Editor's Note: Peter Heck returns to the studio and to the Liberty Tree on June 18.
Mitt Romney may think he can win in November sans conservatives. If he does, it could be a perilous mistake. There is little doubt in my mind that a cardboard cut-out could beat Obama in November if that cut-out avoids any disastrous faux pas.
And in case you are wondering what qualifies as a faux pas that could actually help the disastrous presidency of Barack Obama limp into a second term, just consider what presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney may be preparing to do:
Conventional wisdom among Mitt Romney VP-watchers is that the presumptive GOP nominee should pick a running mate who is experienced and rather boring, someone who would neither embarrass him nor outshine him.
Just two years into his first term as Nevada governor, Brian Sandoval doesn’t exactly fit that bill. But a source familiar with the proceedings said not to count Sandoval out.
Sandoval is an incredibly popular governor, sporting a 62 percent approval rating, according to a Rasmussen poll at the end of February. He is also Hispanic, and could potentially help draw out the Latino vote. Equally important, Nevada is a swing state where President Obama is considered to have an edge.
What’s so bad about that, you ask? After all, everyone is up on Rubio – a very popular political newcomer (to the national scene, anyway) whose distinct cultural heritage will play well with Latinos, Cubans and all non-whites. And certainly Florida is an important “swing state” by some estimations. So why is Rubio a seemingly good pick (though there would be concern of the young Rubio outshining Romney), but Sandoval would be disastrous? An important distinction between the two: Rubio is conservative, Sandoval, not so much.
But Sandoval also has his problems: Along with being relatively new and unvetted, he is pro-choice; and he has raised taxes twice during his short time as governor. Those are deal breakers, according to several Republican strategists.
“I just don’t see with his rumored pro-choice stance how he fits into the equation,” Republican strategist Chuck Warren told The Daily Caller. “Great governor, superb future, but I think that one policy position makes him untenable for [the Republican] evangelical base.”
And before anyone says, “See, how terrible is it that the Republicans have what amounts to a litmus test for potential candidates on the issue of abortion?” stop and consider what that question actually proves. Disqualifying someone because they do not support the Declaration of Independence and an unalienable right to life for all Americans is not something that’s embarrassing. It’s refreshing.
And don’t forget that liberal Democrats have their own litmus test on the issue for national candidates of this magnitude, except on the opposite side. You either support the right to kill kids or you don’t make the cut. Which one is worse? Exactly.
If Romney makes this choice, it will confirm the worst fears of conservatives in the primary and I predict would cause a serious third party challenge that would all but assure a second term of “The One.”
Alan Simpson used to be a Republican Senator from Wyoming. He’s not anymore. But that doesn’t mean that Mr. Simpson isn’t still interested in getting some positive press. And from his time in Washington, the former Senator obviously knows how you go about doing that: criticize conservatives for being too ideological and not willing to compromise.
I still laugh at this whenever I see it. You simply don’t ever see the media interviewing people like Joe Lieberman or Zell Miller and praising them for their willingness to “work across party lines.” You only see Lieberman-like interviews when the media wants to criticize those individuals or grill them on what “some say” is being a traitor to your party. It’s pathetic. And I’m honestly not sure if the media thinks we don’t see that distinction and double standard or not. But it’s actually quite funny to me to watch.
Nonetheless, Mr. Simpson came on Fareed Zakaria’s program on CNN to do a little conservative bashing. But what I thought was interesting was the first issue to which he decided to speak of his differences with Republicans: abortion. For all the talk on the left about how Republicans are obsessed with the issue, they are the ones adamant about protecting the right to kill children – they are the ones who drag it out every time they are trying to show how “extreme” conservatives are. Which is interesting when you think about it. I’ve often said, if someone wants to accuse me of being “extreme” in my desire to fulfill the words of the Declaration of Independence – securing the right to life as unalienable by men – so be it. In fact, who in their right mind is comfortable with a law maker who can see room to compromise on which human beings are worthy of their right to live and which ones aren’t?
I don’t know how the election is going to turn out in November. But I can tell you that I think it’s going to be difficult at times to not sing choruses of “I Told You So” to plenty of folks on the left who have been delighting (or at least faking it) throughout the Republican primary process. No matter how many times I, or others, pointed out the nature of presidential primaries, and the fact that there would be a unified focus on Obama in the general election, liberals continued laughing and joking about the fractured nature of the right.
That was accompanied by the over-used, “Oh we can only hope that Obama gets to go against (insert whichever Republican was being praised at the time here)” line. And once it became clear that it was going to be Romney, the left feigned total elation. After all, they couldn’t have scripted a better opponent for Obama to face, right? Consider what the Financial Times recently noted about the presumptive Republican nominee:
He is a north-eastern moderate, and a Mormon, at a time when Republicans are more conservative, Christian and southern than ever. Worse, the core of his signature health reform in Massachusetts mirrors the very shake-up Mr Obama is so reviled by conservatives for.
After a banking crisis that triggered the worst economic downturn in the west since the great depression, Mr Romney also has a background in a corner of finance, private equity, known for high-risk leveraging and ruthlessness.
The notion that Americans might vote in a financier as their next president might have seemed preposterous two years ago as the banking crisis spread to the real economy.
But something funny happened on the way to Obama’s cakewalk re-election. Republicans began to coalesce around Romney and pointing out the significant differences between him and Obama. Perhaps there’s not as stark of a contrast as many of us would have preferred, but there are plenty.
I’m going to be gone for a couple weeks at the start of June, taking a vacation with my family. On vacations I don’t do work – it’s a deal I have with my wife. But with two kids needing naps in the middle of the afternoon, Jenny and I will have to trade off in terms of who stays in the room with the napping girls while the other one heads down to the pool. When it’s my turn in the room, I plan on taking some books to read – it’s walking a fine line between work and leisure, I know, but I think I can get away with it – especially if Jenny gets more pool time.
Now, the truth is that I have a laundry list of books that people have given me and told me to read, as well as books that I’ve had on my list for a long time. But there’s a new one that I guarantee you is going to move to the top of the list. I’ve spoken about it before, but it’s Jonah Goldberg’s new book on the left’s “Tyranny of Cliches.” I can’t describe how much I appreciate the premise of the book.
Check out this explanation from Goldberg in a recent interview to understand what I mean:
Other "don't miss" segments of the radio show today:
So Obama blasts Romney for his involvement with Bain Capital because some of the companies Bain invested in went belly-up. The problem with that is that is EXACTLY what Obama has done with his investments in "green technology" companies like Solyndra. The difference is that Romney was investing his company's money; Obama has invested (and lost) yours! Jay Carney's attempt to that away was simply hilarious. (listen)
No one knows what will happen in November, and there are plenty of election changing events that can easily take place in the interim. But with history as a guide, it's not just that we should be considering the possibility of a Romney victory...we should be considering the possibility of a Romney landslide. (listen)
Team Obama is blasting Romney for accepting the endorsement of a "charlatan" like Donald Trump. A little odd for a crew that has embraced the likes of Rashid Khalidi, Van Jones, Cass Sunstein, Kevin Jennings and so many others, don't you think? And let's not even get started on the Hollywood activists raising money and endorsing Obama and his underlings. (listen)
Chris Hayes, the host of MSNBC’s “Up with Chris Hayes” unleashed a bizarre rant this last Sunday that caused more than a few eyebrows to lift the day before Memorial Day. Here was the text of what he said:
CHRIS HAYES: Thinking today and observing Memorial Day, that'll be happening tomorrow. Just talked with Lt. Col. Steve Burke [sic, actually Beck], who was a casualty officer with the Marines and had to tell people [inaudible]. Um, I, I, ah, back sorry, um, I think it's interesting because I think it is very difficult to talk about the war dead and the fallen without invoking valor, without invoking the words "heroes." Um, and, ah, ah, why do I feel so comfortable [sic] about the word "hero"? I feel comfortable, ah, uncomfortable, about the word because it seems to me that it is so rhetorically proximate to justifications for more war. Um, and, I don't want to obviously desecrate or disrespect memory of anyone that's fallen, and obviously there are individual circumstances in which there is genuine, tremendous heroism: hail of gunfire, rescuing fellow soldiers and things like that. But it seems to me that we marshal this word in a way that is problematic. But maybe I'm wrong about that.
So uncomfortable with the word “hero” to describe our military men and women?
First, let’s acknowledge how easy it would be to demagogue this issue. It is a cupcake of a set-up to portray this one liberal’s remarks as indicative of a larger disdain for the military that is held by the left. But while it would be easy, it wouldn’t be right or even accurate. There are a great many liberals – many of whom have themselves served in the military or who have kids who are doing the same – who would not agree with what Hayes had to say.
As I was driving Monday morning, I heard a discussion on Glenn Beck’s program that was particularly bothersome to me. It wasn’t that uncommon for this time of year. In fact, I overheard a couple of similar conversations in person this last weekend. It all involved the question of whether or not young people are being properly told the meaning of important national holidays, like Memorial Day.
The guest host filling in for Beck, as well as the callers he was talking to almost all placed the blame for this lack of civic knowledge at the feet of our public school system. Anyone who knows me or who has listened to my radio program for any length of time knows that I am not one to excuse the failures of our school system – either the national superstructure of academia, the college professors who are writing the textbooks, the teachers’ unions who are advancing ideology over education, or the legislators who pretend to know how best to write curriculum. The whole system is lacking.
But what always makes me uncomfortable about these kinds of conversations like the ones on Beck’s show, is the fact that too often the “failure of our schools” becomes an excuse for our own failures as parents. The very same adults who are worrying about what our schools aren’t teaching their kids, ironically aren’t taking the time to teach it to their kids themselves.
Sometimes people ask me what topic on the radio program brings the most vociferous and hostile response among listeners. I think I surprise people when I tell them that it isn’t one of the hot button social issues like abortion or homosexuality. But it really isn’t. If I’m looking to get a reaction from folks, I’ve learned that issues relating to the left’s manipulation of science is the way to get it.
Dare to bring up the absurd assumptions upon which the Darwinian evolutionary model rests, or the crumbling foundation of global warming alarmism, and it is virtually a lock that the inbox will be flooded with folks telling you what an ignorant boob you are. Scientists (real or imagined) will come out of the woodwork to tell me that I’m not qualified to discuss scientific issues – ostensibly because I have not received a degree that confirms I have learned to regurgitate and recite conclusions consistent with the false assumptions liberal university professors embrace and teach.
So imagine my delight when I came across this study that seems to reveal the more I question global warming alarmism, the more scientifically aware I may, in fact, be. Frankly, I can’t wait to share this with my scientific betters:
Other "don't miss" segments of the radio show today:
Is it really surprising to anyone that Planned Parenthood has been caught (again) by Live Action, this time helping to facilitate sex-selective abortions? This corrupt organization is putting Democrats in an awkward position - do they defend the indefensible (killing kids because you wanted a boy not a girl), or do they undermine the entire premise behind abortion rights (woman's choice trumps all)? (listen)
CBS's liberal lion Bob Schieffer makes one of the funniest statements of the year in media - one which actually depicts the liberal philosophy on journalism perfectly. His Reagan statements were "accurate" but "not entirely true," he says. No joke. (listen)
The gift that keeps on giving for the Republican Party - DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz - makes a statement about the Wisconsin recall election she may later regret. With the Democrat trailing incumbent Governor Scott Walker, Schultz calls the race a "dry run" for Obama in 2012. (listen)
My local weather forecasters are underscoring that we are in a record-breaking heat wave right now. We expect the record for consecutive 90 degree plus daily highs for this time of the year as we head into Memorial Day. Yes, there have been above normal temperatures across the United States this year; still, climatologist John Christy, from the University of Alabama in Huntsville, explains:
We see hot and cold spots over the globe every month, and this was just our turn. Weather systems aligned in March in a way that changed normal circulation patterns and brought more warm air than usual to the continental U.S.
He and other climatologists point out that normal weather patterns like La Nina have been responsible. Although a warmer March for the lower 48 states, it was cool for Alaska, Australia, and parts of Russia. Globally, it was the coolest March in 13 years, but still warmer than the 20th century average. Based on 30 years of satellite measurements of the earth's surface air temperature, Dr. Christy calculated that March was one-fifth of 1 degree Fahrenheit warmer than usual.
“Even Jimmy Carter would have given that order.” -- GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney on President Obama’s claim that Romney would not have ordered the commando raid that killed Osama bin Laden last year.
“We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now.” -- Environmentalist James Lovelock on the earth over the past 12 years not warming as much as environmentalists thought it would. “The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing,” he said. “We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books—mine included—because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened.” Time magazine in 2007 named Lovelock one of 13 “Heroes of the Environment.”
“More than any President we’ve seen, this incumbent is willing to say things that aren’t in the area code of the truth.” – Editorial by The Wall Street Journal, on President Obama’s rhetoric regarding tax, green jobs, and other claims.
“The most important word in the whole piece of music is ‘God.’” – Lee Greenwood on Stallbrook Elementary School (Bellingham, MA) changing his song, “God Bless the USA” to “We Love the USA.” The school restored the original lyrics after Greenwood and others protested. (Fox News, 4/5/2012)
I ran across the following in a recent celebrity cipher:
“[Mike] Wallace took to heart the old reporter’s pledge to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.” – Morley Safer
In the first place, this may be an “old reporter’s pledge,” but it is has been used throughout Christ’s Church for centuries. A lot of the sentiment is derived from Martin Luther’s objections to the practices of the Catholic Church in his lifetime. His objections eventually formed one of the cornerstones of what became known as the Protestant movement. In his “Commentary on Galatians,” Luther writes:
Therefore, Christ must be taught as Savior and gift to those who are afraid and have already been terrified by the burden of their sins, and not as the example and the lawgiver. But to those who are secure and hardened in their own opinions, the example of Christ should be set forth, and the terrifying examples of the wrath of God such as the flood and the destruction of the Sodomites that they might be led to repentance.
“The Encyclopedia of Christianity” (original German publication in 1986), reads:
I am one who is firmly of the belief that conservatives enjoy a widespread popular support in the so-called culture war. On the issues that matter in society – those that define life and family and sexuality – I believe that most Americans hold to a more conservative approach. That is reflected in some polls like the ones that show people self-identify as conservative 2 to 1 over liberal. That isn’t reflected in other polls like the ones where Americans are supposedly more accepting of certain kinds of sexual practices that have traditionally been out of the mainstream.
There are a lot of explanations for those latter polls, as we’ve talked about on the program before. There are certainly many Americans who hold to their personal views quietly and out of the public eye. And there are also many Americans that I have suggested will say publicly that they stand with something like the homosexual “rights” movement, but in the privacy of a voting booth reject that which they know to be unnatural and immoral.
If I’m right, then one of the smartest things conservatives can do in the culture war is to put on full display who these leftist radicals are that are attempting a cultural revolution in America. Let those dormant American majorities see where our country ends up and what embraces if the liberal view is allowed to ascend and dominate. Show them press releases and news stories like this:
To be honest, I haven’t followed the embarrassing Elizabeth Warren story out of the Ivy League too much. Primarily because it hasn’t been that interesting to me. Resume’ enhancement is the name of the game for these academia social climbers. Granted, there is something inherently humorous about a proud white liberal touting herself as a Native American in order to be accepted amongst her cohorts. But frankly I’ve just found a number of other issues more pressing.
But when I saw the headline from the lead editorial at National Review Online entitled, “Paleface,” I couldn’t resist. The editors there at NRO did an outstanding job, in my estimation, at pointing out what is actually substantial about this episode – and it doesn’t necessarily have to do with the embarrassment of Ms. Warren itself:
In our rotating interview this week, I wanted to get Republican rising star and conservative Congressional candidate Jackie Walorski’s take on the decision by the University of Notre Dame (an institution within the district she is running to represent) to join other Catholic institutions in suing the Obama administration over their ObamaCare contraceptive mandate.
I also wanted Jackie’s opinion on the emerging division we’re seeing within the Democrat Party right now, as key figures and notable officeholders disagree over Barack Obama’s attacks on Bain Capital. Is it an attack on free enterprise? And is this an inner party revolt that stands to do any lasting damage to their Party in the midst of an election year?
Hear Jackie’s take on these issues and more by clicking the “listen” link above.
Other "don't miss" segments of the radio show today:
Fantastic news on the abortion front: a new Gallup poll shows that Americans self-identifying as "pro-choice" has dropped like a rock in one year (from 47% to 41%). As medical technology advances, abortion is increasingly seen for what it is: murdering a baby. (listen)
Hollywood actress and activist Ashley Judd makes an hilarious case for Obama, actually claiming that Obama "has an incredible devotion to our Constitution." No, Ashley, he has an incredible devotion to his ideology - so much so he won't let the Constitution get in the way of implementing it. (listen)
After a great evening speaking at the Worldview Bootcamp held last evening at Harbour Shores Church in Cicero, IN, I am refocused once again on the reality that all our political disagreements are nothing but the symptoms of the larger battle over worldview - that's where we must begin. (listen)
Several of you probably know the name Ray Comfort. He is the Christian evangelist and apologist who teams with Hollywood star Kirk Cameron on several projects, including their work at the award winning television program, “The Way of the Master.” Comfort is also the creator of one of the most acclaimed pro-life videos to ever exist, entitled 180. Pro-life groups around the country hand out the short, but powerful video for free, and the movie is available for free online as well.
It has changed hearts and minds on an issue that is commonly known to feature entrenched, unmovable hearts and minds. That doesn’t mean that everyone is impressed by it:
Fox News reported that “180,” a movie comparing abortion to the Holocaust, was handed out to students at Wagoner High School in Oklahoma” and that parents are now demanding answers because “It’s a movie with a clear pro-life message, and it found its way into classrooms and hallways of the school.”
The Republican VP sweepstakes is heating up and a couple of names at the top of the list don’t appear to be doing anything to tamp down those expectations or rumors. First up, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie:
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie told Kentucky Republicans on Saturday that President Barack Obama was “posing and preening” instead of working to resolve pressing issues facing the country.
“He is the most ill-prepared person to assume the presidency in my lifetime,” Christie told some 600 Kentucky Republicans at a Lexington hotel. “This is a guy who literally is walking around in a dark room trying to find the light switch of leadership.”
“He has sat in the Oval Office and cared more about posing and preening and making partisan politics the rule of the day in Washington D.C. than he’s cared about progress,” the New Jersey Republican, now in his third year in office, said of Obama.
Two different lenses through which to view these remarks. First, the analytical. It’s difficult to disagree with anything Christie is saying here. There’s no question that Obama was not prepared for the job he took on. Most Americans who were politically aware knew this at the time – some just decided to overlook it. Obama had never held an executive position either in the private or public sectors. He hadn’t even run a lemonade stand. But here he was, assuming the responsibilities of being the “leader of the free world.” Talk about audacity.
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney has faced a lot of questions in the last few weeks about the virtually indistinguishable line between President Obama as candidate and President Obama as president. And his answers have been pretty weak. So weak, in fact, that ABC’s actual journalist on staff, Jake Tapper, commented that Obama has become a campaigner in chief.
Now, to cut Carney a little slack, I don’t think Obama ever transitioned to being president from being a campaigner after the 2008 election. His administration has been led by “community organizing” and faction-building rather than consensus driven or unity minded. Obama’s policy speeches, his State of the Union Addresses, his few press briefings, even his memorial speeches have all had the air of a campaign rally – the bitterness, the division, the strident dismissal of his political opponents.
And now, we can add commencement address at a tornado-ravaged school to the list. At least I sure see quite a few lines in this speech that don’t seem to be too much about inspiring greatness in young people nearly as much as reiterating campaign talking points and themes from his re-elect mission. Take a look and decide for yourself:
Other "don't miss" segments of the radio show today:
Representative Maxine Waters (D-Cal) hilariously condemns the "tea party" for having a "mean spirit." Since the "tea party" is not a person, that's a pretty large blanket condemnation of a number of people. And it's a little bizarre coming from someone who announced that Americans who disagree with her can "go to H***." (listen)
Christophobe and radical homosexual activist Dan Savage challenges National Organization for Marriage President Brian Brown to a dinner debate to be posted on YouTube. Savage tells him to "bring the wife." There are a few human beings I would not be comfortable bringing family members around - Dan Savage is one of them. (listen)
Obama's attack on free enterprise (and that's exactly what it is in the anti-Romney, anti-Bain ads he's been running) is not sitting well with a number of Democrats who don't really want to be the socialist party of America. So much so, former DNC Chair and Governor Ed Rendell won't give his support to Obama. (listen)
While I have been quick to criticize the University of Notre Dame for its decision to invite a man committed to child sacrifice (Barack Obama) to speak at their Catholic university graduation ceremony, and for the fact that certain staff members decided to write an objection of the courageous stand against Obama’s health insurance abortifacient mandate taken by one Catholic Bishop, they deserve some credit for this:
The University of Notre Dame along with dozens of other Catholic institutions sued the Obama administration Monday to block the mandate requiring employers to provide contraceptives to employees.
What’s interesting is what this decision is doing to the public conversation. Take a look at the discussion they had on Hardball just a couple days ago about this very topic:
CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Well, what’s the politics here between it seems to me the universities and the older Catholics, more conservative Catholics, and this administration and the younger people that go to these schools and a lot of them who work at these schools? What’s the real politics going on here, Sister?
SISTER SIMONE CAMPBELL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR NETWORK, A NATIONAL CATHOLIC SOCIAL JUSTICE LOBBY: I think that this is mostly related to the project that the bishops have coming out in June which they’re calling the Fortnight of Freedom. They want to raise up this idea that we in the United States are religiously persecuted. I quite frankly find that quite offensive because we have connections with people all over the world who are actually persecuted. And so the Catholic bishops saying that they are suffering under this persecution from this administration I think is more fueled politically, and is their effort to draw attention to what I understand is going to be quite a PR blitz that they’re paying for.
MATTHEWS: Do you think they’re all Republican, the bishops?
CAMPBELL: I don’t know if they’re all Republican, but it sure seems that they’re speaking from the, the playbook, sort of possibly as surrogates for the Republican Party, I don’t know. But they certainly are engaged in politics that seem much more aligned with the Right.
Obviously, from an historical perspective, the Catholic vote has skewed Democrat. Matthews surely knows that, so is question is a jab, but I wonder if he knows what he’s promoting? I wonder if he knows he is promoting a discussion about the compatibility of the Christian faith with the policies and ideals of the Democrat party? I’m totally good with that conversation. I think it’s high time that Christians who vote Democrat be confronted with the reality that has existed for a lot longer than any of them would care to admit, that the Party they choose to associate with proudly stands for the advancement of cultural causes diametrically opposed to the truth of God’s Word.
One of the things that I find absolutely ridiculous is the claim by homosexual activists on the left that they are merely fighting a defensive agenda – that they are representing a persecuted minority simply seeking the same rights that everyone else has. It doesn’t matter how demonstrably false that is, they keep on claiming it anyway.
The homosexual agenda is far from passive, it is far from defensive, and it is far from placid. It is an aggressively intimidating agenda hostile towards our cultural heritage, traditions and values. It is a group of radicals attempting nothing short of a cultural revolution that will usher in a new era of sexual anarchy as well as legal and social hostility towards those with traditional values and religious beliefs. It is a movement that will use the force of law to compel those who don’t believe like them to either acquiesce and publicly condone their behavior or face legal and social consequences. They are the ones actively thrusting the bedroom into the government, and using the power structures of our legal system to coerce the general population into the kind of thought they deem appropriate.
This isn’t about rights – unless it’s about the rights of conscience the homosexual lobby seeks to undo. This is about a revolution. Take the words of Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, two of the founders of the modern homosexual movement:
The decision by the University of Notre Dame to join other Catholic institutions and organizations in suing the Obama’s administration’s unconstitutional mandate that religious groups be forced to violate their rights of conscience by providing free contraceptives, abortifacients and sterilization to employees has created a real pickle for Indiana Congressman and Senatorial hopeful “Silent Joe” Donnelly.
Back when the mandate first became public, I placed a call to the offices of Congressman Donnelly asking how he, a professing Catholic, would side on the issue: with his political party leadership or with the rights of conscience of his church. Given the fact that I’ve been calling Congressman Donnelly asking for an interview for almost 580 days in a row now – without the courtesy of a response – I wasn’t surprised when he didn’t answer me.
But Congressman Joe is going to find it hard to escape this one by doing what he does best: remain silent on issues that matter. Given that Notre Dame is in his Congressional district, and that he has proudly defended his vote in favor of ObamaCare, he can’t expect that people will abide his silence. His opponent, Richard Mourdock, doesn’t appear interested in letting him off the hook:
Other "don't miss" segments of the radio show today:
Indiana's Democrat candidate for Governor, John Gregg makes a remarkably controversial choice to be his Lt. Governor by picking far-left state representative Vi Simpson of Bloomington. She's got name recognition for all the wrong reasons: one of only a few Democrats to support the brutal partial birth abortion practice of stabbing half-delivered children with scissors. Tasty pick, John. (listen)
We knew the Republican presidential primaries would be tight contests (at least early on), but who expected Barack Obama to struggle so much with incarcerated felons, no-names, and even blank ballot opponents? Nonetheless, Obama vs. "uncommitted vote" has turned into the race to watch right now! (listen)
Roger Ailes says that Comedy Central's Jon Stewart all but admitted to him that he (Stewart) is a socialist who "hates conservative ideas." Stewart can be funny - but that doesn't make his biased half-truths and humorously edited video clips true or represented honestly. That's not the hallmark of socialists, after all. (listen)
Well here’s one that absolutely stunned me. You might remember during the 2008 presidential campaign, no network was more notorious for being in the tank for Obama than CNN. Perhaps that’s not fair. MSNBC was obviously part of his campaign structure, but I just even count them as being a legitimate network. CNN at least attempts to maintain this façade of being unbiased. Absurd.
In 2008 it was CNN that boasted Anderson Cooper and his embarrassing dismissal of the Jeremiah Wright controversy no less than 15 times in one short segment. It was CNN that was mercilessly mocked by Saturday Night Live for being so in love with Obama – to the point that Hillary Clinton even gave them a hat tip in the midst of a debate with The Chosen One. And it was CNN that had Campbell Brown cheerfully playing the same, “No Obama Controversial Relationship Mentioned Here” game, while at the same time going overboard to cover hard-hitting news stories like Sarah Palin’s wardrobe.
So imagine my surprise when I saw an absolutely incredibly honest piece from Brown that appeared in the New York Times over the weekend. Brown was hammering Obama for his condescending attitude towards women. Behold, and be equally amazed:
We just covered the story last week about the preponderance of liberal commencement speakers as opposed to conservative ones this year at America’s prestigious universities. What we didn’t take time to do was delineate between the uplifting liberal speeches (you know, the “hopey/changey” ones) and the whiny victim liberal speeches. To do so would require actually reading or listening to them all – an unenviable task, to be sure.
Nonetheless, the folks over at the Media Research Center’s Newsbusters site did the work for us – at least in identifying one super whiny speech. Just imagine being a graduating senior at the University of Virginia and finding out that your commencement speaker was going to be Katie Couric. Good grief. Could they just mail me my diploma?
And for those of you who think it wouldn’t be that bad – that Katie would focus on the positive and on the graduates’ excitement towards the life before them – think again. Katie’s speech was about…well…Katie. But not just about her. More specifically, it was about how abused, mistreated, victimized she has been – and how she, because of her own greatness – managed to overcome it all. If you don’t believe me, check it out:
Very little surprises me anymore when it comes from the political left. And you can surely understand. A movement that finds a way to legitimize a “medical procedure” that involves sawing off the head of a child in the womb is one that you really can’t be surprised at when they do something despicable. Massacring kids pretty much takes the cake.
So when I say that the left was “surprising” me in the way they are going after Republican presumptive nominee Mitt Romney’s wife in this campaign, don’t mistake that for me expecting a level of class or dignity that the left consistently proves that it lacks. No, my surprise isn’t at their lack of ethical boundaries, but rather at their lack of political wisdom.
First of all, let’s get the facts established. It’s only been a matter of a month and a few weeks since it was pretty well known that Romney was going to be the nominee for the Republican Party. And since that time, the Obamabots have gone after Ann Romney no fewer than four explicit times:
Other "don't miss" segments of the radio show today:
Axelrod says that Mormonism is "off the table" for the Obama campaign. Of course, that doesn't go for their allies in the mainstream media who will be poised to act if Obama starts seriously trailing. In fact, some media types are already begging to be unleashed on the Mormons. (listen)
A teacher's epic rant regarding how Obama cannot be criticized lest the student go to jail has gone viral. It's also earned the teacher a suspension. The real issue is how common this type of behavior is - and how so many liberals get away with it on a daily basis. (listen)
One good thing about the Obamaconomy: less people are driving because they can't afford it; less people are shipping goods and services because businesses are shuttered. How's that possibly a good thing you ask? Less traffic gridlock in our cities! Lead on, oh Captain Obama! (listen)
Last week I talked about the decision by Mitt Romney to “repudiate” the efforts by some Republican Super PAC folks to create a vetting of Obama and his relationship with disgraced, radical racist minister Jeremiah Wright. Remember, this is the relationship that the mainstream media went above and beyond in attempting to downplay and ignore in 2008. Maybe if they hadn’t, maybe if they would have properly vetted the relationship and asked the relevant questions about it at the time, we would have understood just what we were getting in this president long before it happened to us.
But now that this Republican Super PAC had intimated they were interested by the thought of pursuing a Wright/Obama vetting campaign, the lefties in the mainstream press are going nuts. They are discussing how radical and “racially incendiary” it is to even consider a strategy like this. Wait a second...they are concerned about “radicalism” or “racially incendiary” viewpoints? Who, might I ask, defines those two terms better than...Jeremiah Wright?
That’s the rub of this whole thing. Anybody who is honestly serious about wanting to rid our country’s leadership of radical extremist thought, or expunge the influence of racially incendiary language from positions of power, would be overly and excessively concerned with people like Jeremiah Wright. They are the purveyors of racial disharmony and radicalism. They are the ones polarizing discourse and inflaming hostilities with their hate speech.
Actor and comedian Jon Lovitz set off a firestorm with his now infamous rant against Barack Obama’s class warfare rhetoric. What makes Lovitz’s comments particularly noteworthy is the fact that Lovitz is a big Hollywood guy, an Obama supporter, and a guy who even now won’t say that he won’t support the President for re-election. Nevertheless, he’s livid at the President for dividing the country so outwardly and openly between the 99% and the 1%.
Why? Because as a member of the 1%, Lovitz is tired of being demonized as a guy who doesn’t pay his fair share of taxes or make sacrifices to help the country. It’s an interesting perspective, and though I have no use for Lovitz’s profanity-laced rant against the president, I think his point is not only legitimate, it’s critical that we hear it.
This president ran on a campaign to unite Americans (you might remember the “no red America and no blue America” stuff) and yet is now actively engaging the most overtly divisive campaign tactic we have seen in some time. Think about it: President Obama is actually running a campaign that blames the plight of 99% of Americans on another 1% of Americans. He is suggesting to a large voting block that all their problems are the consequence of a tiny portion of the electorate’s greed and selfishness. It doesn’t matter whether it’s true or not...if Obama can gin up the anger and envy, he is bound to receive the votes of the larger bloc even if he doesn’t win a single vote of the 1%.
It wasn’t that terribly long ago that we talked on the radio show about the teenager from Rhode Island, Jessica Ahlquist, who has decided she’s an atheist. Jessica sought fame and attention by suing a rug at her school – a prayer rug, that is. As you recall, this was all done under the guise of her feeling ostracized by the rug since she didn’t pray. Evidently she didn’t mind feeling ostracized when she alienated her fellow classmates by insulting their faith with her lawsuit. Some ostracism is apparently worse than other.
At the time, Ahlquist claimed that she was hoping to spend the rest of her life advocating her belief system – apparently that would be belief in unbelief. Whatever. In other words, Ahlquist was proudly proclaiming that she was aspiring to join the ranks of the evangelistic atheists – that band of unbelievers who don’t think it’s enough to just believe (or not) the way they do, but that they are called to strip others of their beliefs as well. If that needs to be done through mockery, derision, lawsuits and courts, or jail time, so be it. Their Great Commission is to remove every vestige of faith and religion from the public square and render ours an atheistic culture. It’s a lovely calling.
I had some hope at the time that this was just a moment of youthful indiscretion and that Ahlquist would find something more worthwhile to do with her life. For now, that doesn’t appear to be happening:
Other "don't miss" segments of the radio show today:
Indiana Congressman and Gubernatorial candidate Mike Pence names his running mate: freshman legislator Sue Ellspermann. The choice is getting a lot of support from social conservatives, specifically Indiana Right to Life, who praise the pick. (listen)
The Associated Obama Press runs a story with the headline: "Is GOP Trying to Sabotage Economy to Hurt Obama?" No joke. These nincompoops are so in the tank for The One that they honestly are alleging that trying to stop economy-destroying policies from being enacted is, in itself, sabotaging economy. There's the state of your free press. (listen)
A 5 year old girl is now officially living as a boy after being diagonsed with "Gender Identity Disorder." She was a cute little girl in pictures, but steps weren't taken when she started expressing confusion, and now it's come to this. Five years old. Sacrificing our kids to a political agenda. (listen)
I have often mentioned the great work that radio talk show host Peter Heck does out of WIOU in Kokomo and his book 78: How Christians Can Save America. Peter will be speaking at my church next Thursday evening, May 24th at Harbour Shores Church, 8011 East 216th Street in Cicero at 6:30pm.
Unfortunately, I will not be able to hear him, as I will be on vacation that week in the Smokey Mountains. Ironically, when Peter is on vacation in early June, I will be hosting his show once or twice, where, to my relief, he, as a highly talented radio host, will not be able to hear me.
Across the board, the political establishment, Hollywood, the pop culture and the media would have us believe that the only issue that matters to voters is the economy. The only ones who care about social issues are a few devout religious types who are seen as backwards, out of touch and on the wrong side of the winning calculus.
If this is the case, how do they explain a huge drop in the President's poll numbers after a week dominated by news of his support for unraveling marriage. At the end of last week, for the first time, Mitt Romney hit the 50% mark in Rasmussen’s tracking polls, developing a 7-point lead over President Obama who dropped to just 43% election support.
One political observer even said that the President’s proclamation placed six states in play this fall that may have been leaning towards him. Finally being honest, the President has shared his desire to remake marriage into a gay social experiment. (Actually it is remaking it into anything one desires, because whoever draws a boundary at any place is the next “bigot” and “hatemonger” of those who desire anything else.)
Placing states into play in the electoral map could be real. As one commentator observed, polls are one thing, but elections are another and voters in 32 states in a row, in every part of and demographic segment of the US, have made it clear how they really feel about changing this cornerstone of a strong society.
This doesn’t mean that the lousy economy is not among the biggest issues of the campaign in the minds of most voters. However, the desire to give up on social issues among, even some conservative elites, is baffling. My only explanation is that to question the homosexual agenda today is to incur a wrath and punishment from the patron saints of tolerance that few people want to endure a second time.
There are times when a liberal’s article catches my attention because its author thinks through an issue and makes logical conclusions that are based on the available information and evidence. I am not at all timid about noting such times when rational conclusions are reached by variant ideologies. Such is the case found in this week’s issue of “Lib-Quote of the Week.”
In a widely distributed article, Jonathan Zimmerman, “a lifelong Democrat and a career educator” according to his own words, considersthe potentially chilling impact of recall elections that are initiated solely on the basis of differences in opinion and ideology:
It didn’t take the top two Democrat contenders in Indiana even a full day to distance themselves from their party’s standard-bearer on the issue of undefining marriage. Both US Senatorial Candidate Joe Donnelly and Gubernatorial Candidate John Gregg wanted the media to know that, unlike President Obama, they support preserving marriage as between a man and a woman.
Though Gregg said he had a position similar to that of Governor Daniels and wished “lawmakers would just drop the issue as a policy matter.” He made it clear that he does not support legalizing gay marriage. I have heard from several sources that when the Democrats lost control of the Indiana House a few years ago, the former House Speaker (Gregg) told then new former Speaker, Pat Bauer, that he lost his majority because the Democrats had blocked a vote on marriage protection. Donnelly has not said where he stands on an amendment to keep judges from forcing the issue of homosexual marriage upon America’s churches, businesses and schools.
The fact of the matter is that in Indiana, outside of the newsroom of the Indianapolis Star and our college campuses, there are really very few areas in which there is a majority support for unraveling the institution of marriage into an anything goes proposition. Out of all 150 state legislators there were only 36 who voted against protecting marriage last year.
Not long ago we talked about homosexual activist Dan Savage and his bullying assault on Christian kids. It was a bad moment for both Savage and the movement he helps lead, as it was a perfect depiction of the hypocritical nature of their stated desire to promote tolerance. If there’s one thing that becomes clear watching Savage’s speech, it’s that tolerating Christian morality is the last thing Savage or his cohorts want to do.
It was revealing enough that several of Savage’s media allies quickly began running damage control. Some of it was quite humorous to behold. Other attempts were just too backwards for me to avoid addressing. Take, for instance, a piece written by accomplished progressive (the name liberals use when they don’t want to be known as liberal) political writer Amanda Marcotte. Writing at Slate, she concluded that the right’s outrage towards Savage’s bullying was “manufactured.”
She blasts liberals who have not backed Savage, but have admitted that his comments were offensive at best, a total contradiction at worst. One such liberal that met with Marcotte’s ire was Daily Beast author Jay Michaelson. Marcotte rips him good:
Much is being said right now about so-called “gay marriage” given the President’s open support of it during a presidential election year. And the homosexual agenda-embracing mainstream media is pushing two main themes in relation to the issue: 1. A majority of Americans are in favor of gay marriage; 2. Gay marriage is inevitable because young people are overwhelmingly more supportive of it than older Americans.
It shouldn’t be surprising that both of these themes are not exactly accurate. Let’s look at them in turn. First, do a majority of Americans favor gay marriage? Several astute political observers have noted, the best poll on any issue is what happens in the voting booth. And when this issue has been on the ballot for the people to decide, it has always lost. Every time. It has lost in some very liberal states – albeit by a slim margin – even with strong funding, media support, and an energized organization. That is the best sign of how the public truly feels about it.
But even using polling data, gauging how the public feels about gay marriage is almost completely dependent upon how the question is phrased. For instance, check out what the Washington Post acknowledged:
The father of the modern molecules to man evolutionary theory, Charles Darwin, had what we might call a bit of a race problem. In the Descent of Man (Darwin’s not-so-widely-discussed-by-liberals-who-deify-him book), Darwin postulated that Australian aborigines and dark-skinned Africans were actually closer relatives to apes than Caucasians.
If you understand and embrace Darwinian theory, this just has to make sense, no matter how inconvenient it may be for you. Take Darwin’s “Tree of Life.” If we are on the branch of humans, it makes no sense to believe that we are not still in the midst of our evolution. Which means, logically, that some human races are further down the branch (further evolved) than others. This is the inherent racism built into the evolutionary mindset that has provided some of history’s worst genocidal maniacs intellectual justification for their crimes. That’s not saying that Darwinian theory caused the ovens at Auschwitz, but simply that it provided Hitler a moral justification for his massacre. Ditto Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Che, et al.
That inconvenient truth is one that liberals have tried to avoid bringing up, but sometimes they have those classic Freudian slips that reveal what’s going on behind their intellectual curtains. Check this out from a recent edition of Hardball with Chris Matthews. Interviewing Bishop Harry Jackson, a black minister who has spoken out against Barack Obama’s endorsement of gay marriage, look at what Matthews tossed out there:
Other "don't miss" segments from the radio show today:
Despite the fact that the media will soon unleash a full colonoscopy on Joseph Smith and the whole of Mormonism in an attempt to destroy him, Mitt Romney "repudiates" any ads that expose how much Jeremiah Wright's radicalism influenced the president's ideology. Bad move. Ideology and worldview matter. (listen)
If you want an indication of just how little vetting of Obama the mainstream media did in 2008, check out what a pamplhet used by an Obama literary agent until 2007 said about Obama's story: "born in Kenya." This isn't about birtherism, it's about the lack of vetting, and it's pathetic. (listen)
Spectacular. That’s the only word I can come up with for the question posed by CNN contributor Will Cain when he was a guest on Don Lemon’s program the other day (this clip is a little dated, but I just came across it). Lemon, a man who has self-identified as a participant in homosexual behavior, was hosting both Cain and another CNN contributor who apparently practices homosexuality as well, and turned to the topic of the White House Correspondents’ Dinner. Lemon played a clip of WHCD host Jimmy Kimmel chiding Keith Olbermann while taking a shot at the perceived homosexual mannerisms of Dr. Marcus Bachmann (Michele Bachmann’s husband).
Kimmel’s quip was something along the lines of, “Keith Olbermann has more pink slips than Marcus Bachmann.” When the clip ended, Lemon forced laughter for what was an uncomfortable amount of time – past the point that any normal human being would laugh at that joke whether they found it funny or not (perhaps he was trying to fill time on a slow news day) – and then asked his guests what they thought about the joke.
That’s when Cain delivered a knockout blow to Lemon:
One of the questions I’ve always had for liberals who argue for a hike in the minimum wage is, “Why stop at ‘x’ amount of dollars?” In other words, if they are advocating that the government raise the amount of money they demand that businesses pay their workers to $10 an hour, I ask, “why stop at $10?” After all, the idea is that workers need that raise to be able to keep up with cost of living expenses. So, why not make it $20 an hour and give them a little more cushion?
At first, some liberals misunderstand where I’m going, and they agree. But I keep raising the price. Why not $30? $40 an hour? At some point, they recoil and say something like, “Well, let’s not be ridiculous or go overboard.” Hmmm. Why is saying that I want workers paid $40 an hour “going overboard?” Do these liberals have something against working men and women making a good wage like that?
If you push them on this, they will eventually relent and acknowledge that the laws of economics make it both unfeasible and unwise for government to place such demands on businesses. Precisely. Now, why? Because when you artificially inflate the wage system, you are only going to drive up costs in other areas to offset the “new money.” Not to mention the fact that many businesses could not afford that kind of jump in wages for their workers. Instead of employing 4 men (providing 4 salaries and supporting 4 families) at $10 an hour, now the business will be employing 1 man. That’s 3 families without an income. In other words, those fighting on behalf of the “working middle class” would be destroying 75% of their jobs and livelihoods.
Since Dick Lugar bit the dust in the Indiana primary, liberals in both the Republican and Democrat parties have been having a field day. They’ve been using the Senator’s defeat as more evidence of their claim that Republicans have moved so far to the right that they can’t even identify the middle anymore. This, to them, is unconscionable. They can’t fathom why any political party would choose to embrace such a radical ideology so far from the mainstream.
Look, I don’t want to burst anybody’s bubble here because I know these folks that say this nonsense are really proud of themselves. They think they’ve got a winning campaign slogan, and they are loading their rhetorical bombs as fast as they are launching them in the press. But stop and think about it: this “dangerously rightward shift” took place beginning in the 2010 election cycle with that dastardly tea party. That’s when, we are told, that the Republican Party moved so dangerously away from mainstream America that they imperiled the country. Uh-huh. Could someone refresh my memory as to how “mainstream” America reacted to this outrage? Oh yeah, they elected historic numbers of these Americans.
Other "don't miss" segments of the radio show today:
David Letterman has moved from perverted sex jokes about the preteen kids of Sarah Palin to outright campaigning for Barack Obama. He gets angry that silly Americans don't just appreciate the Benevolent One, Barack Obama, for all he's "done" for them. Sheesh. (listen)
Labor union workers can be thrilled to know that their bosses spent millions of dollars of their dues money trying to recall Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin - a prospect that looks so grim now that the DNC isn't going to waste a dime there. Unions: standing up for the working man. Yeah. (listen)
Once again, Barack Obama's budget proposals don't garner a single vote from any Democrat in the U.S. Senate. That's how serious this president is when it comes to financial stewardship of your tax dollars - he can't even get a single member of his own party to support him. (listen)
I get why conservatives have been, and remain uncomfortable with Mitt Romney as the Republican nominee. His record as governor of the liberal state of Massachusetts is very concerning, and his flip flops on critical issues leave many of us more than just a little apprehensive about his commitment to pursuing a staunchly conservative agenda from the White House.
But there is one point that I want to make very clear in terms of my position. Mitt Romney is no Barack Obama. Is he closer ideologically to Obama than Santorum or Bachmann? Yes. But he is still worlds apart from Obama’s ideals. The silly “Obamney” monikers are just that: silly. I’ve always felt that way, but never more so than after reading bits and pieces of Romney’s speech to the graduating seniors at Liberty University. These lines of Romney that follow (along with the follow-up commentary of columnist and radio host Dennis Prager) are a clear indication of a guy who sees the world, and America much differently (as in night and day differently) than our current President:
I think the biggest challenge facing the Obama re-election campaign crew these next few months may not be what everything thinks it will be: finding a way to distract the electorate to the sorry state of the economy under Obama. I think it may actually be finding a way to keep Vice President Joe Biden away from a microphone. The list of gaffes has become too long in recent years to keep track of (though Jonah Goldberg’s annihilation of Biden’s “intellect” and “gravitas” in his recent book is as good – and hilarious – an attempt as any I’ve seen), but they seem to be causing the administration bigger and bigger headaches, even on policy matters.
If you haven’t heard the latest, Biden managed to put together a speech to college kids that both insults previous generations of Americans, unnecessarily declares the greatness of an unproven generation, fails grammatically, and slips on a fairly touchy policy subject. Behold:
It’s May. Six months before the election. That’s an important thing to note before starting any analysis of where the race for the White House now stands because so very much can change almost instantaneously depending on national and international events. Six months is an eternity in politics, so no political analyst – no matter how wise and experienced – can truly make an accurate prediction of what will happen in November with any certitude. With that caveat established, here’s the truth: right now, Obama’s fortunes are not looking as rosy as what his team would have you believe.
If you want proof, just totally ignore Mitt Romney, totally ignore a reenergized tea party following the Mourdock win in Indiana, totally ignore the polls, and watch Obama and his surrogates only. That will demonstrate to you how confident they are about their current prospects. Two specific examples recently speak the truth that this will be no cakewalk for the president.
First, President Obama speaking at his second LGBT event in recent days (which in and of itself could be interpreted as a sign of desperation) blasted the Republican strategy that is annoying him:
Other "don't miss" segments of the radio show today:
ABC calls it quits with their Christian-bashing, porn-promoting, Scripture-mocking TV drama GCB. You have to wonder how many programs that mock mainstream America and family values have to fail before Hollywood gets the picture. (listen)
Here's a shock: top universities invite far more liberals to be their commencement speakers than conservatives. We're talking a 7-to-1 margin. And why not? What better way to cap off a four year program of liberal indoctrination than with a rousing liberal speech? (listen)
Back in the world of the Trayvon Martin exploitation, reports are now being released that not only did the shooter Zimmerman have a broken nose and two black eyes, but Trayvon's autopsy revealed bruised knuckles. Nevertheless, Zimmerman may still be charged with a "hate crime" by FBI. (listen)
Another day, another set of primaries. Another story the media’s not covering. First, the primary news: Tuesday’s primaries should be mostly uneventful…except for the possible upending of yet another establishment candidate in a competitive U.S. Senate race. In Nebraska, a three-way Republican primary appeared ho-hum even a week ago with heavy favorite, Nebraska attorney general, Jon Bruning holding a commanding sixteen point lead. But a late surgein the polls coupled with a key endorsement from Sarah Palin has resulted in a reversal in challenger, Deb Fischer’s fortunes. What makes this race particularly interesting is the power players backing the candidates. Aside from Palin’s endorsement of Fischer, Bruning holds a nod from Rick Santorum and Jon Stenberg received support from both Rand Paul and Jim DeMint. Bruning has held a tremendous money edge and held a solid lead through nearly all of the primary season but faces the prospect of flaming out in the last week before the election. Fischer has jumped from third to first in a matter of a weak and is in position to pull off a May surprise. The winner goes on to face former Senator Bob Kerry in what promises to be a prime target seat for Republicans in November.
What else is big in the news today (or not in the news in this case)? How about the fact that Mitt Romney has pulled ahead of President Obama among women? Yes, the women vote. Often cited as the Achilles heal for Republicans (after all, women voters are somehow more valuable than men voters), Romney’s “war against women” was supposed to be the latest surge in the Obama candidacy that would prove fatal to Romney’s chances in November. After a brutal primary, and unpopular stances on “women’s issues”, Romney was in danger of losing womenentirely. So what isn’t in the news today? How about the fact that Romney is now leadingamong women voters in the most recent CBS/NYT Poll? I’m not sure which is more humorous at this point: the fact that the media is utterly silent on the issue or the fact that team Obama is trying to spina New York Time poll as biased.
The fallout continues over Barack Obama’s call for the people of America to rebel against God’s Word. And Robert Knight’s recent column may be the most damaging for Obama yet. Why? Because unlike many other columnists who dodge it for the sake of focusing on political consequences, Knight specifically calls out Obama for dragging Jesus into the fray and misrepresenting him for the sake of his mad scheme. Knight correctly concludes that by doing so, Obama has far more serious consequences to consider than political ones.
After having done everything in his power to undermine marriage, President Obama has come out of the closet, so to speak, with his announcement that he’s now for brideless or groomless “marriage.” But he didn’t come out alone. He brought Jesus with him, citing Christ as his inspiration for directly attacking God’s moral order. It’s one thing to be a hypocrite, which Mr. Obama has been for years. Since he began pretending to oppose the redefinition of marriage but refusing to defend the federal Defense of Marriage Act while homosexualizing the military. It’s quite another thing, however, to invoke Christ when doing the devil’s work.
Forget the voters. Mr. Obama’s going to have to answer to God for this one. Wednesday’s announcement even might sober up the people who voted for Mr. Obama simply to show that America has overcome racial division. Someone should survey pastors who support Mr. Obama and ask: Which is more important - electing a man on the basis of race or upholding the integrity of the faith and what the Scriptures say about marriage? Citing Genesis 2:24, Jesus said in Matthew 19:5: “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.”
It is always interesting to hear liberals complain about bringing Jesus (or faith) into political discussions. They maintain that we must rigidly toe the line separating church and state – a line that they have merely constructed in order to apply when it benefits them and trample when it does not. That, in and of itself, is rather odd. The left will talk about faith when it comes to the environment and the redistribution of wealth. But on issues of sexual morality, they want faith to be silent in the public square. That’s peculiar given the fact that Biblical history doesn’t record a single civilization (that I’m aware of) incurring the wrath of God for their pollution problem. But there are plenty that incurred it for their sexual sins.
It doesn’t seem that long ago that folks on the left were reacting with furor and anger over a Catholic bishop rightly declaring that Barack Obama embraced the same utilitarian view on the value of human life that failed dictatorships of the World War II era had embraced. “How dare he compare Obama to Hitler and Stalin!” these overly defensive leftists railed.
Even the so-called Catholic University of Notre Dame had a group of nutty professors and staffers who wrote a letter to their administration demanding that they remove the Bishop from the board of directors and from any affiliation with the school. Because, after all, Notre Dame just couldn’t bear the thought of being considered a campus that values the sanctity of every life made in the image of the Creator. The horror!
Anyway, at the time I remember saying two things about the time the Bishop came out with his statement. First, I said it would only be a matter of time until the left started warping the man’s words to suggest he called Obama Hitler. That happened pretty quickly. And the second thing I predicted was that it wouldn’t take too long before the same liberals that were incensed at the comparison between Obama’s view of life and the dictators’ view of life would be using the similar comparison, but in a far more personal and strained way.
The global warming movement has had some rough months recently. Once an attractive front for the neo-Marxists to take control of the world’s economies – their ultimate objective – it has become mired in falsified research, fabricated findings and, well...this:
Professor Graeme Ruxton of St Andrews University, Scotland, said the giant animals spent 150 [million] years emitting the potent global warming gas, methane.
Large plant-eating sauropods would have been the main culprits because of the huge amounts of greenery they consumed.
The team calculated the animals would have collectively produced more than 520m tons of methane a year – more than all today’s modern sources put together.
It is thought these huge amounts could easily have been enough to warm the planet.
You got that, right? Dinosaur flatulence caused global warming. I can’t believe we never thought of that before! I can’t believe this brilliant deduction wasn’t part of Al Gore’s slide show! It would at least have been a bit more entertaining of a presentation.
And let’s be honest – we’ve heard of humans dying after having a night of “flatulence release” in an airtight bedroom. Perhaps this dino-gas is what killed off the beasts?
Other "don't miss" segments of the radio show today:
Obama's most recent attack ad on Mitt Romney's time with Bain Capital is raising some eyebrows. The focus is the bankruptcy of a Bain group, GST Steel. Problem: Romney wasn't with Bain then...but a major Obama fundraiser was heading things up. Oops. (listen)
In the same manner of their infamous proclamation that Bill Clinton was America's First Black President, the lefties at Newsweek have glowingly deemed Obama America's First Gay President. I'm sure Michelle and the girls are thrilled with that cover. (listen)
CNN's practicing homosexual host, Don Lemon, hopped up on his soapbox as he decried those who "inject" religion into the marriage debate. Not that religion has anything to do with the institution, of course. And why can't God just mind His own business, anyway, right Don?! (listen)
Last week, the President of the United States of America called his people to outright rebellion against the Word and will of Almighty God. Did your minister say anything about it this week?
About 1:00 on Sunday afternoon, I found myself sitting in the grocery store parking lot with the kids in the back of the van, waiting on my wife. While the two girls were entertaining themselves, I picked up the phone and called my minister. I left him a voicemail thanking him for taking the time during his sermon to say what needed to be said: that regardless of what your political philosophy may be, every believer in America should be incensed that the leader of our country has called for a national embrace of a behavior that God Himself reserved the word “abomination” to describe. In an era where ministers are increasingly turning towards fulfilling the words of the book of Timothy, where they say only what “itching ears want to hear,” I felt like my minister needed some encouragement for having the courage to speak the truth in an increasingly dark generation. If your minister did the same, please give them a call or email of support. They deserve it.
In my book I write about the fascinating reality that we’ve come to in our country today: when a doctor fails to treat our illness properly, we have no hesitation about filing malpractice or at least switching doctors. When our financial adviser makes poor decisions with our money, we have no hesitation about switching control to a different investment guru. But when ministers fail to stand on the authority of God’s Word and speak the full truth to difficult circumstances, we so often give them a pass. Does this not seem to indicate that we are more concerned with our physical and financial health than our spiritual health? If so, God help us.
The President and his supporters are already hard at work portraying him as a modern day Martin Luther King, Jr. People of sound, rational minds will reject that as an insult to King as much as it is an insult to the intellect. While it has been a common tactic of the sexual anarchists to draw false parallels between the LGBT movement and the civil rights movement of King, the truth is that they are polar opposites.
How so? Start with the four “I”s. Race is inborn; homosexuality is not…it is behavior. Race is involuntary; while homosexual lusts and urges aren’t chosen, the behavior always is. Race is immutable (it can’t be changed); thousands of ex-gays testify to the fact that homosexual attractions can be overcome. Race is innocuous (it doesn’t hurt anyone); surrendering to sexually depraved lusts hurt both the individual and others.
Furthermore, consider that Martin Luther King, Jr. used God’s revealed Truth to mankind – the Bible – as the basis for his movement. He called the nation to obedience to God’s Word on the issue of race. Obama does the exact opposite. He calls the nation to reject the Word of God and move in a direction exactly opposite of God’s truth...because Obama believes himself to be smarter, wiser and more moral that the Creator. Martin Luther King, Jr. would have been appalled at such arrogance. Remember it was King who said that a law is just ONLY if it comports to the will of God.
Don’t miss out on a great opportunity coming up this Saturday at Victory Christian Academy, sponsored by the Kokomo Tea Party. From 9:00 am til noon, I will be there presenting a crash course in American Government and Civics called American Government 101. We’ve done this presentation a few different places and it has been highly productive and successful. Here are some things to know:
First, it is highly non-partisan. I love talking conservative politics, but that is not what this day is about. This is about learning or being reminded about the basic mechanics of government, American foundations and civil liberties. Democrats and liberals will be just as comfortable in this classroom-like setting as Republicans and conservatives.
Second, this is meant to be very disarming and non-confrontational. If you are unsure about some of the terms like “federalism” or even struggle knowing the difference between the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, this is the course for you. It is not taught with a bunch of super involved jargon that will leave you confused. The whole point of this course is to remind you of things you maybe once knew and have forgotten, or the things that you would have known if you would have paid attention all those years ago in civics class! Many people feel ashamed because they know that they should know some things, but they don’t. And worse, since they feel like they should know it, they don’t want to ask anyone for fear of looking ignorant. This class will make that a non-issue.
Other "don't miss" segments of the radio show today:
Family Guy goes after the tea party, portraying them as racist anarchists. While annoying, tea partiers should take heart. First, if Family Guy did this with left-wingers, it wouldn't be funny because it would be too close to true. Second, when people have negative impressions about the tea party, this is what they envision - not your ideas. (listen)
JWoww of Jersey Shore fame has blasted Bristol Palin for suggesting Obama shouldn't take his moral cues from teenagers watching Glee. Here's another tip for Obama: when the cast of Jersey Shore is defending your position on a moral issue, it might be time to reconsider. (listen)
Indiana Democrat Gubernatorial candidate John Gregg blasts Mike Pence and Republicans for being too partisan. Yes, you're reading that properly. Gregg blasts the other party with a partisan accusation saying we should elect him to cut down on partisanship. And yes, the irony is totally lost on him. (listen)
The breakdown of marriage and the family are closely associated with the welfare state. Unwed childbearing and marital decline have consequences for individuals as well as the next generation. A research paper called A Closer Look at Welfare from the Heritage Foundation details some of the interesting social costs of behavioral poverty and welfare dependence.
Here are a few of their findings:
Men who grow up in a welfare family are 39% less likely to marry the mother of their own baby.
Women whose families receive welfare are three times more likely to be on welfare themselves,
Earlier sexual activity is linked to higher levels of child and maternal poverty. (Nearly three times more women who began sexual activity at age 13 or 14 were in poverty as adults than women who abstained until the age of 21.)
Women are more likely to live under the poverty line after a divorce than men,
Parental divorce increases the likelihood that a daughter will be on welfare later in life,
Women who have a child in their teens are less likely to marry and more likely to live in poverty,
Single mothers who marry are less likely to be in poverty than their unwed peers and near equal with continuously married parents.
I want to commend Pastor Mark Ward of First Baptist Church in Tipton for speaking out publicly on a community issue. In today’s age of “tolerance” and moral relativism his actions are not as common as they used to be. Interestingly, this is the church where I grew up and attended from the age of 13 to 24.
Pastor Ward wrote a letter to the editor of the Tipton Tribune expressing his concern about a new convenience store (Casey’s) seeking a liquor license. Pastor Ward and others knew that if one store had such a license, others in town would soon seek one as well. (Tipton has a liquor store and several bars, but all are off limits to minors and they still carry a certain stigma to their entrance in the small town where everyone knows each other.) To their credit, Casey’s General Store corporate office responded in the paper saying, “We weren’t aware of the feelings about alcohol in the community. Ward’s letter changed our minds.” Casey’s then announced that they “appreciate the vital input of our customers” and “we are withdrawing our application for an alcohol permit.”
There may be differences of opinion on the matter of alcohol proliferation and use, but we applaud the actions of this local leader and how the business listened and respected those concerns.
One thing all Hoosiers may share regardless of their political view is that the end to campaign advertisements and mail is a good thing. With the primary over, here are some of the races we were watching with close interest:
Indiana House District 82 had an interesting Republican primary pitting a talented young man named David Ober running against most of the political establishment to win by 266 votes. Those familiar with Representative Tim Wesco, the youngest member of the Indiana House, may find a similar impressive “young gun” talent in that of David Ober. (AFA of Indiana’s political action committee endorsed Ober.)
Indiana House District 64 was one that many thought would be a close race, but Tom Washburne won the Republican primary with 66%. One of my friends in the legislature remarked that Washburne’s election in the fall would raise the cumulative IQ of the Indiana House by 20 points. Tom has a resume that sounds more like that of a Congressman or a Senator. He was the head of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy in Michigan for many years. He was one of the top attorneys for the Home School Legal Defense Association near Washington, DC, and he served as Chief of Staff for both Congressmen John Hostettler and Mike Sodrel. Should he win in the fall, he could become a significant voice in the Indiana House.
Indiana House District 52 had an interesting behind the scenes angle to it that had included many of the same forces behind it, as did the race in HD 82 with David Ober. Ben Smaltz surprised some with a larger than expected margin over his closest opponent Paul Moss. Interestingly, Moss was the only legislative GOP candidate in Allen County to come out in favor of placing a casino in Fort Wayne. In addition to the political establishment, he had some donors from the those industries help his campaign. Smaltz won with 57% of the vote in a field of four. Moss received just 20% of the vote.
The media narrative this morning is that conservatives won big with the defeat of 36-year incumbent Senator Richard Lugar in Indiana’s primary. While this event has shaken up the establishment, just as jarring are the election results out of North Carolina.
In spite of several hundred thousand telephone calls with a message from former President Bill Clinton, being outspent more than two-to-one, and liberal-backed TV ads at a rate of three-to-one over conservatives, marriage protection won big in the state.
To the shock of the media and far left, North Carolina voters voted overwhelmingly to protect their marriage laws from judicial activists and legal efforts by homosexual demands groups seeking to undefine marriage. North Carolinians approved Amendment One by a wide and decisive margin (61%-39%) that surprised many liberals who had hoped for a first win in the state marriage referendum battle with their organizational and money advantages and a sympathetic media.
One of the great features about freedom of speech as interpreted and imposed upon our culture by liberal Democrats is their demand that anything be said unfiltered anywhere. I use the adjective “great” not because I am thrilled with being bombarded with the vile vulgarity that streams constantly from the left into mainstream discourse, but because the more that liberals talk and write, the more they slip up and expose who and what they really are.
Such is the case with a recent McClatchy newspaper “Pro and Con” question: “Was Barney Frank right when he asserted that Congress erred by rushing healthcare reform?” (Kokomo Tribune, May 6, 2012, p. D4) Wayne Madsen, a contributing writer to the Online Journal and an author of several books with a “progressive perspective,” responded for the week’s progressive-liberal / liberal-progressive viewpoint denouncing Rep. Frank’s comment. Indeed, Mr. Madsen sharply denounced Congressional leadership of the time for losing courage and failing to pass and impose upon formerly free Americans the more radical, government-controlled single-payer healthcare law.
In this context, Mr. Madsen revealed more truth about liberal ideology and the party of their minions as he wrote:
Here we go again. Two years ago, Indiana’s 2nd District Congressman “Silent Joe” Donnelly (we’ve called and requested an interview with Congressman Donnelly for 564 straight programs now...that’s 564 messages without even the courtesy of a response to decline) was the first candidate in the national elections to go negative against his opponent, Jackie Walorski.
Two days ago, he kept up that reputation by spending primary night attacking Richard Mourdock. No “I look forward to a spirited debate with Treasurer Mourdock” or “Congratulations to Mr. Mourdock who will be a worthy opponent in the fall.” Instead, here was Silent Joe’s not-so-classy statement:
I stand ready to challenge Richard Mourdock in the general election because of what’s at stake for Hoosier families. Mourdock once said he ‘didn’t take a pledge that [he] would support every job in Indiana.’ I wholeheartedly disagree. I am running to be a U.S. Senator for working families, which means I will fight for every single Hoosier job.
There are many months of campaigning ahead, but I am prepared to work non-stop traveling the state talking about my plan to help Indiana businesses create Hoosier jobs. While Richard Mourdock trumpets his TEA Party ideas and claims bipartisanship is a dirty word, I will be meeting with the hardworking men and women of this state talking about how we can get Hoosiers back to work.
Leave aside the asininity of saying you want to “get Hoosiers back to work” when you have helped Barack Obama push through an agenda that has crushed American jobs, not the least of which is the onerous regulations of ObamaCare – a job destroying monster in and of itself. Just focus on the Mourdock attack. First, just as he did with Walorski on Social Security, Donnelly distorts the context of Mourdock’s statement about jobs. Actually, he doesn’t even bother to cite the context.
Our friends at the Kokomo Tribune’s “Left Eye” feature were at it again last Sunday, and caught the eye of a couple of our listeners. Here was one email I received about the public interest blurbs written by Tribune reporters Scott Smith and Ken de la Bastide:
Hey Peter, don’t know if you saw Scott and Ken’s “Public Eye” this week or not, but it was a perfect indication of why you so appropriately call it the “Left Eye.” Three stories and every single one was carrying water for the Democrats in their last submission before the primary election. The first one wove lies and deceptions about Mourdock’s stance on the Chrysler bailout (the classic, “5,000 Kokomo citizens would be without jobs if Mourdock had his way” routine). Then the second one was pretty much a callout for more Democrats to run for office, as well as a shameless plug for name recognition of the Democrats who are competing for office this year. The last one took on the issue the local Democrats had with one of their voter registration officer doing Get Out the Vote work while on the taxpayer clock. But, surprise, surprise, rather than comment on that shady practice, Scott and Ken decided to get their panties in a bundle and point at the Charlie White fiasco and scream, “But, but, Republicans do it too!” Why does the Tribune continue to run this nonsense?
Well, let’s address each of these things in turn:
1. Yes, the “Public Eye” feature is certainly left-leaning. Nothing wrong with that, I suppose, but I think it’s better to call it the Left Eye so at least folks are aware of what they’re getting when they start reading. Objectivity is not the name of the game for that feature.
With the primaries behind us, all eyes turn to the November elections. One of the congressional candidates that will be on the ballot for Hoosiers is friend of the show, Jackie Walorski.
I invited Jackie to come on the program today to talk about the way the Republican field is shaping up for November, her race specifically, and what's at stake in November. Having run in 2010 against incumbent representative Joe Donnelly, Jackie is also in a unique position to comment on Donnelly's intense character attacks and half-truths he launched against Richard Mourdock the night of the primary.
Finally, I asked Jackie to comment on the electoral wisdom of Obama's decision to support same-sex marriage in the United States. You can hear our full conversation by clicking the "listen" link above.
Other “don’t miss” segments of the radio show today:
Chris Matthews and Barney Frank tag team on Tony Perkins regarding Obama’s proclamation that he is smarter and more moral than God on the issue of homosexuality. Perkins does fine, but what we’re seeing is the cultural fracture caused by two completely separate worldviews: Biblical vs secular. (listen)
There’s a school of thought that Obama dropped the gay marriage bomb just to distract from issues of the economy and employment. Whether true or not, Romney is having to scold reporters to stay focused on what matters to the majority of voters in this election. (listen)
A group of teenagers are suing the federal government for not doing more to stop global warming. Apparently they figured if Al Gore was making money off the scam, they should too. (listen)
Let me start by acknowledging that Barack Obama is far, far from alone in committing the egregious offense against God he just committed. There are countless thousands of souls who have done the exact same thing in our country. But there is something far more symbolic, far more profound, far more alarming when the chosen leader of your civilization issues a personal proclamation to the entire nation that declares, “I have decided God is wrong, and I am right.”
Obviously those are not the exact words Mr. Obama chose in finally coming clean on his beliefs about homosexuality. But when you are encouraging a societal embrace of a behavior God clearly and explicitly labels sinful, you are telling the masses that you believe you know better than God. That’s a scary position for anyone to take (and plenty do every day). But for the President of the United States to make it in such an outward, unabashed and unhesitant way is about as spooky as it gets.
This isn’t the stuff of jokes or parody. This is a much different ballgame than the ridiculous imagery Obama invoked back in 2008 when he announced that with his ascension the “rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.” This is a genuine and heartfelt rebellion to the authority of Scripture as God-breathed. It is an outright call for Americans to rebel against the Lord.
In making his “gay is okay” speech to America via ABC, Barack Obama discussed his “evolution” on the issue as a journey of enlightenment. But what is important not to miss is the glaring lack of any fundamental grounding for his declaration. Why did he “evolve” on the issue of homosexuality to the point where he accepts and condones it as completely morally equivalent to the Biblical expectation of heterosexual monogamy? What intellectual footing does he rely on to make this pronounced pivot?
He offers none. Just like the left’s position on virtually every social/moral issue that exists, Obama is able to offer only a convoluted series of personal experiences to justify why the absolute moral truth of the Bible should be upended and overturned. He knows “gay people,” they are nice, he sees them raising children, and thus it’s acceptable. You can almost see the moral fibers of our civilization, once tethered to the philosophical guidepost of Biblical authority flapping violently in the winds of moral relativity, can’t you? Are we to assume that if Mr. Obama only gets to know polygamist people, sees that they too are nice, and that they too raise children, that it will provoke yet another evolution? Same with incestuous relationships?
This is what happens when you abandon absolutes in favor of personal whims. But, believe it or not, Obama’s weak footing was actually preferable to the one put forth by his bumbling Vice President, Joe Biden. Get a load of Biden’s justification for our civilizational reversal:
Last week I gave my prediction that a second term of Barack Obama would include an almost immediate presidential endorsement of the official un-defining of marriage, and a presidential embrace of so-called “gay marriage.” This change had been incremental in nature, and that was intentional. Here’s why:
1. Obama is a proud “progressive,” and the slow “evolution” makes him look very progressive.
2. Obama knew that at this point, a candidate for the presidency is likely weakened if he takes a position opposed to the majority of citizens in every state on such a controversial, hot-button topic like un-defining the family.
3. You have seen the “wink-wink” speeches Obama has made to the homosexual lobby about his evolving views and how in a second term he hoped to continue helping them “make history.” One need not be a prophet to follow that through to its logical end.
4. Obama has incrementally enacted the homosexual agenda to this point, including the repeal of the over 200 year old prohibition on sodomy and homosexual conduct in the United States military.
5. Obama has appointed several anti-family, pro-homosexual activists to positions of authority in his administration.
6. The media provides Obama unbelievable cover for his inconsistent public statements on the issue (and hides the reality that Obama’s publicly stated views on gay marriage were equivalent until yesterday to that great conservative scourge Rick Santorum) almost as though they know what he’s got up his sleeve.
Then came the bumbling of his Vice President Joe Biden:
Other "don't miss" segments of the radio show today:
The President announced his "disappointment" with North Carolina voters for overwhelmingly approving an amendment to their state constitution that prohibits radical secularists from un-defining marriage and family. But the people of North Carolina understood that this was never about banning anything. "This is about the coercion and compulsion of others to recognize and affirm same-sex unions as marriage." (listen)
The great "statesman," Dick Lugar is demonstrating that great, statesman-like characteristic common in ticked off 2 year olds. His concession to Mourdock was laced with bitterness...enough so that it merits mention, and may just earn him the title, "Sore Lugar." (listen)
Obama is taking criticism from left-wingers for his Rambo routine. PBS's Tavis Smiley rips the President for bragging about the killing of bin Laden, saying he isn't in line with Dr. King. (listen)
The Mourdock/Lugar race captivated a lot of national attention, as it pitted the classic entrenched establishment Republican against the more conservative candidate in a critical race. It was seen as a bellwether for the climate of the coming campaign. And because the more conservative candidate won, the Democrats have their ready-made line to begin peddling: “It’s further proof of how far to the right the Republican Party has moved.” Nonsense.
Consider that we have a president who has pushed for socialized medicine, the demonizing of the wealthy, radical sexual experimentation, and you quickly realize that the reality is that the Democrats have moved dangerously towards the left – towards European socialism. What the Mourdock victory actually demonstrates, then, is that Republican voters have decided that “reaching across the aisle” to socialists is not nearly as acceptable as “reaching across the aisle” to moderately liberal Democrats used to be.
That isn’t because Republicans have become dramatically more right-wing than they used to be. It means that Republicans are turning to more conservative candidates who will resist the temptation to compromise with the left, given how far left that now has become.
There’s a lot of noise after the primary elections last night in Indiana and elsewhere, so let’s put this plainly and simply: it was a good night for conservatives. Traditional marriage was upheld by the voters in North Carolina, making it the 31st out of 31 states to protect marriage from the social revolutionaries seeking to un-define the institution. But apart from that, the majority of national attention is on the defeat of incumbent Indiana Senator Richard Lugar by the conservative state Treasurer Richard Mourdock.
Notice that I use the label “conservative” to describe him rather than what you’re seeing all over the media, “Tea Party.” There’s a reason my label is more accurate, and it has nothing to do with Mourdock being ashamed or me being ashamed of the Tea Party. The reality is that several tea party groups in Indiana have supported and worked hard for Mourdock because of his fidelity to the Constitution and his belief in fiscal conservatism. But remember Mourdock had the support of somewhere around three-fourths of the Republican county chairmen in the state. And the size of his victory sends a clear message this is not an extremist faction of Republicans that have nominated him. With Lugar’s endorsement of Mourdock last night in his concession (a classy way for the Senator to respond to defeat), any notion that Mourdock’s Senate candidacy would be divisive within the Republican Party (which is what the media and Democrat – but I repeat myself – “tea party” label is meant to convey) is absurd.
Other "don't miss" segments of the radio show today:
So the Obama administration is championing a dip in unemployment to 8.1%. First, how sad that they mark success with such a high number. But more importantly, what they don't mention is that labor force participation is at a 3 decade low. Meaning, unemployment is dipping ONLY because more people than ever are giving up. Obamanomics. (listen)
Romney is getting hammered by the folks at MSNBC for not immediately dismissing the "treason" talk of a voter who suggested Obama was committing it. Of course, the treason accusation has been oft-repeated on MSNBC about Republicans, and Obama hasn't dismissed it once. (listen)
While most attention was paid to the Indiana Senate primary last night, there were a number of other important primary races with long term implications for the coming 2012 cycle that occurred around the country.
Many of those were previewed by our resident show election expert Joel Harris here. So how did all those turn out? What’s the prospect for the Wisconsin recall? How are the races to control both houses of Congress now looking? What about North Carolina’s attempt to become the 31st state to protect the sanctity of marriage against the social revolutionaries seeking to un-define it?
To answer those questions, we brought Harris on the show today to take them all on, one by one. Hear his assessment at the “Listen” link above.
If you think you believe in the “rape exception” for the murder of infants in the womb, I challenge you to listen to this woman’s testimony. Her name is Rebecca Kiessling, and when you say things like, “I don’t agree with abortion...except for cases where the mother was raped,” you are saying to her, “I don’t think your life was worth protecting.”
This is powerful stuff...which is why I had Rebecca join me for the full second hour. Here our conversation in its three parts below:
Part One – Finding out, and finding the source of self-worth
Part Two – The Mom who would have killed me...who became my adoptive mom
Part Three – Changing Rick Perry's heart, and taking on the weak feminists
Other "don't miss" segments of the radio show today:
Saturday Night Live cuts an opening skit mocking President Obama for obsessively telling Americans that he's responsible for killing Osama, and replaces it with a skit mocking Fox News for questioning Obama's heroism. No doubt a coincidence that the decision is made as Team Obama is in damage control mode over his Rambo routine. (listen)
Dear Abby advice columnist takes on question about homosexuality and the Bible. You can only guess where and how that went. (listen)
David Gregory asks Joe Biden on Meet the Press this last Sunday whether there is a 'Modern Right Wing Conspiracy" against Obama. Yeah, Dave...it's called the two party system. Been around since John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, actually. Good grief. (listen)
The Richard Lugar/Richard Mourdock race is gathering all sorts of attention today, and rightly so, but this isn’t the only major race to watch in today’s primaries. Across the country there will be primaries statewide in Indiana (obviously), North Carolina, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. Here’s a preview of the top races:
U.S. Senate - Indiana (Duh)
Sen. Lugar’s tenure in the Senate is well known and if Indiana politics had a Mt. Rushmore, his face would certainly be there. But as one political observer noted, Lugar is in danger of being only the second six-term incumbent in history to lose a primary. Late pollingshowed Lugar trailing Richard Mourdock by a daunting ten points. When confronted with the possibility of a primary defeat, Lugar raised eyebrowsby dodging the question of whether he would support Mourdock over Rep. Joe Donnelly in the general election. So will Mourdock pull off the big upset? If so, by how big of a margin?
Wisconsin Governor Recall The Scott Walker recall election may be the bellwether race prior to the general election. It’s a show down between union power and measures to reign in out-of-control government employee benefits that are crippling state budgets across the country. In the Democrat primary, though, the hand-picked union candidate may not even come out with the party nod. Kathleen Falk has the backing of the labor organizations, but it is Milwaukee Mayor, Tom Barrett, leading in the polls. Would this race be evidence that even Democrat voters are beginning to sour on the unions?
I know I’m a little behind the game as others have been commenting on this unbelievable web interactive put out by the Obama administration called “The Life of Julia” for several days. But I just watched it, and I am amazed. Amazed as in “jaw dropped to the floor” amazed. How anyone – ANYONE – could honestly try to maintain that the President of the United States is not a socialist is beyond me.
If someone asked me to put together a video clip or web short designed to sell socialist policy and ideology to the masses in a nice, neat package, I would design something exactly like “The Life of Julia.” I would put together a video that demonstrates the great benefits of a life of dependency on government programs and government assistance. That is precisely what “The Life of Julia” is all about. Here’s a brief synopsis if you haven’t watched it:
Julia, who has no face, is depicted at various ages from 3 through 67, enjoying the benefits of various Obama-backed welfare-state programs.
As a toddler, she's in a head-start program. Skip ahead to 17, and she's enrolled at a Race to the Top high school. Her 20s are very active: She gets surgery and free birth control through ObamaCare regulations, files a lawsuit under the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, and pays off her student loans at a low interest rate. We get updates at age 31, 37 and 42--and then the narrative skips ahead 23 years when she enrolls in Medicare. Two years later, she's on Social Security, at which point she can die at any time.
This is the very embodiment of the cradle-to-the-grave government dependency model that socialists preach as compassion. It is the very type of propaganda that European socialists promoted years ago (Julia doesn’t live long enough in the web video to see her country follow the path of Greece into the pit). Socialists like Obama set this up as something pragmatic and logical – who could be against head start? Why, only the people who hate kids, that’s who! Who could possibly be against Race to the Top? Why, only the anti-education people, that’s who! Who could possibly be against government healthcare for all citizens and government enforced wage fairness? Unfair capitalist pigs, that’s who!
Last week, President Barack Obama issued a proclamation in correlation to the National Day of Prayer. While there were some uplifting parts of the proclamation, there were also some eyebrow lifting parts as well. And none more so than when he talked about the significance of religious freedom and the rights of conscience.
After all, with his ObamaCare contraception/abortifacient mandate, President Obama has done more to assail and assault the rights of conscience for religious people than any other president in American history. Forcing the closure of charities because of his allegiance to homosexuality, and forcing Christian businesses and Christian businessmen to violate their conscience by paying for abortifacients in healthcare coverage because of his allegiance to abortion, is about as aggressively hostile to the rights of conscience as a Chief Executive can be, no?
This bizarre inconsistency was not lost on the folks over at the American Family Association of Indiana. So on Monday’s show, I invited their Executive Director (and friend of the show) Micah Clark on to talk about it.
With the Indiana primary election tomorrow, the most watched Senate primary race in the country between Indiana’s incumbent Senator Richard Lugar of Virginia and Indiana’s Treasurer Richard Mourdock, was the major topic of conversation on the Sunday morning talk shows this week. Not surprisingly, it led to some pretty humorous analysis from the pundits.
Take CBS’s long time liberal champion Bob Schieffer, who was so aghast that such an entrenched Washington establishment elite like Lugar could possibly be defeated by a more conservative candidate, he took the occasion to worry aloud over the path being taken by a party he wants nothing more than to see defeated:
BOB SCHIEFFER: Peggy, I want to ask you because you wrote something about this. Do you think that the Republican Party has moved too far right for its own good? I mean, when you see the situation that’s happened out in Indiana, where Richard Lugar, who’s probably passed more significant legislation than any single member of the Senate right now, I would say-- that I can think of-- he might actually get beat in the primary because they think he’s not conservative enough.
As Brent Baker pointed out over at Newsbusters, this line of questioning isn’t unfamiliar to Schieffer. In February, he asked New Jersey Governor Chris Christie if conservatives were “pushing your party too far to the right to make the nomination worth anything when you get to November.” As Baker appropriately surmises, since when does Bob Schieffer have a vested interest in seeing Republicans win the presidency? He works for CBS, after all – the folks who were responsible for making up reports about forged documents to try to defeat President Bush in 2004.
Other "don't miss" items from the radio show today:
Talk about a speech of contradictions. President Obama visited a Virginia high school to give a campaign speech. In the course of doing so he talked about the "record" deficits run up by Republicans before him. Not mentioned: he broke those records four times over. (listen)
Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, who has been asked by the Obama administration to preside over massive cuts to our military forces, outlined what he saw as a major national security threat. No, not terrorism. Global warming. The troops may be coming home from the Persian Gulf to head up to the Arctic to rescue polar bears. (listen)
We may be looking at a 2012 version of the 2004 "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth." In 2004, that group undermined the credibility of John Kerry's "War Hero" persona he was attempting to develop. In 2012, the Veterans for a Strong America are positioning to destroy the "Obama as Rambo" narrative. (listen)
“The Life of Julia.” Ah, here is the vision of the Democrat-liberal state. This is the utopia created in the minds living in the land of left-believe.
Those who choose to exercise critical thinking skills, however, unmask their “utopia” for what it really is: the insidious patriarchal conspiracy to keep women and other cultural groups on “the plantation.” Without the infusion of government into the nooks and crannies of their everyday lives, women are helpless. They cannot do and fend for themselves; they need a “sugar daddy” to pave their way.
If this is not a war on women – and a war on American liberty – then I do not know what is. This is demeaning! It goes without saying that rational Americans around the country are stating the obvious. Writes David Harsanyiat Human Events:
In a response “from the left” to the question, “Should health care insurers be forced to pay for contraception coverage,” Mark Weisbrot of the Center for Economic and Policy Research launched into a tortured explanation of the now-debunked Republican “war on women.” Concluding his column, he wrote:
Some have complained that Democrats are “politicizing” gender issues, but this is what democracy looks like: If one party carries out an assault on the majority of voters – in this case women – their political opposition is going to make an electoral issue out of it. As well they should.
Re-read his final paragraph and give it some time to sink in.
Now was yourself why the left howls like jackals every time Republicans and/or conservatives (not always the same, by the way) raise issues about government assaults on issues of success, morality, and liberty. Those have been true assaults on the “majority of voters,” yet each and every time Democrats accuse their opponents of “politicizing” the issues when they are brought up. Instead of working together, Republicans “politicize” issues of employment, economic environment, and environmental concerns. If it’s not their way, the party of “compromise and moderation” tells Republicans and/or conservatives to hit the highway.
There was an interesting news story appearing in the Salt Lake Tribune titled, “More and More U.S. believers aren’t joining congregations.” A once-a-decade census released on Tuesday found that almost 80% of Americans claim to be Christians, but only about 49% are affiliated with any church congregation. One pastor who worked on the study wondered if part of this discrepancy lies in the lap of churches which for years have focused on the message of needing a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, but in doing so, the message of needing a relationship with a congregation has been neglected.
Attending church doesn’t make one a Christian, but there are clear teachings in the Bible that Christians need church for fellowship and growth in their relationship with God. The study laments that this basic point is not widely understood by most of those who identify as a Christian. It could also be said that many of those 80% who self-identify as Christian do not meet the definition of a Christian set by the Bible. This would also explain why half of “Christians” do not want to attend church.
Another interesting finding in the study is that the fastest growing religions in America are Muslims and Mormons. Mainline protestant denominations and Catholics saw some of the largest declines. In spite of a 5% decline, Catholics still make up the nation’s largest religious group with 59 million members. The Southern Baptists are second with 19.8 million members. The study looked at non-denominational and independent evangelical churches and concluded that they make up the nation’s third largest Christian group with 35,000 congregations and about 12.2 million adherents.
The study found that there are 350,000 religious congregations of all kinds in the US, which are the spiritual homes for 150.6 million Americans. These large numbers of people of faith may make you wonder why our culture is so pagan and hedonistic.
This Tuesday, (May 8th) is the Indiana Primary in which candidates seek their party’s nomination to appear on the November ballot. Some people wonder if their vote really matters. Throughout our history there have been numerous examples of how one vote made a difference. For example:
In 1916, if presidential hopeful Charles E. Hughes had received one additional vote in each of California’s precincts, he would have defeated President Woodrow Wilson’s re-election bid.
In the 1960 presidential election, an additional one vote per precinct in Illinois, Missouri, New Jersey, and Texas may have altered the course of America’s history by placing Richard Nixon in the White House 8 years earlier, rather than John F. Kennedy.
The Indianapolis Star is predicting that the turnout on Tuesday will be light based upon early voting numbers, which are down by 40% from 2008. In one sense, low turnout means that you, who are informed and hold to traditional values can have a big influence representing a larger percentage of those who vote.
Interestingly, two weeks ago there were reports of a poll in eastern Indiana showing Don Bates, Travis Hankins and Luke Messer running neck and neck with an enormous 45% of GOP voters still undecided on who might be the best GOP nominee to follow Congressman Mike Pence. There are always questions about who to vote for right up until the day of the Primary. (AFA of Indiana does not have voter’s guides for Tuesday’s primary. Indiana Right to Life has one you can view online here. Remember, too, that rather than stay home, you are allowed to vote on races in which you have made a decision and skip those on the ballot if you don’t know where they stand on values and issues.)
Two weeks ago there was another study finding that the number of couples living together before or outside of marriage continues to climb in the US. In just the last ten years, there has been an 83% increase in the number of cohabiting couples who have had children while living together.
There are reasons to be concerned about the avoidance of marriage in society because there simply is no substitute for a married husband and wife in terms of their benefit to society and children. As I once heard William J. Bennett observe, “the family as a married mom and dad, is and always has been, the nation’s best Department of Health and Human Services.”
Scholars at the Heritage Foundation, the nation’s premiere think tank, have an outstanding study on cohabitation with findings that might surprise most people who mistakenly see this as a trial step before marriage or an alternative to marriage, or who see marriage as something done later on when the cohabiting couple is ready.
Millions of Americans will celebrate the National Day of Prayer today as part of a tradition going back to our nation’s founding. It is insightful to read some of the proclamations of early presidents and governors. President Obama’s proclamation is a far cry from our founders who were often surprisingly contrite seeking national repentance from the Holy God just as much as they were in acknowledgement of His blessings.
President Obama’s proclamation has raised the eyebrows of some because he is thankful that we live in a country that “respects the beliefs and protects the religious freedom of all people.” Critics have noted that this point seems to fly in the face of the President’s failure to defend the Defense of Marriage Act which would have huge ramifications for religious freedom should marriage be undefined to allow for homosexual couples. (The repeal of "Don’t Ask Don’t Tell" is already causing problems for military chaplains.) The President's prayer proclamation also contradicts his actions associated with his health care plan that could force people to pay for abortions and contraceptives against the teachings of their faith.
This just says it all. The global terror network devised and operated by Osama bin Laden apparently isn’t that displeased with the type of news coverage they receive from American media. In fact, they’re downright impressed with most of them.
Osama bin Laden pondered the merits of US television news channels as he considered how to extract the best propaganda benefit from the tenth anniversary of 9/11 last year, and concluded that CBS was "close to being unbiased".
But an American-born media adviser for al-Qaeda warned Bin Laden to beware of the broadcasters' "cunning methods" as he described Fox News as a channel in the "abyss" that should "die in anger", CNN as too close to the US government and MSNBC as questionable after it fired one of its most prominent presenters, Keith Olbermann.
In a memorandum made public by the US military's Combating Terrorism Center on Thursday, Bin Laden asked for advice on exploiting the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.
I simply can’t imagine being Keith Olbermann and waking up to this news. I can’t imagine being the head of CBS News or being Katie Couric and reading this story. Think of what this says. It puts into plain English what conservatives have been saying about the anti-American, far left nonsense that has been a mainstay on the mainstream news outlets for decades.
Here you have the most virulently hostile terrorist organization in the world – responsible for the horrific murders of thousands of American citizens and thousands more innocents worldwide. And they are praising the majority of the liberal media, and only expressing concern about them when those networks fire their more liberal commentators like Keith Olbermann. Translation: in the eyes of al-Qaeda, the more liberal the network, the better. That’s something every liberal can be proud of, isn’t it?
A couple weeks ago, I covered the powerful message that was delivered by Catholic Bishop Daniel Jenky in which he made parallels to the historical path taken by Hitler and Stalin (and the disrespect for life they fostered), and the one being blazed for America by current progressive leaders, including President Obama.
At the time, I wondered how long it would be before the left would retreat behind the pathetically lame argument: “He’s calling Obama Hitler!” and demand consequences for Jenky’s “irresponsibility.”
A group of professors at the University of Notre Dame (you know, the Catholic university so devoted to the Bible’s teaching on the sanctity of human life they invited a man who believes it’s a “legitimate medical procedure” to stab a half-delivered child to death with scissors, or that it’s legally permissible to leave fully delivered children to die in hospital closets to speak at their graduation) didn’t let me down:
More evidence that the Obama campaign of 2012 is night and day different than the Obama campaign of 2008 has surfaced:
On Sept. 17, 2006, Obama spoke at Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin’s annual steak fry in Indianola, Iowa.
“And let me tell you something else I’ve had enough of: I’ve had enough of using terrorism as a wedge issue in our politics,” Obama told the crowd. “I’ve had enough of that. I’ve had enough of that. You know, I – I don’t know about you, but I think the war against terrorism isn’t supposed to crop up between September and November of even numbered years, and yet that seems to be the pattern. There is a sudden burst of activity, a sudden urgency about this whole thing three months before an election every other year.”
That was the ’08, hope and change, unite the country, turn back the tide of the oceans Barack Obama. But what we’re seeing now is the ’12 hate and envy, divide the country, bitter partisan Barack Obama. So what used to be a call to not use “terrorism as a wedge issue in our politics” has turned into this:
Other "don't miss" segments of the radio show today:
Obama has the exact same publicly stated position on gay marriage as Rick Santorum. That might shock many Americans given the way the media portrays it. As a Pelosi-led contingent push for gay marriage in the Democrat Party platform, it's time for the media cover to disappear and Obama be pushed on this issue, forced to state what he really thinks. (listen)
CNN founder Ted Turner appeared on his failing network's Piers Morgan program to discuss Iran and nuclear weapons. His theory? Israel and the U.S. should totally disarm in order to make Iran not pursue nukes. Please tell me there isn't another breathing American who agrees with something that idiotic. (listen)
The recent hate-explosion of radical homosexualist Dan Savage – a man Barack Obama and his administration has warmly embraced – towards Christian teenagers is finally providing conservative media with an opportunity to do what way too many of them have been frightened to do to this point: expose this hate movement for what it is.
Even Rush Limbaugh, who on a regular basis displays the courage to expose even the most politically incorrect topics and causes of the left, has expressed extreme reservation about addressing the issue of homosexuality and the larger sexual anarchy movement it represents.
Not that all conservative spokesmen have shied away from the topic. Columnist and Vice President of Liberty Counsel Action, J. Matt Barber, has always impressed me as the Andrew Breitbart of Christian conservatives. Unafraid to speak the truth, and undeterred when harassed and labeled all sorts of names for it.
Unsurprisingly, Barber has taken the most recent example of Dan Savage’s hate to point out (once again) where the real hate comes from. His spectacular column begins this way:
This is absolutely devestating. The epic backfire of President Obama's decision to spike the football of the Osama bin Laden raid - and spike it from the endzone, up and down the field, into the stands, in the stadium parking lot, and across the landscape - has continued with the release of an ad from Veterans for a Strong America that leaves Obama's self-obsessed narcissism in tatters:
Remember, this ad would have never been run (most likely) had Obama not made the calculated decision to disregard what he himself knew (and said) last year. That, to me, is the most condemning part of this ad. Obama himself recognized the inappropriateness of taking credit for the killing of bin Laden, and said as much. And make no mistake - it is inappropriate. The killing of bin Laden would have never taken place had the policies and ideas of Obama been in place for the 8 years prior to his taking office. And it certainly would never have taken place without the tactical decisions, strategy, cunning, courage and expertise of the Navy SEALs that carried out the incredible mission.
The fallout from the radical homosexual hater Dan Savage’s mockery and attack on Christian kids is at least causing more scrutiny of who this guy really is and what he’s all about. While the mainstream media continues to ignore the scandal and are giving the Obama administration cover in their tight-knit relationship with this hater, conservative media sources are beginning to do the work of exposing the truth about Savage.
And what they’re finding is not exactly the picture of a tolerant, loving, compassion advocate. First, here’s what happened at the event we just talked about a couple days ago:
Rick Tuttle, the journalism advisor for Sutter Union High School in California, was among several thousand people in the audience. He said they thought the speech was one thing – but it turned into something else.
“I thought this would be about anti-bullying,” Tuttle told Fox news. “It turned into a pointed attack on Christian beliefs.”
Tuttle said a number of his students were offended by Savage’s remarks – and some decided to leave the auditorium.
“It became hostile,” he said. “It felt hostile as we were sitting in the audience – especially towards Christians who espouse beliefs that he was literally taking on.”
Other "don't miss" segments of the radio show today:
Blind and desperate to save himself and his family from the brutal Chinese communists, dissident Chen Guangcheng makes a public plea to Hillary Clinton. Her response? China & the U.S. must partner to stop climate change. (listen)
Who knew an extinct native population could have such impact today? One in seven people in the world believe the world will end soon. Coincidentally, isn't that about the same number that are assuming Obama will be re-elected? No correlation, I'm sure. (listen)
While Dan Savage, Kevin Jennings, Barack Obama and liberals everywhere rail against the Biblical model of family, Lloyd and Evelyn Collins demonstrate its value by celebrating their 77th wedding anniversary. (listen)
It continues. The Obama machine we saw in 2008 that just couldn’t do anything wrong is not what we’re seeing in 2012. Yes, a large part of it is the fact that the president has to try to overcome a paltry record that he has amassed the last few years. But more than that, the media is unable to cover for him in ways that they once were. Additionally, he is facing a much more organized and better financed opponent. And perhaps most significantly, every calculated political decision our campaigner-in-chief makes is not coming off with the same magic that he once possessed.
Case in point, the decision of the president (the “anti-war” candidate in 2008) to make his case for re-election on the basis of being Rambo. This decision to exploit the raid that killed Osama bin Laden is a direct contradiction of what even he understood and grasped a year ago: this was an American victory, not an Obama victory. Trying to politicize it will make him appear small and tacky. Yet, that is the desperate nature of this campaign right now.
I advise you to stop and consider that reality. Many on the left love to talk about how much of a cakewalk this election will be for Obama and how he is in such great shape. You tell me – if the president’s re-election is all but assured, why is he engaging such a risky strategy of “spiking the bin Laden football” so brazenly when even he knew that was a bad idea just one year ago?
Nonetheless, he has done so, and as expected, the public displeasure has been immense. But maybe an even bigger problem for the president is that he has managed to tick off the very military men whose brethren carried out the actual raid. Navy SEALs are coming out of the woodwork to condemn the president’s actions. That’s something. And this will resonate with the American people far more than anything a conservative commentator or media journalist has to say about it:
On the radio show, we’ve talked a number of times before about how everything causes global warming according to the experts. More than that, everything bad that happens is the fault of global warming. It’s actually gotten comical at times how the Warmers will blame any major weather event on global warming, and also blame even the simplest human activity (like breathing) for causing it.
But nothing compares to the comedic value of this story. You just have to read it to fully appreciate it:
New research finds that wind farms actually warm up the surface of the land underneath them during the night, a phenomenon that could put a damper on efforts to expand wind energy as a green energy solution.
Yes, you read that correctly – wind farms are causing global warming. The great “green energy” solution to getting us off of those dirty fossil fuels that are wrecking the planet by contributing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, leading to global warming...itself contributes to warming the globe. Simply perfect.
Other "don't miss" segments of the radio show today:
Even uber liberal Arianna Huffington knows how tacky the Obama-as-Rambo narrative is. Note to the President: when Huffington is calling your ads "despicable," it's probably time to chart a different path. (listen)
Well this could be a first. President Obama manages to give himself a "shout-out" during his speech. Some might call this a bit...um...pathetic. (listen)
The media flipped out when President Bush used brief images of the 9/11 attacks with the words "A test for all Americans" on the screen in some of his campaign ads. Comparing that to Obama's repeated victory laps on the bin Laden situation reveals...contain your shock...quite a liberal bias. (listen)
When U.S. Representative Dan Burton announced his retirement earlier this year, it generated a lot of interest in the 5th Congressional District race in the Republican Primary. What was shaping up to be a race much like 2010 – where the incumbent would benefit from the entrance of numerous challengers – suddenly changed to a free for all.
We opened the radio show to all the candidates in the race, and have been pleased to welcome two of the front runners, David McIntosh and Wayne Seybold. Today we had another candidate, Dr. John McGoff, on the phone to talk about his pursuit of the seat.
McGoff discussed his take on the most pressing issues in Washington, his core beliefs and why he is being persistent in his commitment to serve the people of Indiana.
Last weekend my commentary on the loving approach to homosexuality for Christians, and the problem of speaking truth for so many in the Emerging Church movement (that claims to be avoiding divisiveness in the name of tolerance) appeared at the American Family Association’s website, One News Now. It remained atop their “Most Popular” stories for three days.
I anticipated getting feedback from the commentary, good and bad. And though the negative responses were fewer than I anticipated (praise God!), I can tell you that I never expected to receive such a profound, meaningful and amazing email as I did from Jerry.
Because I am sure there are those in my listening audience or online audience who struggle with homosexual urges and temptations, and because I am sure they are hearing from pop culture that God intends for them to embrace that lifestyle and that they are being dishonest to not live that way outwardly, and because I am sure that many are looking for hope but are being confused by many in the so-called Emerging Church and other Christians that won’t speak truth to them, I want to share this email with them in full.
As a sinner saved by grace myself, it touched my heart, and I have a feeling it will offer hope to someone who needs that very grace themselves. Thanks, Jerry, for sending it along:
This last Sunday night I was at a church delivering our Sex Wars presentation that seeks to equip Christian teenagers for what they are going to face when it comes to the aggressive and hostile hate being thrown at them from the radical homosexual lobby. A lot of people don’t think about this critically because they are prone to just accept what the media portrays to them. And certainly on this issue of homosexuality, Christians with traditional morality are portrayed as the bullies, and those practicing homosexuality and demanding approval for it are portrayed as innocent victims. The reality is somewhat different.
I make the case in the presentation, and have made the case on the radio show frequently (including late last week) that if you really want to see who the bullies are in schools, look no further than some of the leaders of the “anti-bullying” crusade who make it their mission to convince the public to ostracize and demean the legitimate, appropriate and concerned expression of moral disapproval of homosexuality by Christians. If denying someone their rights of conscience – either demeaning them for it or punishing them for it – isn’t an act of bullying, I’m confused how these “experts” define the term.
One of the leaders of this movement is the radical hate monger named Dan Savage – a friend of the Obama administration and hero to the sexual anarchy movement on the left. He carries the legacy of child-molesting pervert Alfred Kinsey (another heroic titan to the left) on with pride.
Guess what cameras caught Mr. Dan “Don’t Bully Kids” Savage doing at a recent national journalism conference? Why, bullying Christian kids, of course. So much so, many of them got up and walked out – only to be called demeaning names by the “It Gets Better” pioneer. Watch the curtain be pulled back by Toto to reveal the hater hiding behind it:
The attempts of liberal media types to distract from Obama’s failed record as President by creating scandals and issues from nothing is leading them into some embarrassing moments. Take for instance what happened to the esteemed “policy wonk” of the left, Rachel Maddow, when she appeared on Meet the Press this last Sunday and tried to hammer away at the non-existent Republican “War on Women.”
Unfortunately for her, Republican strategist Alex Castellanos was there to provide something known as context and clarity to Maddow’s intentional misrepresentations:
RACHEL MADDOW: Women in this country still make 77 cents on the dollar for what men make. So if--
Other "don't miss" segments of the radio show today:
Indiana Senator Richard Lugar of Virginia wants voters to believe he's a conservative. But he refuses to say he'll support conservative Richard Mourdock against ObamaCare supporting Silent Joe Donnelly if Lugar loses the primary. Sorry, Senator, something doesn't add up there. (listen)
Much attention being paid to Obama's new campaign slogan "Forward" having long ties to Marxism and socialism. Personally, I'm more concerned that Obama's policies and ideas having loing ties to Marxism and socialism. (listen)
Despite the "slow jams" and college campus tours, the Obamaconomy is speaking volumes to young people as they are drifting towards Romney. (listen)