VIDEO FEATURE: Heck Debates Malcolm on Porn & Santorum 

THE OFFICIAL BLOG OF THE PETER HECK RADIO SHOW
a service of Attaboy Productions, Inc.

Tuesday, 28 February 2012

Hear the audio version here (segments older than 3 weeks may be unavailable)

 

I saw Santorum hammered David Gregory this last Sunday on Meet the Press for focusing on social issues.  And I also know that the strategy of the liberal media is to distract from Obama's disastrous performance on the economy and foreign policy by trying to create controversy on these social issues by misrepresenting conservatives.

 

 

But I don't think conservatives need to be worried about the issues coming up at all.  I think it works for them.  For all the talk about how social issues aren't that important and how people don't want to hear about them, I was thrilled to see that talk radio king Rush Limbaugh waded into the territory at the end of last week.  Obviously teaching during the day during his show, I don't get a chance to listen, and hear about things a little bit later than those who can.  But on Friday's show Rush apparently referred to Obama's astonishing support of infanticide when he was in the Illinois legislature as, "the most shocking and underreported significant story I can ever remember."

 

And that's exactly right.  I kinda chuckle to myself every time someone tells me that I spend too much time on social issues.  You know who that usually is that tells me that?  People that don't agree with me on social issues.  Now, think about what that says.  It says that they have taken the time to write to me to counsel me on what I should talk about because they're motivated, they're passionate about something that I've discussed.  Is that not exactly why I talk about these issues?

 

People are passionate about them, and they should be.  The questions that go to the heart of who we are as human beings, and in a larger sense, what we are as a people should always be front and center.  The issue of life and death is the single most important issue that there is.  We all know that's the case.

 

And there's two groups of people that really want us conservatives to shut up about social issues.  First, you've got the Republicans who are fearful that social issues are too divisive and they just want conservatives - and particularly the church - to shut up about them.  Just be quiet and let the culture go down the crapper.  They're the "if you don't like abortion, don't have one" people.  There's another word for them.  Cowards.  These are the people driving their buggies around in slave days that said, "If you don't like slavery, don't own one."  I have little use for those who know something to be wrong, but who don't want to expend the energy to confront it.

 

Then the other group that wants conservatives to shut up about social issues is the Democrats who know they are the Party of Death, who know they are the party that stands against the Declaration of Independence, who know they are the party that supports the breakdown of society's backbone - the nuclear family.  They don't want that discussed.  And why?  Because they know in their hearts they're wrong and they don't want to be called on it.  They know that the vast majority of the country is not in line with their radical platform, and that they lose votes if these issues become front and center.

 

All this talk about how a social conservative can't win the presidency.  It's hogwash.  Tell me, who was the last social liberal who campaigned as a social liberal who won the presidency?  That's exactly what Rush is saying about this Obama infanticide thing.  It was not reported.  Why wasn't it?  Because Obama's position was and is so radically out of step with the mainstream he would have looked like a monster.

 

Gingrich said it best in the debate:

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich raised the issue of Obama's support for infanticide after CNN debate moderator John King asked the presidential hopefuls a question about birth control.

 

The question met with loud audience disapproval, as it was widely interpreted as intended to embarrass Rick Santorum.

 

Gingrich, who replied first, objected that in 2008, "not once did anybody in the elite media ask why Barack Obama voted in favor of legalizing infanticide."

 

"If we're going to have a debate about who the extremist is on these issues, it is President Obama who, as a state senator, voted to protect doctors who killed babies who survived the abortion," Gingrich said. "It is not the Republicans."

Newt's points is spot on.  He's saying: all this talk about extreme views on the right about birth control and abortion and all that is nonsense.  You want extreme?  Look at the guy who is the sitting president who said repeatedly with his position on the Born Alive Act that little babies, delivered alive following a failed abortion did not deserve life-saving treatment.  Look at the guy who said he had no desire to make it illegal for hospitals to let these kids suffer and die in a room alone.  That's extreme.

 

So if you're a conservative, talk about the social issues.  Bring them up.  Social liberalism is death for those who come into contact with it - literally, and politically speaking.
Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:09 pm   |  Permalink   |  12 Comments  |  Email
Comments:
NOPE. You make PERSONAL issues into social issues. That is the problem "period". Gays, abortion, birth control ...i.e those are all personal, and with your intrepation of your religion you make it social. And it's not that I want to sensor anyone's free speech, you can talk how you dislike those issues, but it's the push to make laws to infringe on people's rights and personal freedoms, that causes liberals to stand up. I understand as well, that you all have some type of genetic problem. You are incapable to look at the world outside of your imaginary box. But I challenge anyone here to read... http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/TheAuthoritarians.pdf It's pretty scary.
Posted by adam on 02/28/2012 23:01:30
I haven't finished the book yet, i'm about halfway through it. But it has enlighten me to a different perspective about people like you and your followers. I actually have some compassion now, where as before, it was really just disgust. I understand how a society can get to this point, but I am hopeful, that some how, some way, there is common ground that can be reached, and freedom and happiness can prefail. I might be niave, but instead I'll call it optimism for now. But when I look at other theocracy's in the past, and in the present, I probably shouldn't be so hopeful.
Posted by adam on 02/28/2012 23:10:12
Your posts are becoming more and more disjointed, adam. it's nothing but a mindless rant against Pete every post. do you even know what a theocracy is? the fact that you equate it with social conservatism proves you don't.
Posted by GD on 02/29/2012 08:54:16
@GD; Me Rant? What do you do? Blindly troll the comments section to defend good ole Pete? Can you claim a thought or decision for yourself? Can you actually reason out why you think the way you do without reverting to a book or some authoratarian? Have you asked why someone may think the way they do? Probably not, your kind gets lost if someone isn't holding your leash. If you get a genuine idea, email me at evelkneefb@gmail.com. I'll be praying for you!
Posted by adam on 03/01/2012 03:01:24
So, does that mean you don't know what a theocracy is? Because the fact that you equate it with social conservatism proves you don't.
Posted by GD on 03/01/2012 08:15:27
Nice dodge, Adam. I'm a daily reader of this site and first time commenter. How many entries have you made that haven't attacked "good ole Pete?" Obviously I don't care if you do. Pete apparently doesn't care if you do. But if you're going to troll the comments section to attack him, don't jump on others for trolling to defend him. You comment on Pete's comments. GD comments on yours. He's no more a troll than you are.
Posted by matt on 03/01/2012 10:17:57
@Matt Perhaps, but I'm not a mindless blind troll. That would be the difference. @GD On a piece of paper(for your own reading) write down your social conservative ideas, and then your reason or justification for them. Where do they come from? If you want to establish a government based on your interpretation of Gods law, where do you think your government is heading towards? Does it matter if your government is voted in, or has a divine monarchy? Where do the the vast majority of "social conservatives" get their authority from?
Posted by adam on 03/01/2012 21:52:48
"they know in their hearts they're wrong and they don't want to be called on it." This single quote is why you should NEVER EVER say that the Leftists who come up with these destructive policies "have the best of intentions." It is said "The road to hell is paved with the best of intentions." These intentions aren't merely the pavement of that road, they are the tools that cut out the roadbed!
Posted by Steve on 03/02/2012 11:11:26
"Perhaps, but I'm not a mindless blind troll." I believe that's called eye of the beholder, adam. That's what you've been reduced to.
Posted by matt on 03/02/2012 11:34:12
@Steve, do you think something like Pascal's wager will get you into heaven? I don't. I think intentions are sometimes more important than the end result. @Matt, So, If I disagree with someone's public statement, ask questions, or point out lies, I am ranting or trolling? I reread my first two posts, I think I was clear as I can be. I wasn't hateful or rude. Do you take offense that I pointed out that you have a genetic defect? If it's just a cultural issue, than it is possible for me to help you by asking questions and pointing out lies. I would never force anyone to live the way I think, I just don't want to be forced to live like you all think. That ain't asking for much. Is't that like the golden rule?
Posted by adam on 03/03/2012 01:59:14
"So, If I disagree with someone's public statement, ask questions, or point out lies, I am ranting or trolling?" No, I don't think so. But I'm not the one who originated that accusation. If you think GD is a troll for doing the same thing to you, then by your own definition, yes, you are one. Your argument is with yourself.
Posted by matt on 03/03/2012 10:03:25
Okay, GD....for the enlightenment of us products of the failed public schools, please explain -- without sarcasm or condescension -- your definition of "theocracy". Please also include examples.
Posted by ATSF616 on 03/03/2012 14:18:29

Post comment
Name
 *
Email Address

Message
(max 750 characters)
*
Verify image below
*
* Required Fields
Note: All comments are subject to approval. Your comment will not appear until it has been approved.

*
*
*
click between 3-5 pm ET
*
*