of “Rules for Radicals” sought to give meaning to young radicals by teaching tactics to take from the “Haves” and give to the “Have-Nots.”

I happen to agree with some of the things Alinsky says in “Rules.” Things like: “[A]ll revolutionary movements are primarily generated from spiritual values,” and, “Today’s generation is desperately trying to make some sense out of their lives and out of the world…. The young are … looking for what man has always looked for from the beginning of time, a way of life that has some meaning or sense.” It’s human nature.

Alinsky gets that. We all know that there is a spiritual meaning to life, even if we’re hesitant to talk about it publicly. In that sense, Rick Santorum may be the best Republican candidate to take on President Obama. Santorum, like Alinsky, isn’t afraid to talk about life’s core spiritual issues.

But Santorum wouldn’t agree with Alinsky or Obama on the source of our political hope. Alinsky said that the community organizer, someone he believes to be on a higher plane than a mere leader, “understands that all of life is a quest for uncertainty; and that he can live with it.” This is an idea that dates back to the mid-19th-century German philosophical roots of modern radical progressivism. The highest value of progressive leaders is never-ending, radical, societal change. Why? Because they believe a social climate characterized by uncertainty provides the best environment for societal evolution. Whether it’s Barack Obama proclaiming in October 2008, “We are five days from fundamentally transforming the United States of America,” or Rahm Emanuel saying, “You don’t ever want a good crisis to go to waste, it’s an opportunity to do things you would otherwise avoid,” or Nancy Pelosi assuring an audience that, “We have to pass the bill before we can find out what’s in it,” radical progressive leaders seek to offer hope to their constituents by creating a climate of uncertainty.

But this runs contrary to human nature. Rather than creating hope, secular progressives create despair. And I believe rank-and-file progressives are getting wise to this.

A few weeks ago I visited a Washington, D.C., think-tank that is positioned best to understand the Occupy folks. Without any leading on my part, I asked one of the senior leaders to use one word to describe the defining characteristic of the Occupy movement. Following a few seconds of silence, he responded, “hopelessness,” and another senior operative quickly agreed.

It’s high time that we have a national discussion about the source of our political hope. We’re more likely to see that discussion if Rick Santorum is the Republican nominee. Like Ronald Reagan, Santorum eagerly discusses our hope using the language of the Declaration of Independence when he speaks of a Creator who creates us equally with certain unalienable rights. Santorum promotes this uniquely American wellspring of hope while radical secular progressives unwittingly create despair by believing in evolving, godless values (God-centered values are “dead” values) in pursuit of ongoing fundamental societal change. After all, how much rudderless fundamental change can a nation bear? Today’s radical progressives lead Americans down a dimly lit path to proven failure (e.g., massive progressive federal programs), while Santorum marches toward what he and Reagan perceive as a Shining City.

Of the two leading Republican presidential candidates, Santorum seems far more eager to lead a national discussion about the source of our country’s political hope. Either way, Americans will have that discussion some day, and we will have it soon. Progressivism will collapse under its own weight and, as Alinsky said, Americans will try to find meaning in the world. Inevitably, we’ll find it in those simple but profound words of the Declaration that created our nation—a nation that, as Lincoln said, is “the last best hope.”

I live in Western Pennsylvania, just across the county line from where former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum grew up. My wife went to the same high school as Santorum. I’ve followed his career very closely. I’m surprised—but I’m not surprised—by Santorum’s performance in the Iowa Republican Caucus. I’m surprised because it looks like he’s changing. And I’m not surprised because it looks like he remains committed to his principles.

Santorum might be more than a fleeting Iowa phenomenon because he may have finally found his Rosetta Stone—that is, a code for effective conservative communication.

Santorum’s strategy of focusing on a top-three finish in Iowa has paid off. Two decades ago, he won his first congressional race in the Pittsburgh suburbs in 1990 against entrenched Democrat Doug Walgren in the same shocking fashion by flying under the radar, with retail door-to-door politics and replacing his shoe leather several times. But he got crushed in 2006 when running for re-election to the U.S. Senate. He was overwhelmed by the anti-war, anti-Republican tsunami. Anecdotally, I know that Santorum also had a big problem with conservative Christian women because he supported liberal U.S. Senator Arlen Specter over conservative challenger Pat Toomey in 2004 and because they thought he was arrogant and combative. So, I’m surprised that Santorum did so well in Iowa with evangelical Christians and women, capturing both categories of caucus goers with 32 percent and 27 percent, respectively, according to entrance polls conducted by Edison Research. It appears that Santorum’s campaign rhetoric is changing; it looks like he’s polishing his rough edges.

Santorum signaled a change of heart in a 2009 speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference. I wrote about that in a piece titled “Rush and Rick,” saying, “When Santorum encouraged the CPAC crowd to learn to appeal to the heart as well as the head, I was quietly cheering for him and hoping for a Santorum comeback. If he does come back, I think he’ll be a different man—a politician who will seek to appeal to hearts as well as minds.”

Santorum has made a political return and it appears that he’s a changed man on the campaign trail.

But it also appears that Santorum hasn’t backed down from his principles. I’m not surprised by this. He’s still staunchly pro-life, in favor of entitlement reform, and concerned by the threat from Iran and radical Islam. Heading to New Hampshire and beyond, Santorum has a fund-raising challenge. He will also be challenged—to quote from Scripture—to “speak the truth in love” (Ephesians 4:15). He’ll have to strike a rhetorical balance by addressing his signature tough issues from a position of principle in an emotionally appealing way.

The Edison Research poll indicates that Santorum may have found the conservative Rosetta Stone of political communication. If he has, and if he can raise money, he may be unstoppable.

Dr. Jan Dudt, a fellow for medical ethics with The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College, is interviewed by Lee Wishing, administrative director of the Center. In this video, Dr. Dudt comments on Indianapolis Colts quarterback Peyton Manning’s stem cell therapy.

Professor of Physics at Grove City College, Dr. Glenn Marsch, is interviewed by Lee Wishing, administrative director of The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College: The New York Times’ Paul Krugman says we should be “terrified” if a Republican (e.g., Perry or Romney) wins the White House due to their views on global warming and evolution. Physicist Dr. Glenn Marsch responds in this V&V faith & science interview. EDITOR’S NOTE: CAUTION – Krugman called a position of Gov. Perry’s “vile,” he did not call Perry himself vile as I (Lee Wishing) mistakenly portray in this video.

Read the article»

Read the article»

Read the article»

Read the article»

Read the article»