EDIT NOTE: The original post included a reference to Dave Silverman being the co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation. He is actually the president of American Atheists. The post has been edited accordingly.
I got a very insightful email from a listener who thinks they figured out where I was on Monday:
Peter, I noticed on your show Tuesday, you didn’t give us much detail about your whereabouts on Monday. I think I know why. Perhaps you thought we were unaware that the big “There is No God But Ourselves Atheist Rally for Nothing” event was held in Washington over the weekend, but I know it was. And perhaps that’s where you were. One of those closet atheists they were talking about. You were driving back from the event Monday and just haven’t figured out how to break it to your listening audience. Am I close?
He got me. I was sitting there last week thinking, “You know, believing that the grand design of creation necessitates a Grand Designer is just too logical.” So I decided to board the trolley to make-believe and head out with Richard Dawkins to the atheist shendig. And by the way, his reference to the closeted atheists was something that these event promoters were talking about and counting on. David Silverman, the president of American Atheists, kept talking about how this event was going to be the “largest atheist event in world history” because all these closeted atheists were going to come out of the woodwork and show up.
In case you were wondering, it didn’t happen. The weather wasn’t the greatest, so maybe that had an effect. I love that, by the way: God rained on their parade. Literally. A few thousand apparently showed up there, which is equal to a typical big city tea party event...maybe. Of course, this atheist-fest was a tad bit more vulgar and hostile than the tea party events – not that you’d know it from the media reports.
Other "don't miss" segments of the radio show today:
It must be really hard to be a Jesus skeptic. Now the claim is that the apostles were confused by the Shroud of Turin into believing they'd seen the resurrected Christ. There's where the skeptics are - a sheet fooled everyone. Oh my. (listen)
Accepting an honor from a radical homosexual group at the GLAAD Awards, ABC reporter praises ABC for their willingness to engage in "advocacy journalism." Shameless. (listen)
Well this is perfect: liberals circumvent the ratings process to put out their movie Bully with no "R" rating. Now, they are bullying theaters to violate their rules and run it anyway. (listen)
All eyes are on the Supreme Court right now as they take up the momentous 26-state challenge to Barack Obama and the Democrats’ unconstitutional governmental mandate on our healthcare freedom. But, as Rich Lowry points out so eloquently in a recent column, it’s not really ObamaCare that is on trial. It’s James Madison. Or at least, it’s the Madisonian model of government that he bequeathed us.
If you want proof of that, think about the conversation we’re having over ObamaCare. Think of what is the first question for so many of our lawmakers who enacted it. They wondered things like, “Will it work, will it lower costs, will it be enforceable?” Very few of them – and of those who voted in favor (all Democrats mind you), virtually none of them – actually paused to consider whether it was constitutional.
Remember Nancy Pelosi’s incredulous response to CNSNews when they asked her where Congress got the constitutional authority to enact such a mandate on every American. She asked, “Are you serious, are you serious?” That’s astounding when you think about the fact that she was the sitting Speaker of the House at that point in time. That’s what I mean when I say that Madison is on trial. It’s Madison vs. Pelosi, friends...whose side do you stand on? Lowry writes,
I’m not surprised that President Obama decided to wade into this Trayvon Martin situation out of Florida.I’m also not surprised that the President is, in the midst of an election year, applying a different standard to this situation than he has previously.And I’m certainly not surprised that no one in the media has decided to call him on it.
And this isn’t a case of me injecting presidential politics into the Martin tragedy.The president did that himself.I don’t fault the president for his decision to speak to the situation.But the moment he does, he becomes accountable for the way he approaches it and speaks to it.And it’s on those grounds that I am very uncomfortable.
Remember it’s only been a couple years ago that we had the “Skip” Gates situation where President Obama came out and injected racially divisive tones into the conversation.Without any evidence he proclaimed that the white police officer acted “stupidly” and suggested that profiling was potentially the motivation.Apparently it didn’t dawn on him that drawing such a conclusion was a bit of profiling in and of itself.
Once it became clear that the President was the one who “acted stupidly” by speaking publicly about a situation – and against law enforcement officers simply doing their jobs – the president attempted to pivot and act as a calming arbiter over the whole situation.You might remember the morally superior position he attempted to take, hosting a “beer summit” between the differing parties.
Yesterday I was away from the radio show and driving in my car back from a meeting, which gave me an opportunity to listen to some other broadcasts that I don’t normally get to hear, obviously.I came across one on the dial where the host and his co-host or producer or sidekick or whoever were talking about what they perceived as a rift within the tea party movement.
Honestly, this discussion is nothing new to those who have been involved with the movement since its inception.We’ve been hearing stories about the fractured nature of the tea partiers, and how the movement is not sustainable because it is so decentralized.Whether it’s the division over whether to make endorsements of candidates or not, whether to form a third party or not, whether to allow candidates or officeholders to speak or not, the media is always seeking to carry forth the narrative that the movement is doomed for failure as a result.
These two guys on the radio yesterday – and I’m not going to mention the name of the show because I have no real desire to pick a professional fight with another program...I’d rather pick a fight with the dumb idea that they were espousing – were suggesting that the tea party was fracturing around the socially conservative members who want to make traditional morality part of the movement’s thrust.
Other “don’t miss” segments of the radio show today:
Well this can’t be encouraging news for Sasha and Malia. Barack Obama seeks good parenting tips from the Islamist Prime Minister of Turkey. (listen)
I’ve arrived: a Kardashian agrees with me. I’ve been saying for a long time now that if you’re looking for the biggest bullies in the country, look no further than the “tolerant” left. Glad Khloe gets it. (listen)
Why is it that politicians’ kids are off limits if the politician is a Democrat (Clinton , Obama), but are fair game if the politician is a conservative (Palin...and now Santorum – as his daughters become sex joke fodder for depraved liberals)? (listen)
I have read where some atheist organizations are running an anti-Islam billboard, so kudos to them for displaying a spine. Nevertheless, the recent decision of the New York Times to refuse an anti-Islam ad continues to highlight the duplicity and basic cowardice of the left. Their duplicity is underscored by BBC director-general Mark Thompson’s admission that his network treats Christianity with less sensitivity than other religions, including Islam, in part due to threats: “Without question, ‘I complain in the strongest possible terms,’ is different from, ‘I complain in the strongest possible terms and I am loading my AK47 as I write.’”
Liberal cowardice does not end there. In virtually every significant anti-war and/or anti-gun protest, Big Entertainers love to put in their face time. They run around showing off their concern for society with photo-ops at peace rallies, then return to their studios to continue the production of the vilest, goriest, and most violent junk ever made. Seriously. Stop and count how many recent movie and novel plots are resolved without resorting to physical violence. In reference to “Hunger Games” opening this weekend, Australian actor Liam Hemsworth says that the violence in the film isn’t for nothing. “None of it is glorified and it’s not about that.”
Last Christmas, my wife and I watched quite a few of the specials on the Hallmark and other channels. Hey, I’m a guy, and I like movies with action and heroism and, yes, some shoot-em-up-blow-em-up scenes. What can I say? It’s a DNA thing. Yet, as the shows of the season progressed, I found myself genuinely enjoying programs where plots were resolved without hatred, physical violence, and obscene vulgarity. They were refreshing.
This week’s lib-quote comes from an Associated Press article covering the higher gasoline prices:
In truth, there is not a lot the president and Congress can do in the short term to push down gasoline prices. They are tied to oil prices, which have climbed in recent months, pushed by increased consumption from developing nations in Asia, Latin America and the Middle East and by concerns about supply disruptions in Iran and elsewhere.
Wow, the AP makes reference to global economic forces present in product pricing. That, in itself, is newsworthy.
What is not newsworthy is their habitual duplicity. Four to six years ago, Big Media and Big Government had no difficulty overtly declaringthat there is a LOT that Washington can do to push down oil prices and that the source of blame for $3.00 to $4.00 gasoline prices rested squarely on the “two big oil men in the White House.”
Leader Admits It Has Always Been About Government Approval
In case you missed the late Friday afternoon announcement, the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles announced that it was revoking the specialty license plate for the homosexual recruitment center the Indiana Youth Group because they had violated their contract in how the organization was raffling off plate numbers to the highest bidders.
The media contacted AFA-IN immediately after the news broke. I told reporters that while I was very glad that the plate was revoked, it should have occurred due to the content of the organization’s activities with children as young as 12 years of age. As noted in my editorial I shared last week, which appeared unedited in the Indianapolis Star the day before the BMV decision, this organization tears down the inhibitions of children between the ages of 12 and 21 and reinforces all sorts of risky and even bizarre sexual activities as normal and OK. (Keep reading, this will become quite obvious at the end of this email.)
Of course the far left is having a conniption over this news. I have been called all sorts of names in the blogs, Internet, email and phone messages, but that is typical of the worshipers of tolerance. Everyone is required to embrace their moral anarchy. Those who don’t are immediately labeled as “intolerant” and “bigots” regardless of our reasoning or motivation.
“Malcolm Out Loud” is a smart and witty national social and political commentator who has appeared on FOX News and CNN. He has recently taken on Rick Santorum for what Malcolm calls Santorum’s “War on the 1st Amendment.” Today I had a debate with him on the radio show about porn and Rick Santorum.
What drew my attention to this was Malcolm's recent commentary:
Every President has a war on something, Reagan was the "War on Communism", Bush was the "War on Terror" and if elected Rick Santorum's personal vendetta will be against the porn industry, the latest in his attacks on Americans' private behaviors such as marriage and contraception.
Despite preaching "less government", Rick Santorum's attack on the porn industry is opposite to what he's calling for. It will take strict government regulations, inspectors and tax dollars to patrol the internet. This could also be a violation of their 1st Amendment rights, regardless if we agree or not with their content as long as it abides by the rules on sales and production.
It made me curious as to whether Malcolm believes in unrestricted pornographic access or whether he has his own moral restraints he demands. If so, is it fair to say that he wants to abolish the First Amendment as well? This allegation against Santorum seems to be coming from an untenable absolutist position that I doubt Malcolm would really defend.
I also wanted to debate Malcolm on the concept of liberty vs. licentiousness and the fact that our founders believed the latter would bring the destruction of the former. I invited Malcolm onto the show today to debate these ideas.