Skip to main content
VIDEO FEATURE: Heck Debates Malcolm on Porn & Santorum 

a service of Attaboy Productions, Inc.

Sunday, October 31 2010

The trick or tofu campaign is picking up steam! First, the comic strip "Big Nate" ran a series about handing out healthy treats. Now Halloween day's "Born Loser" makes a reference to it, too.


We all know by now that a useful first step in wearing down resistance to a new idea is through humor. In this year alone, two comic strips, at least in my local paper, introduced the concept of practicing responsible trick or treating that combats childhood obesity and diabetes.


I may be onto something here. Since it is obvious that individual adults and children cannot be trusted to hand out only healthy, nutritious goodies to trick or treaters, then we need Big Government intervention. It is the only way we can lick this devastating practice.


Two comic strips! Who'd a thought it?


Trick or Tofu!

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 05:48 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Sunday, October 31 2010

My campaign is gaining traction! Since raising my concern about the contribution of "trick or treat" to the childhood obesity and diabetes epidemic, a syndicated comic strip has jumped onboard. "Big Nate" has been running a series since 10/25/10 featuring a parent who decides to bring responsible sanity to Halloween "trick or treating" by handing out healthy treats. Begin with the previous link and follow the daily episodes. See, it can be done!


I have been thinking that forcing ordinary Americans to face the reality of the impact of increasingly encroaching government regulations may be the only way we can head away from the central planning phenomenon. When citizens become aware of just how ridiculous, inconvenient, and dangerous government interference in our daily lives is becoming, they will finally get the message.


Are childhood obesity and diabetes bad things? Of course they are. But are we to turn helplessly to Big Government for solutions? If your answer is yes, then you need to join my "trick or tofu" bandwagon.


On the other hand, if you think that parenting responsibilities rest with - well - parents, then you need to take simple steps that your own children, grandchildren, and/or other children in your sphere of influence are getting proper nutrition and adequate exercise.


Personal responsibility: WOW! What a concept!


Trick or Tofu!

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 08:02 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, October 29 2010

I noticed on my office calendar two events on Tuesday, November 2nd: (1) It is Election Day in America, and (2) it is the Day of the Dead in Mexico. I could only pause and contemplate the convenient irony of it all.


As I wondered about the intersection of these two events, I thought of two possible meanings.


First, it makes a great statement about the renewal of American conservatism. Following the results of the last general and presidential election, liberals celebrated and declared the death of conservatism. As subsequent events have unfolded, nothing could have been farther from the truth. This Election Day will be the day in which conservatism "rises from the dead."


Second, it also makes a great statement about the pending political death of a lot of Democrats. For two years, they have worked long and hard to snatch defeat from their jaws of victory. Following the overdone disappointment with the former administration, Democrats had federal power handed to them on a platter.


Had they actually implemented agenda to restore America as the world leader of freedom, economic success, and compassion, they would probably be in no danger of the political rout they face. But, if they had done all that, they would be conservatives. So, they showed Americans what power liberalism looks like. This Day of the Dead, Democrats are heading for their political grave.


Regardless of the interpretation, it is a win-win for conservatism. There will still be a tough road ahead, but going slowly in the right direction is far better than rushing off in the wrong direction.


November 2nd, 2010: a day of convenient irony; a day to turn America in the right direction once again.


Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 08:32 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, October 29 2010

My mother-in-law is the perfect example of a one-issue voter.  You could poll her opinion on most issues and she would probably land in the center-right category.  Ask her if she'd back a Republican, though, and you'll get quite the earful on how they are the enemy to everything good and right in the world.  Press her on specifics or try and explain how liberal policies are actually the cause of all of these so-called problems and you get another rejoinder of how awful those darn Republicans are. 


Do a little digging and you find that the sum total of her objection is that "Republicans are horrible on education", how they "want to get rid of all public schools" and want to cannibalize our children for their organs to sell on the black market.  Okay, I made the last part up, but you get the idea.


Shock, shock, she's a public school teacher.  And as a teacher, the bottom line is politicians who make lofty promises of more funding=good, politicians who demand accountability=spawn of Satan.  This is how you get a pro-life, pro-family evangelical Christian to be a dogmatic John Edwards supporter.  (I tried convincing her that he was a fraud BEFORE the affair came out, but alas, to no avail). 


To her there's no such thing as too much spending on education.  Forget the fact that 54.1 percent of state allocated funds in the Indiana state budget goes towards education.  It isn't enough.  While I tend to avoid debating politics with her as I would prefer a mother-in-law to a monster-in-law, I never seem to get an answer to two questions: "at what percentage of the state budget is spending on education too much", and "how do you know that you have gotten your money's worth in increased spending"?  I'm not holding my breath on getting an answer.


Education spending is one of those issues that pulls on the heart strings of the voters.  After all, who's going to "sacrifice our future"?  Who wants to "stand in the way of the potential of our children"?  So, more money gets tossed into the education sink hole without really considering the consequences.


The most glaring example of this is student loans and grants.  Oppose more student loans and grants and you're anti-education, right?  How can you possibly think of denying our children of a college education?  Well, before that little emotional ploy, consider that the dramatic flooding of loans into the education system has done one thing: raise the price of education.  Don't believe me?  Check out this chart:


It's basic economics.  When you have more money (loans, grants, etc.) chasing after the same amount of goods (colleges/universities), you get a rise in cost.  When you have a President who increases student aid to the tune of 50 percent, what you get is a rise in the cost of education by 7.9% over the last year in our public colleges and universities.  As long as we continue to throw money at the situation, we're never going to see a decline in the cost of education.  As long as we shove money at students to make college "more affordable", these students will be perpetually running the hamster wheel in a futile chase of the affordable college degree. 

Posted by: Joel Harris AT 04:26 pm   |  Permalink   |  2 Comments  |  Email
Friday, October 29 2010

In my recent column, I commented on the American Psychological Association having changed their literature regarding homosexuality to say the following:


What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation?


There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors.


I received an email from a reader who was curious about the quote, given that they found the APA to say something seemingly different:


"Is sexual orientation a choice?"


No, human beings cannot choose to be either gay or straight. For most people, sexual orientation emerges in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed. (emphasis added)


That there seems to be a contradiction (i.e., "no findings.permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation" is genetic vs. "No, human beings cannot choose to be either gay or straight.") should come as no surprise.


The APA, like many of its fellow "scientific" brethren have chucked science in the name of political correctness and the left's pseudo-tolerance crusade.  As a result, they are bound to contradict themselves and make asinine statements from time to time that are embarrassing.


Obviously, the mere presence of ex-homosexuals destroys the idea that sexual orientation cannot be changed.  The APA knows that.  But since they care about an agenda more than science, they marginalize and demonize those who have made the conscious decision to walk away from shameful lusts and temptations of the flesh (so much for "tolerance," huh?).


Far more could be said to debunk the agenda-driven literature of the APA that has destroyed their credibility.  So why did I cite them in my column? 


Simple: if even the APA - a group so obviously committed to normalizing sexually deviant behavior - is forced to acknowledge the non-existence of a genetic cause, that's about as strong a confirmation as you can find to prove there's no science to back up the claim.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 02:17 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, October 29 2010

Imagine if we held the Constitutional Convention today.  Seriously.  It couldn't be done.  I'd like to think differently, but I'm too smart for that.  Just the mere organization of such an event (choosing who can attend, who should attend, who should preside, what ideas to include) would strangle it in its cradle.


Our obsession with "diversity" as the be-all/end-all of a productive and healthy society has destroyed our common sense and good judgment.  We ignore things like merit and skill in preference of things like sexual behavior and skin color.


The idea that a group of older, economically stable white dudes can put together a masterful system of government is enough to make the professional left in this country explode.  Literally.ignite themselves and blow up.


This recognition is annoying when we think of it in the theoretical sense like I'm postulating.  It's devastating when we see it play out in front of our very eyes when it comes to things as crucial as our national security.


Jim Hanson comments on the positions of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs:



When he became chief of Naval Operations in 2005, Mullen said, he made diversity a priority.


"When you're taking on a very, very difficult challenge like this and trying to change your institution, you can't go fast enough," he said.


Mullen said he focused his diversity goals for the Navy on two areas: minorities and women.


You can't go fast enough? You are undertaking a basic change to what is valued in the military. Currently it is competence and experience, under the Mullen PC Protocols it will be melanin and genitalia. This is hardly good for readiness or morale or esprit de corps and it will guarantee that lesser-qualified officers will rise in the ranks based more on characteristics that have nothing to do with skill and leadership. The reason that there are not more minorities and women in senior positions has little to do with institutional white racism and a lot to do with who in our country decides to devote their life to military service.


The whole piece, while frustrating, is a good read.  It's a necessary one for all of us to grasp as we seek to wrestle control of our culture away from these folks who will destroy it - intentionally or not.
Posted by: Peter Heck AT 01:29 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, October 29 2010

CNN's pathetic bias was on display once again as they attacked Republican Senate Candidate of Delaware Christine O'Donnell for "praying" over her campaign.


Interviewing Christian Broadcasting Network White House Correspondent David Brody on "American Morning," CNN Kiran Chetry posed the bizarre line of questioning:


"For some people, they think this seems so arrogant, to pray to win a senate race, um, but how is it viewed in the evangelical community?" anchor Kiran Chetry asked Brody. Brody quickly responded by saying that O'Donnell isn't praying for a victory, but rather, "God's protection, and for, you know, people within her staff and the eyes of the voters to be open, so to speak." Brody quickly pointed out to Chetry that the power of prayer is a mainstream concept among average Americans and that O'Donnell is being singled out because she is a political candidate.


"Look, if you line up ten people up on the street and you say, ?the power of prayer is important to people in their lives,' they would say ?absolutely it is' and they directly link prayer to events in their life," Brody said. "So this is really a lot of much ado about nothing, but when a political candidate talks about it, obviously it gets more headlines."


The mere idea that people pray for wisdom, strength and clarity is so foreign to many of these mainstream media types it makes you wonder how out of touch with mainstream Americans they can possibly be.


The positive thing about it is that the more they continue to display their own ignorance of and arrogance towards the simple faith of millions of Americans, less and less such Americans will trust them.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 12:53 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, October 29 2010

There has been a lot of media attention in recent weeks concerning several teen suicides and the issue of bullying. Though this is a serious problem, these tragedies have been spun into a political agenda in support of certain legislation and initiatives, many of which embrace homosexuality and stigmatize traditional values. For this reason, AFA of Indiana signed on with other pro-family leaders to a statement organized by Linda Harvey of Mission America.


Here is part of that news release/statement:


Real Christians Say ?No' to Bullying and Homosexual Behavior


(Columbus, OH) A coalition of pro-family leaders today urges Christian families to be faithful to biblical morality and discerning in the face of false and irresponsible accusations. Christianity and traditional values are not the cause of teen suicides, and attempts to link the two are deceptive and will ultimately harm children.


"Gay" activists nationwide are fueling an effort to indict traditional moral values as "guilty until proven innocent" in some bullying incidents involving teens. Their proposed solutions end up sexualizing teens at young ages into known high-risk behaviors and silencing concerned parents.



Now, the U.S. Department of Education seems to be joining the effort, setting the stage for implicating traditional morality as the cause of some cases of bullying, and using the force of federal government to force pro-homosexual, pro-"transgender" indoctrination programs onto local schools.


"Just say no" to these outrageous and unsubstantiated claims, said Buddy Smith, Executive Vice President, American Family Association. "Bullying can be prevented without endorsing homosexual behavior. Activist adults essentially are saying that American parents who want their kids to avoid high risk homosexual sex acts and remain abstinent until traditional marriage, are harming kids. This is preposterous, and local parents and communities need to resist enforced political correctness."


"It's time that extremists stop exploiting tragedy to push a selfish political agenda," said J. Matt Barber, Director of Cultural Affairs of Liberty Counsel. "Liberal pressure groups have been shameless. They use talk of ?bullying' as a Trojan Horse to silence traditional values. Yes, anti-bullying policies are appropriate and necessary, but we need a broad, comprehensive anti-bullying strategy; not legislation rooted in segregation and discrimination, which singles out one special interest group for preferred treatment over others. Ironically, this unseemly political push actually amounts to ?Bull Connor bullying' on the part of homosexual activists."


Traditional values always help families and students, not the opposite, as extremists are trying to claim.

Posted by: Micah Clark AT 12:04 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, October 29 2010

When is Mr. Obama going to figure out that the American people elected him as our President and not America's chief actor? What is it about Democrats (ie, Clinton & Obama) that make them think that their mandate is to appear on pop TV and try to out-act the professionals? I'll admit that BHO is certainly a history-making president. Surely, he has made more television appearances than any president before.


The Tonight Show, The View, and his latest foray, The Daily Show.



Doesn't the guy know that he has a nation to lead? If he really has to go to this much trouble to justify the decisions he has made, then maybe - just maybe - he needs to rethink his positions. The American people are not quite the lemmings that liberal elitists think they are.


In hindsight, though, Mr. Obama's appearance on The Daily Show does make some sense. As one comment to the The Hill's article reads, "I think it's very fitting Obama appeared on a fake news show! It makes total sense."


Oh well, the show must go on.

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 11:52 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, October 29 2010

While the race for control of the US Senate is still in flux, the emerging numbers in the lead up to Election 2010 are revealing some startling things about the House of Representatives.


From The Hill:


The Hill 2010 Midterm Election poll, surveying nearly 17,000 likely voters in 42 toss-up districts over four weeks, points to a massive Republican wave that, barring an extraordinary turnaround, will deliver crushing nationwide defeats for President Obama's party.


The data suggest a GOP pickup that could easily top 50 seats (the party needs 39 for control of the House).


Of the 42 districts polled for The Hill, all but two of which are currently Democratic, 31 had Republicans in the lead. Democrats were up in just seven, and four were tied. In addition, there are some 15 Democratic districts that are so far into the GOP win column that they weren't polled. That would suggest at least 46 GOP pickups, plus whatever the party gets out of another 40 or 50 seats that some experts believe are in play.


"We didn't even poll in about 15 districts that are already too far gone for Democrats," said Mark Penn, whose firm, Penn Schoen Berland, conducted the poll. "So that, along with our entire series of polls, points to something in the range of a 50-seat gain for Republicans."


As if that wasn't shocking enough, consider the resounding gong this next line sent off in Democrat circles:


The Hill's data confirm other public polling and expert predictions, some of which put the historic wave even higher than the 52 seats Democrats lost in 1994 and the 71 they lost in 1938.


Anything can happen in politics, no question.  But this is shaping up to be more than a landslide.  And the most amazing thing is that it has little - if anything - to do with Republicans. 


It has everything to do with the country utterly rejecting the big government, European style socialism that Obama and the Democrats have embraced.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 10:36 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, October 28 2010

"Today's Quote" in my local newspaper: "I prefer liberty with danger than peace with slavery" (Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Swiss-born French philosopher, 1712-1778)


I consider this a timely reminder for our day. Too many Americans are being seduced by the power-brokers who invite us to sacrifice a little liberty - and then just a little more - in order to attain security and peace. A glaring sample of this is the health care legislation that has been sold as America's "solution" for universal access to health care. In addition to mounting financial costs, there are also mounting costs to liberty as government herds us into their prescribed forms of health care choices.


I have written before that lasting liberty demands that we bear the consequences for our behavior. Those who are able to shift the consequences for personal behavior onto other individuals and groups have low, or no, motivation to change and improve. Consequently, liberty is eroded for everyone.


Everyone I know likes peace and security. I like peace and security. But peace and security without the truthful recognition of the high price of vigilance leads to enslavement. Those who have gone before us - those to whom we owe a debt we cannot pay - knew this full well:


The time is now near at hand which must probably determine whether Americans are to be freemen or slaves; whether they are to have any property they can call their own; whether their houses and farms are to be pillaged and destroyed, and themselves consigned to a state of wretchedness from which no human efforts will deliver them.


The fate of unborn millions will now depend, under God, on the courage of this army. Our cruel and unrelenting enemy leaves us only the choice of brave resistance, or the most abject submission. We have, therefore to resolve to conquer or die. - General George Washington, order issued July 2, 1776


As 21st century Americans, we are blessed to have elections through which we can choose liberty or slavery. As with any tool, it is useful only to the extent that we actually use it. So use it.


Choose liberty over slavery.

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 01:29 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, October 28 2010

Several listeners of the Peter Heck Radio Show and readers of The Liberty Tree have been asking for good online resources to utilize in preparation for the 2010 elections.  It's difficult to stay on top of all the various races: national, state, and local.


Here are a handful of very reputable and well researched voter guides for those particularly in central Indiana:

Focus on the Family's Citizen Link


Indiana Right to Life's County by County Guides


Advance America


AFA Action


Posted by: LT Staff AT 12:00 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, October 28 2010

A woman in Grand Rapids, Michigan is facing possible charges from the state Department of Civil Rights for expressing her Christian faith, not in the public square but in church!


The 31 year-old woman has been formally cited for the crime of "discrimination" in an alleged violation of the Fair Housing Act by discriminating against those of other faiths when she posted a note on her church bulletin board for simple seeking a "Christian roommate."

Even though it should be obvious that her private advertisement in a church is well within her legal and constitutional rights, she now needs legal help to avoid punishment.


If there was ever any question in one's mind that Christianity is a target of our culture, this incident should erase all doubts. This single woman was simply seeking a roommate to share expenses. She is not a landlord, an apartment manger or property owner. Does she not have any freedom of association or religious liberty rights anymore?


Apparently, a court will now have to answer this question because the government in Michigan can't seem to see her rights through the foggy haze of political correctness.

Posted by: Micah Clark AT 11:07 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, October 28 2010

Perhaps Katie Couric could explain to us what this meant:


Katie Couric is feeling liberated.


Not because she is nearing the end of her five-year contract as CBS anchor?although there's an unexpected plot twist on that front?but because she's been spending less time in the studio. You can hear it in her voice.



"It's great for me to get out of the chair and into the world," she says. "I started out as a reporter, and I still enjoy reporting."




That's why Couric has spent recent weeks in Chicago, Philadelphia, Boston and New Brunswick, New Jersey. She is touring what she calls "this great unwashed middle of the country" in an effort to divine the mood of the midterms.


Perhaps this was an innocuous and harmless comment.  Perhaps not.  Is an explanation too much to ask?


In the meantime, I must go bathe.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 10:15 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, October 28 2010

Greg Gutfeld has a great piece on something particularly amazing: there is actually a DC rally planned for Saturday that is lamer than Jon Stewart's:


Organizers call it the "Government Doesn't Suck March," but I prefer to call it "The Tepid Rally to Restore Self-Esteem and Show Off My New Vintage T-shirt," - for it's a reaction to the nearly universal disgust we hold for people who ride desks in government.




According to Steve Ressler, who's running the thing, the goal of the march is to "remind the world that government employees.... are a lot of cool cats" - and, as the Post points out - they're folks who work hard, listen to good music and watch "The Daily Show."



Gutfeld sums this bizarre event up beautifully:


Look, here's a rule to live by: if you ever have to organize a rally to tell people you're "cool," chances are, you're not. Instead - stay home, and thank God you've got a job, for now.


Because if the public ever needed a reason to shrink government, this has to be it.



Posted by: Anna Anderson AT 09:33 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, October 28 2010

As if those Democrats who supported ObamaCare needed another anvil to hang around their necks, word is now out from the Congressional Budget Office that is a devastating confirmation of conservative allegations that the Obama agenda is precisely what is killing our economic recovery:


Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf said the most significant economic effect of President Barack Obama's health care reform package will be to drive people out of the job market.


"For the economy outside the health sector, the most significant impact of the legislation will be through the labor market," Elmendorf said [2] on Oct. 22.  "We estimated that the legislation, on net, will reduce the amount of labor used in the economy by roughly half a percent, primarily by reducing the amount that people choose to work."


This can be taken two different ways actually.  And neither of them are good.


On the one hand, you will have businesses shuttered because they cannot afford to new costs associated with ObamaCare.  That's not good for the job situation.


On the other hand, you will have people that because of the newly promised government healthcare, will decide they don't want to keep working their job because they'll get the benefits whether they work for them or not.  That's not good for society.


The story confirms this:


Elmendorf's analysis of the health care law's economic impact seems to support House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-Calif.) seemingly off-the-cuff remark in May when she said that because of the subsidies in the health care bill, people could quit their regular jobs and pursue their artistic dreams because the government would now provide for their health care.


"We see it as an entrepreneurial bill," Pelosi said on May 14, "a bill that says to someone, if you want to be creative and be a musician or whatever, you can leave your work, focus on your talent, your skill, your passion, your aspirations because you will have health care."


We have a nightmare unfolding before our very eyes.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 08:00 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, October 27 2010

The homosexual agenda is just plain weird. Are they so hard up for affirmation that they resort to "outing" puppets?


On June 11, the famous puppet tweeted about the recent "A-Team" remake by comparing himself to A-Team star Mr-T, saying, "Ever notice how similar my hair is to Mr. T's? The only difference is mine is a little more 'mo,' a little less 'hawk.'"


To some the comment was just a cute quip about hairstyles, but to others, "mo" was short for "homo" and this was Bert's way of coming out at the perfect time.


"Being sent right in the middle of Pride Month, it seemed like a fun coded message to us 'mos, and one that I was happy to pick up on," Ed Kennedy of the gay pop culture site wrote on the site Monday.


Poor Bert and Ernie now have to endure being targets of the bizarre behavior of the homosexual community? They're puppets, for cryin' out loud! What is it about the homosexual mindset that compels them to label everyone and everything with their jaundiced view of sexuality?


What compels them, of course, is their destructive urge to impose their immorality on everyone. Through the guise of "diversity" and "acceptance," they demand that they be given an equivalence with heterosexual families that is not warranted.


The November 10 edition of the Focus on the Family Citizen magazine cites two studies that do not support the pop notion that all families have equal attributes:

The leading and nonpartisan child advocacy organization, Child Trends, examining the question of how family structure affects child well-being, concludes:


"An extensive body of research tells us that children do best when they grow up with both biological parents in a low-conflict marriage. Thus, it is not simply the presence of two parents, as some have assumed, but the presence of two biological parents that seem to support child development."


The more center-left Center for Law and Social Policy examined the same question on family and child well-being, including same-sex households. It reports:


"Over the past 20 years, a body of research has developed on how changes in patterns of family structure affect children. Most researchers now agree that together these studies support the notion that, on average, children do better when raised by two married, biological parents who have low-conflict relationships."

Imagine that! The Creator's intent for family relationships actually works best.


Of course, we can expect that advocates for the homosexual agenda will blindly ignore research that fails to support their foregone conclusions.

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 05:04 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, October 27 2010

The recent WikiLeaks Iraqi war documents have all the fifth columnists in America salivating as they await the breakout of their much-hoped-for "war crimes" prosecutions.


At the same time, some of the documents demonstrate that the myth of no WMD discoveries in Iraq continues to be busted. "Wired" reports:


But WikiLeaks' newly-released Iraq war documents reveal that for years afterward, U.S. troops continued to find chemical weapons labs, encounter insurgent specialists in toxins and uncover weapons of mass destruction.


An initial glance at the WikiLeaks war logs doesn't reveal evidence of some massive WMD program by the Saddam Hussein regime ? the Bush administration's most (in)famous rationale for invading Iraq. But chemical weapons, especially, did not vanish from the Iraqi battlefield. Remnants of Saddam's toxic arsenal, largely destroyed after the Gulf War, remained. Jihadists, insurgents and foreign (possibly Iranian) agitators turned to these stockpiles during the Iraq conflict ? and may have brewed up their own deadly agents.


These documents do not demonstrate the accuracy of huge stockpiles of WMD remaining in Iraq, but what the left conveniently leaves out of the history of the preparation to the conflict is that no one denies that Saddam Hussein was in violation of the vaunted U.N. sanctions against him; to wit, he refused to allow inspections and verifications of his compliance to continue. If he was in compliance and really had no WMD or facilities, why did he refuse to simply comply when faced with the prospect of armed combat?


At any rate, while American fifth columnists continue to rant endlessly about the "deceptions" that led to American involvement in Iraq, reports such as these demonstrate that the reality of the presence of some WMD, even though not given much attention by Big Media, continue to surface.

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 01:37 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, October 27 2010

As Election 2010 looms large on the horizon, and the White House braces for what could be a stinging rebuke, they must be asking themselves, "What went wrong?"  It's a complicated question in most cases, but maybe not this time.


Writing at the Washington Post, Marc Thiessen narrows it down to one fateful day:


The decline of the Obama presidency can be traced to a meeting at the White House just three days after the inauguration, when the new president gathered congressional leaders of both parties to discuss his proposed economic stimulus. House Republican Whip Eric Cantor gave President Obama a list of modest proposals for the bill. Obama said he would consider the GOP ideas, but told the assembled Republicans that "elections have consequences" and "I won." Backed by the largest congressional majorities in decades, the president was not terribly interested in giving ground to his vanquished adversaries.


He may rue that decision next Tuesday.


Thiessen's point should not be ignored as mere partisan pontificating.  He makes a good case.


His larger point is this: suppose Obama had not taken the haughty attitude of "I won," and actually tried to carry on his created image of a post-partisan healer by including some Republican ideas in his stimulus and economic plans.  No doubt that the scared Republicans (the man carried a great deal of clout that undoubtedly intimidated even the most stalwart conservative in Washington) would have been quick to appear willing to compromise with the popular president.


Consequently, the Republicans (even if it was only a third of them that ultimately went along with the final bill) would have partially owned the failure.  Further, the Republican Party would not have found its voice in unified opposition to his agenda.


But Obama was not interested in compromise. He decided to go it alone. He picked off a few easy GOP votes and rode roughshod over the rest of the Republicans to pass a maximalist bill over their objections. That may have seemed like a good idea at the time. But looking back now, a week from the midterm elections, the wisdom of his approach is hard to discern.


The stimulus united Republicans for the first time in opposition to the president. It gave rise to the Tea Party movement that has fundamentally transformed the nation's political landscape in the GOP's favor. It changed Obama in the eyes of millions of Americans from the first "post-partisan" president into what many now perceive as (to quote Obama himself) "the same old tax-and-spend liberal Democrat." And his subsequent decision to ram Obamacare through Congress over unanimous Republican opposition sealed this impression, which voters will carry into the voting booth next Tuesday.


Almost two years later, the president still doesn't get it. In a recent New York Times profile, Obama says the lesson of his political setbacks is that "you can't be neglecting of marketing and PR and public opinion." Obama's problem was not marketing and PR -- it was his insistence on imposing big government liberalism on Americans against their will, and his failure to anticipate the blowback this approach would produce.


The only question remains whether Obama will learn from his mistakes.  His legacy as a bitter partisan one-termer vs. an adaptable two term president hinges on it.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 12:15 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, October 27 2010

This could be the greatest Carterism I've heard in a while.


Most are aware that former failed President Jimmy Carter has been spending his latter years doing all he can to create fantasy about his time in the White House.  He writes books and conducts interviews discussing things that never occurred during his presidency - but might have - in the hopes that he will be judged on intentions rather than reality.


It's kind of sad, actually.


But the most recent installment is too funny to be sad.  Talking with his former employee, Chris Matthews, Carter let loose with a howler:


CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Well, let me ask you this issue that is cutting right now. There`s a lot of buzz on this show already about the possibility of a third party running in 2012, which, in many ways, as you know, automatically tends to help the Republicans, in this case -- and maybe not automatically -- but, if Bloomberg, the mayor of New York, runs, that`s going to hurt Obama, isn`t it?

What do you think of third parties?


FORMER PRESIDENT JIMMY CARTER: Well, of course I didn`t like them when I ran for reelection in 1980s...




CARTER: ... because, for two-and-a-half years, Ted Kennedy had been running against me. And in the last minute, a third-party candidate came in and picked up a lot of the liberal Democratic votes.




CARTER: And, as a matter of fact, Ronald Reagan only got less than 51 percent of the votes, but he won because of a third-party candidate.


Yes, he did just say that.  He did just say that the man who took 489 electoral votes in the election to his 49 won only because of the 3rd party candidate John Anderson who garnered roughly 6% of the popular vote and no electoral votes.

Amazing.  If Carter really believed this tripe, he would be a candidate for psychiatric evaluation.  But undoubtedly this is more of Carter's PR blitz to try to convince the younger generations that the demonstrable history of his tenure is all wrong, and the fantasies that exist in his head are all that matters.


Maybe it is sad after all.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 11:40 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, October 27 2010

Of all the political manipulations that emerge during campaign season, perhaps the most foolish is the one that laments, "tax cuts for the rich."


This is one of the most absurd, intellectually vapid, and uninformed argument a person can make.  You hear Democrats making it every election cycle...but not because they believe it.  The make it because they know the ignorant masses will believe it and give them their votes.


Thomas Sowell goes back to the 1920s to expose how long ago this silliness was disproven.  He cites the example of Andrew Mellon, the treasury secretary, who recognized that under high tax rates, the rich divert their holdings to tax exempt bonds rather than investing that money in private business and stock.


That stagnates economic growth.  Thus, they aren't hurt by high tax rates because they shelter their wealth (hey, they didn't get to be rich by being stupid).  But who is hurt?  The lower classes that need the jobs produced only when the wealthy invest their money.  Call it trickle down if you want, it's economics 101.


And it's not just right wing free market theorists who understand this.  Sowell notes:


This was not the only time that things like this happened, nor was Andrew Mellon the only one who advocated tax rate cuts in order to increase tax revenues. John Maynard Keynes pointed out in 1933 that lowering the tax rates can increase tax revenues, if the tax rates are so high as to discourage economic activity. 


President John F. Kennedy made the same argument in the 1960s -- and tax revenues increased after the tax rates were cut during his administration. The same thing happened under Ronald Reagan during the 1980s. And it happened again under George W. Bush, whose tax rate cuts are scheduled to expire next January.


The rich actually paid more total taxes, and a higher percentage of all taxes, after the Bush tax rate cuts, because their incomes were rising with the rising economy.


So why do the Democrats keep campaigning on such a disproven and silly idea?  Why do they continue stoking the fires of class envy?  Simple.  Because people ignorantly fall for it.  Our ignorance becomes their prey.


It's why Sowell cautions:


Do the people who keep repeating the catch phrase, "tax cuts for the rich" not know this? Or are they depending on your not knowing it?


The answer is self-evident.  They aren't ignorant.  They're power-hungry manipulators.  Isn't it time we show ourselves smarter than that?

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 10:30 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, October 27 2010

My son paid a visit last weekend, which meant some challenging discussion about current events. While we're not on opposite sides of the political spectrum, he does like to provoke his parents. And, he is part of a generation that grew up with different cultural dynamics than his parents, so a wee bit of a "generational gap" raises its little head from time to time.


During the course of one discussion, my son took the viewpoint of what I call moral libertarianism; that is, anything should be OK as long as it does not do direct damage to another. Examples abound: the ethics of sexual behavior, drug use, and other weird stuff are determined strictly by the individual. As readers note, moral libertarianism and liberal ideology coincide.


In the course of conversation, I realized that I could actually have respect for liberalism if they accepted the consequences of their decisions and behavior.


Not all aberrant sexual behavior results in sexually transmitted or other diseases, but when it does, then the consequences are yours, not mine. If there are others who want to help with your medical bills, that's great. But it is not a responsibility of society at large to bail you out.


If you want to live with reckless financial abandon, fine. It's your money; spend it as you wish. But if you rack up big debts and can't afford basic necessities, then the consequences are yours, not mine. If there are others who want to lend you a hand - and I'm all for individual compassion - that's great. But it is not a responsibility of society at large to bail you out.


You get my drift. Owning up to personal consequences would eliminate the majority of poor choices that are being purposefully made now.


Until you own up to your own consequences, libs, don't expect me to respect your failing ideologies.

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 09:31 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, October 27 2010

It wasn't that long ago when Chris Matthews was floored that his guest, Republican strategist Ron Christie, would say that Sarah Palin was qualified to be President of the United States.


It seems that asking that question (is Palin qualified) has become the liberal media's desperate attempt to disprove the seriousness of Republicans.  The problem for them is, Palin's 08 predictions of what a President Obama would look like are all coming true. 


Death panels?  See ObamaCare.


Mirandizing terrorists?  See the Christmas day bomber.


Won't use the word victory?  See multiple Obama press conferences.


Exploding debt?  See treasury department numbers.


Thus, more and more Americans are coming to realize that Palin wasn't the stupid one after all.  And as a result, more and more Republican stalwarts are coming to appreciate more than just her energy and charisma.


Take Jeb Bush.  Recently asked by John King on CNN whether he would endorse Palin for president if he did not run himself, Bush responded:


A, I'm not running, and if Sarah Palin's the nominee and if she's running against Barack Obama, you betcha.


The media may think this is weird that well known Republican figures would "embarrass" themselves by supporting Palin.  The reason they think that is because they are totally disconnected from mainstream America.


Palin isn't regarded in living rooms around the country the way she's regarded in newsrooms in New York City.


Couple that with the fact that the myths surrounding Sarah Palin have been exposed and continue to be disproven (see this excellent piece by Matthew Continetti), and the media's favorite whipping post may be prepping to do some whipping of her own.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 07:50 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, October 26 2010

As a Naval Officer candidate in college, I had to take and pass a physical readiness test administered twice a semester. The test included a three mile run. At the beginning of one semester, a student new to the program took off at a sprint pace.


"Unless he's a world-class long distance runner," I mused, "he's not going to make it." He was not a world-class long distance runner.


He did make it to the finish line, but it was near the back of the pack. When he took off, full of excitement and enthusiasm, he was leading the pack. Then he would stop, walk a ways, then take off again. During his sprint phases, he passed others. But he could not stay ahead of the others when he ran out of gas and had to stop for air.


We "old salts" knew what it took to successfully complete the run with a good time and subsequent good score: a measured pace that challenged us but that did not ruin us.


A couple of years ago, a new era in American politics took off at a sprint pace. Crises abounded, and a fresh young face promised to tackle and fix every challenge facing America. The Rock the Vote generation was energized like never before and exuberantly helped propel the fresh young face into the White House.


In spite of the sprint pace injected into American politics, Conservatives remain completely aware what it takes to make it over the long haul. A rational ideology and a sense of duty, not brash emotionalism, motivate us. Yes, it is fun to be caught up in and swept along with a national movement - the days of Reagan were filled with heady excitement - but the significant races are won by those who are driven by truth and the duty to maintain that truth.


Thus it is that we see the sprinters already lagging behind. Our fresh young face of American politics is trying desperately to reawaken the spark, but they are burning out. The cost of raw emotionalism is too much to bear.


Recognizing that liberals managed to attain in one of their sprints that which they should never be allowed to have - power - Conservatives recognize their duty to restore American exceptionalism and American values to American government.


This will drive us to the polls on Tuesday - and every election day beyond.


I am certainly joyful to be a part of a vocal Conservative resurgence sweeping the nation, but this is not what drives me to vote in a few days. Even if the tables were turned, and I was once again passed by a liberal sprint, I would still go to my polling place and stand in line as long as necessary to cast my vote no matter how hopeless it looked. I will not be counted among those whose "enthusiasm wanes." Why not?


Because I am in this race for the long haul, and I know that it takes the Conservative characteristics determination, discipline, and duty to win.


November 2, 2010 - go vote. See ya at the polls!

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 03:03 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, October 26 2010

Assuming there is new Republican clout in Washington following this year's elections, many are wondering how much backbone the newbies will show when it comes to standing up to the Obama agenda.


Will they repeal healthcare?


Will they face the media onslaught to oppose Obama's deficit spending?


Will they demand Constitutional authority for every bill they pass?


An early test of their fortitude may come in this emerging uproar over NPR, PBS and the CPB in general.  There's no reason in our culture to have a state-run media.  No reason.  Sesame Street can survive on its own - it will get advertisers.

If the Republicans follow through on their threats and do what should have been done long ago - defunding the Corporation for Public Broadcasting entirely of taxpayer monies - it could be a good sign that they're serious about solving some problems and eliminating some waste.


And don't fall for the nonsense that says, "Oh, but it's pennies!  NPR doesn't get that much in the way of federal funding."  And while it is true that NRP's website acknowledges that only 5.6% of its funding comes from the combination of local, state, and federal government funds, Mark Browning has done a great job exposing that fraud:


At first glance, this distribution of funds seems to confirm that public radio's support does not come in large amounts from the direct allocation of tax moneys. After all, 5.6% is not a gigantic portion of the budget, is it? But let's look more closely. That 10.1% that comes from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is 99% provided by -- you guessed it -- the federal government. Those university funds, whenever they are provided by a public university, represent taxpayer-provided dollars. We can safely assert that three out of four university-supported stations are publicly funded, which means that more than 10% (three-quarters of that 13.6%) is taken from the taxpayer's pockets.


So far, we find that NPR member stations count on direct or indirect taxpayer money for some 25% of their funds -- and that's before we consider some of the largest portions of their budgets.


Obviously the support by individuals, businesses, and foundations does not constitute taxpayer funding, right? Not so fast. These donations are tax-deductible; thus, they are subsidized by the government. Granted, not every gift is actually reflected on an individual or business tax return, and not all of those that are itemized wind up offsetting  high marginal tax rates. Still, it is reasonable to believe that on average, these gifts result in deductions at the 25% tax bracket. Since these three categories add up to roughly 64% of station funds, we can reasonably argue that 16% of that money (64% x 0.25) is subsidized by the tax code.



In the end, then, local NPR affiliates derive something like 41% of their funding from taxes, either directly or indirectly.


So show us your seriousness, Republicans.  Show us it will be a new day.  Show us you honestly want to defend the taxpayer against abuse.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 02:00 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, October 26 2010

If you believe Congressman Donnelly is an honest man, you haven't watched many of his campaign ads this season.  But taking it a step further, if he is honest, a statement he made in his debate Monday night proved he isn't very bright.


According to the Kokomo Tribune report:


The Kokomo labor contingent at the debate made itself heard later, when Walorski attacked Donnelly's voting record.


"He voted with Nancy Pelosi 90 percent of the time; the stimulus bill was an abject failure. They've spent $1 trillion and produced no jobs. Our problem is trying to get people back to work with massive spending at the federal level."


"If you want to see jobs every day, go to Kokomo," Donnelly said, drawing a huge roar from the crowd. "Take a walk through a Chrysler plant in Kokomo; you'll see people working."


He's actually going to use Kokomo as an example of how his votes for the Obama-Pelosi agenda have helped?  Really?


This demonstrates the short-sightedness of Congressman Donnelly to a greater degree than anything I've seen to this point...and that's saying something.  And if Scott Smith (the reporter) is right - if the labor union contingent exploded in applause - what a sad commentary it is on their wisdom and sound thinking.


Congressman Donnelly basically said to the working class: don't worry, Nancy Pelosi's got your back.  And yet, in truth, Pelosi's policies (that Donnelly supports - at least he's acknowledging that now) represent the greatest threat to the long-term job security of every worker in Kokomo (and elsewhere).


Those jobs exist because of demand.  They exist because people want to buy their products.  Therefore, a Congressman who truly was acting for the benefit of those workers would be one who was voting for policies that created an environment conducive to economic environment that stimulates demand.


But Donnelly has voted in lock-step with the agenda that has destroyed such demand.  It has crippled our economic recovery to the point that unemployment remains staggeringly high, consumer confidence is at new lows, and businesses are hoarding and protecting their wealth, not investing it.



Donnelly evidently takes pride in a one-time vote to violate the Constitution by overturning decades of debtor law, all for the purpose of injecting an influx of taxpayer cash into automotive plants.  And yet, perhaps the unions that applaud this move should consider at what cost.


That one time influx did not generate new demand, but it did subject the industry to the meddling and central planning of politicians who know nothing about creating and protecting jobs.  Perhaps the Congressman could articulate one time that has worked out well for anyone besides those in power like himself?


When Congressman Donnelly pointed to the Chrysler plant in Kokomo as proof of his wisdom and foresight in protecting the worker, he proved he is either deceitfully taking advantage of blind partisans who don't know any better and will support him because he's a "D," or that he is ignorant of basic economics.

In short, that answer provided the best reason yet to vote against him.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 11:35 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, October 26 2010

Teachers unions are as active this campaign season as ever.  In Indiana, for example, the IPACE (Indiana Political Action Committee on Education) has issued its recommended candidates:


At the national level, IPACE recommends voting for Democrats 100% of the time.


At the state level, IPACE recommends voting for Democrats 96% of the time.


Teachers unions exist for two reasons: 1.) improve the pay and benefits of teachers, and 2.) get Democrats elected to office.


The second purpose is obviously seen as the best method of achieving the first.  Candidates who support the teachers unions are then labeled "pro-education."  I suppose we are to assume the other candidates (Republicans) are "anti-education."  What nonsense.



What's really being said here is that the Democrats are "pro-teachers unions."  So, if you believe that doing the bidding of teachers unions, and capitulating to their every desire is what is always best for kids and education, fine.  But if you believe that sometimes what the teachers unions are seeking is NOT what is best for education and for the children, take their recommendations with a grain of salt.

Additionally, for those who are tempted to believe the former (that the teachers unions are in it for the betterment of education), cast an eye upon the following video.  Be warned of two things however:


1.) it is an undercover project done by James O'Keefe (I have my own personal displeasure for his tactics and his scruples, as documented here, but it doesn't change the evidence), and


2.) this collection of teachers union officials is full of abusive language and offensive content.


Here's the link.

Posted by: Anna Anderson AT 10:30 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, October 26 2010

Here's Nancy Pelosi the day she took the Speakership on January 4, 2007:


"After years of historic deficits, this 110th Congress will commit itself to a higher standard: Pay as you go, no new deficit spending...Our new America will provide unlimited opportunity for future generations, not burden them with mountains of debt." 


Here's what has happened:


Since that day, the national debt has increased by $5 trillion, according to the U.S. Treasury Department...Pelosi, the 60th speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, has added more to the national debt than the first 57 House speakers combined.


Without Democrats elected to office, she would not be the Speaker.  Without Democrats voting for her agenda, this would not have happened.


It's that simple.  Vote accordingly.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 09:36 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Monday, October 25 2010

We are fools if we do not notice what is happening right now in Europe.  First it was Greece collapsing from their government big spending policies.  Then Britain recognizing they had to propose massive budget cuts or face the same consequence.  Then France literally imploding before our eyes because of their government entitlement promises.


If Americans are still willing to be intellectually honest, this should bury the Obama agenda.  And by intellectually honest, I mean whether we're willing to ask him (or at least ourselves) the following questions outlined by Jonah Goldberg:


As far as I am aware, no one has asked President Obama a simple question: If your philosophy is so great, how come the countries that have embraced it for generations are so much poorer than we are?


Nor have they asked: If guaranteed health care for everyone will make us so much more "competitive," how come we've been doing so much better than our "competitors" who already have socialized medicine, high tax rates, and lavish pensions?


Nor has the president been queried about the incongruity of saying his policies have laid a "new foundation" for economic growth and job creation when the countries he's trying to emulate are trying to dismantle the very same foundations in order to survive.


Goldberg goes on to point out the fact that we don't even really have to look outside our own borders for evidence of the failed path Obama has placed us on.  There's a reason that the economic recovery under Obama's policies has been far weaker than any economic recovery we've had from a recession in memory.


Gerald Ford's recovery was more robust for crying out loud.


And why is Obama's so weak?  The blame is all his:


Obama's recovery has not only been anemic and sputtering at around 3 percent, it hasn't made a dent in the unemployment rate, because employers have no confidence that we'll have reliable growth or that Obama isn't waiting to bring the hammer down with more Euro-style policies and taxes.



Posted by: Peter Heck AT 02:15 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Monday, October 25 2010

Krauthammer has done it again - in spectacular fashion.  His recent coining of "Obama Underappreciation Syndrome" is epic.


After chronicling how the Democrats' tried and true strategies of demonizing Republicans with paranoid characterizations has utterly failed them this election cycle, Krauthammer scoffs at Obama's newest tactic:


But after trotting out some of these charges with a noticeable lack of success, President Obama has come up with something new, something less common, something more befitting his stature and intellect. He's now offering a scientific, indeed neurological, explanation for his current political troubles. The electorate apparently is deranged by its anxieties and fears to the point where it can't think straight. Part of the reason "facts and science and argument does not seem to be winning the day all the time," he explained to a Massachusetts audience, "is because we're hard-wired not to always think clearly when we're scared. And the country is scared."


Opening a whole new branch of cognitive science -- liberal psychology -- Obama has discovered a new principle: The fearful brain is hard-wired to act befuddled, i.e., vote Republican.


Obviously, as Krauthammer notes, that can be the only explanation.  I mean, why else would the electorate not be flocking towards Obama and his Democrat acolytes and minions?  He's given them more expensive healthcare, a failed stimulus, backfiring financial regulation, and an honest effort at an economy-destroying cap and trade scheme.


There's just no rational reason for people to oppose those things.  They just can't overcome their delusional hard-wiring to think Republican.  Krauthammer then strikes gold:


Faced with this truly puzzling conundrum, Dr. Obama diagnoses a heretofore undiscovered psychological derangement: anxiety-induced Obama Underappreciation Syndrome, wherein an entire population is so addled by its economic anxieties as to be neurologically incapable of appreciating the "facts and science" undergirding Obamacare and the other blessings their president has bestowed upon them from on high.


I don't know if this is a term with staying power or not.  But it should be.  Tea Parties could have a lot of fun with this newest, latest characterization of the narcissist we've got sitting in the White House.


My name is Peter Heck.  I've been suffering with OUS since 2008.  Classic.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 12:20 pm   |  Permalink   |  1 Comment  |  Email
Monday, October 25 2010

During the ObamaCare debate many people wondered why the Democrats would be so willing to push through an indecipherable mess that they had not read, and worse, had no idea what it meant.


Remember, they couldn't even say for sure whether they were exempted or included in several of the provisions.


But in those moments of bewilderment for the American people, innumerable conservative voices were explaining exactly what the Democrat strategy was: enact something - anything, and then you can amend like crazy later.


In other words, this was their one chance to get something established.  It was far from what they envisioned (Obama has already stated on the record, as have many of his fellow travelers on the left, that their end goal is a single-payer universal, socialized healthcare system), but it was critical to get the nose under the tent.


And they did just that.  The foot was in the door.  So when stories like this break, where even a group that supports nationalized healthcare acknowledges that the cost of ObamaCare was ridiculously lowballed:


In passing ObamaCare, Democrats argued that it would provide a net relief to the budget deficit in its balance of new taxes and fees, drastic cuts to Medicare Advantage, and the subsidies it would provide to Americans making $88,000 a year or less. A new study commissioned by Families USA, a group that supports ObamaCare, shows that the Democrats and the CBO badly miscalculated the level of subsidies provided. In the first year (2014), 28 million Americans would have eligibility for more than $110 billion, outstripping the Congressional/CBO estimate by almost 600%." becomes obvious the strategy is unfolding.  The "solution" to this problem for the Dems will be to "amend" and fix the bill.  They will continue "amending" and "changing" the system until we arrive at their original objective and it's too late to go back.


That's exactly why Rick Moran writes,


Unless the Democrats are stopped cold in court or through total repeal, they will be amending this bill for decades.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 10:05 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Monday, October 25 2010

Harry Reid.


This video clip.


Unparalleled Hubris.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 08:00 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Sunday, October 24 2010

Those on the left love to talk about gaps: income gaps, wealth gaps, education gaps, race gaps. They live to polarize America. So with the firing of Juan Williams by National Public Radio (NPR), let's look at the truth gap.


For expressing a particular concern, author and television host Juan Williams, was canned by NPR. Here is the offending thought he expressed to Bill O'Reilly:


"I mean, look, Bill, I'm not a bigot. You know the kind of books I've written about the civil rights movement in this country," Williams said Monday.


"But when I get on a plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they're identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous."


Williams also commented on remarks by Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad warning Americans that the fight is coming to the U.S.


"He said the war with Muslims, America's war is just beginning, first drop of blood. I don't think there's any way to get away from these facts," Williams said.

Two days later, Mr. Williams was notified that he was being terminated by NPR because his comments "were inconsistent with our editorial standards and practices, and undermined his credibility as a news analyst with NPR."


What, then, ensures job security with NPR? Let's find out from ace legal affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg.


Wishing AIDS on your political enemies and their children. [In 1995,] NPR's Nina Totenberg [told] the host of PBS's Inside Washington that if there was "retributive justice" in the world the (admittedly loathsome) Jesse Helms would "get AIDS from a transfusion, or one of his grandchildren will get it."


Through their action, NPR tells Mr. Williams that expressing his personal viewpoint is forbidden. By her continuing advancement with the National Public Radio and Television Corporation, Ms. Totenberg is told that her personal viewpoints are rewarded.


Just a bit of a truth gap there.

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 11:55 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Saturday, October 23 2010

Every election season has a few races that raise some eyebrows.  Every election has its share of surprises.  This election is no different, and with all the uncertainty and speculation of the outcome, there's probably going to be a few stunners this time around.  With such an enormous variability in this election, there are a lot of seats traditionally considered out of reach that are now in play.  I'd like to cover a few House races that fall into the long-shot category but hold intriguing possibilities.


Ohio 10 - Dennis Kucinich (D) vs. Peter Corrigan (R)

Dennis Kucinich is the left's lovable little crackpot.  He's made two runs for President and is so far left that he makes Joe Lieberman look like a zealous conservative. 

He represents a district in Ohio that is left leaning, but not anywhere near as liberal in view as he is.  Still, his seat has largely been considered a slam dunk...that is until last week.  William Kristol highlighted a recent poll showing Kucinich with a meager 4 point lead over challenger Peter Corrigan.  Kucinich holds a slim cash advantage over Corrigan, so this could actually prove to be far closer than political experts originally thought.


Massachusetts 4 - Barney Frank (D) vs. Sean Bielat (R)

Few people in congress are as pernicious as Barney Frank.  Few states are as liberal as Massachusetts.  But even Massachusetts has been seeing some movement of late.  Eyebrows were raised earlier this year when Scott Brown managed to carry Frank's 4th district in his stunning defeat of Martha Coakley.  In this environment even the most hardened supporters are questioning the wisdom of the bailouts and Frank's involvement in the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac debacle.  Recent polling has shown Bielat within striking distance prompting Frank to dump $200,000 into his campaign.


Michigan 15 - John Dingell (D) vs. Rob Steele (R)

There isn't much more that I can say outside of what I said earlier here.  Dingell is the epitome of a career politician. 

Steele is a doctor who felt he had to get involved after Obamacare.  This poll putting Steele up by four might be an anomaly, or it might be a sign. 


Arizona 7 - Raul Grijalva (D) vs. Ruth McClung (R)

It takes some nerve to call for a boycott on the state you represent. It spells trouble when your opponent is a rocket scientist.  This long shot candidate has stunned political experts by pulling within a few points in recent polls turning this heavily Democrat leaning area to a Republican long shot pickup. 


California 8 - Nancy Pelosi (D) vs. John Dennis (R)

Surely the most powerful woman in Congress hailing from one or the most liberal districts in the nation is invulnerable even in the most trying of elections, right?  Maybe not.  She faces a well funded opponent whose positions appeal to both disaffected liberals and irritated independents alike.  Here's John Dennis' call for a debate.  Here's Pelosi's contempt for the voters on display. 


California 37 - Laura Richardson (D) vs. Star Parker (R)

Last but not least, here's holding out hope for Star Parker.  Parker's got wit, wisdom, and a fantastic story.  She's also got an uphill climb in an ultra-liberal California district. 

But as a member of arguably the most hated member status (conservative black female) with the courage to take the heat, I'm not going to count her out.  Here's to hoping for this long shot Star of November 2nd. 

Posted by: Joel Harris AT 03:00 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Saturday, October 23 2010

What if you woke up one morning in America and discovered that a government bureaucrat gets to decide who your apartment roommate is going to be. Sound ludicrous? Too bizarre to be true? We're closer than you think, friends.


A civil rights complaint has been filed against a woman in Grand Rapids, Mich., who posted an advertisement at her church last July seeking a Christian roommate.


The ad "expresses an illegal preference for a Christian roommate, thus excluding people of other faiths," according to the complaint filed by the Fair Housing Center of West Michigan.


"It's a violation to make, print or publish a discriminatory statement," Executive Director Nancy Haynes told Fox News. "There are no exemptions to that."


This nation was established as a "grand experiment" of liberty and freedom. It seems that Big Government advocates now seek to impose a new "grand experiment" that will land us in the national loony bin. Well, really, we'll end up in the national trash bin.


A private citizen cannot determine the person he/she wants as a roommate? Really? This defies reality. It certainly defies our Constitutional rights.


Ya know, if I were single, I just might go looking for a liberal needing a roommate and dare him to turn me down. That'd be a hoot!

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 11:26 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Saturday, October 23 2010

One of the mantras of the Obama Administration is to call the Republican Party the party of special interests.  It's a line that pops up in nearly every speech he makes.  According to David Axelrod, the GOP is controlled by special interest groups.  Recently the Democrat Party attempted to play up this line running ads suggesting that the Republican  Party is receiving dirty money from foreign influence (without proof, mind you). 



But perhaps I'm missing something here.  I was reading a story in the Wall Street Journal recently that has me a little perplexed.  According to the White House and the Democrat Party it's the Republicans who are controlled by special interests and they're the ones actively working against these groups. 


Who would you guess is the largest contributor lining the wallets of candidates?  Is it Freedom Works?  Is it the TEA Party Express?  How about the Chamber of Commerce?  Nope. 


According to this recent story the largest independent donor this election cycle is the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, a Democrat public employee union.  In fact, three of the top five contributors are public employee unions (SEIU and the NEA) with contributions almost exclusively to Democrats.   

Posted by: Joel Harris AT 08:30 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, October 22 2010

Is the First Lady a bully?  Given the nonsense standards being advanced by the homosexual lobby, yes she is.


Linda Harvey's incredible commentary on this idea shows the idiocy behind the movement's strategy, by spectacularly applying it to First Lady Michelle:


It's certainly understandable that people are grieving the loss of precious young lives. And yes, the hallways are increasingly uncivil in public schools. But the demands are over-the-top as the "gay" lobby intends to use the tragedies to silence all unwanted opinions and to make sweeping claims not supported by hard evidence.


Why are we turning a blind eye, then, to another potentially explosive kind of rhetoric: the anti-chubby messages sent every day in our schools, now encouraged by our first lady?


Michelle Obama's "Let's Move" initiative describes the health risks of childhood obesity as well as associated low self-esteem and social stigmatization. The research shows that overweight kids are at very high risk for being bullied.


OK, then, can we get some "sensitivity training" arranged for the first lady next? And all the health teachers? The cafeteria workers may need close review. And then, out in the community, Weight Watchers and Jenny Craig? We have to police this thing before it gets out of control.


The overweight kids are frequently bullied, but lack George Soros-funded lobbying groups. They don't have "pride" parades. And to think even the nation's first lady is making them feel bad by her biased rhetoric. Lose weight? Aren't you just creating a "climate of hate" for the bullies?


Every time a teacher at school mentions calorie counting, or recommends fresh fruits and vegetables, the heavy kids slink down in their seats. Here it comes ... more ammunition for the pokes and jabs out in the hall later. "Hey, tubbo!" "How about some broccoli, Fatso?" "Oink, oink!" And lunch is a living nightmare, day after day. So mean!


I've been saying repeatedly that the homosexual lobby is using Stalinesque tactics of paranoid demonization of anyone who doesn't support their agenda in lockstep.  But Harvey's column does an excellent job of highlighting a new danger to their evil.


If those who agree with their end goal give credibility and legitimacy to these tactics, even they will find themselves subject to them.  So should we enroll you in your necessary sensitivity training now, Michelle?

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 01:55 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, October 22 2010

Okay, let's just start out this way: Christine O'Donnell was right, and her opponent was wrong.  And the room full of egotistical law students that sneered at her in a sickening display of arrogant laughter made fools of themselves.


In a debate regarding whether intelligent design theory should be allowed to be taught in schools, Chris Coons (the Democrat) resorted to the tired claim of "separation of church and state."


First of all, notice the silliness of this remark.  "Church" in this sense - and virtually every context the left uses it - means "Christianity."  The left has no problem with humanism or secularism being taught in the schools and furthered by the government.  So what he should have relied upon was an appeal to the "separation of Christianity and state."


O'Donnell responded by challenging Coons to point out where in the Constitution such a separation is enumerated.  Coons, of course, could not do so.


Investors Business Daily editors wrote it up this way:


A law school audience fell into fits of laughter when a Senate candidate asked, "Where in the Constitution is separation of Church and State?" In fact, the phrase is nowhere in the document.


Those scoffing law scholars might want to look at the Constitution's unadorned text instead of the judicial activist law review articles that take up so much of their day.


Indeed.  Although I have to admit that I find it funny when a bunch of pompous young folks who are being trained by pompous elites to become pompous elites take on this air of superiority - especially when they don't even realize that they are totally wrong.


Perhaps they are comfortable in their ignorance because they know there is no chance the media will report it accurately.  Take for instance CNN.  In "covering" the story, Mark Preston reported:


You know Christine O'Donnell has said a lot of embarrassing things, has had to explain herself a lot. And yesterday, during a debate, she stumbled over the Constitution. Specifically, it was a discussion about creationism in public schools and how to teach it and whether to teach it. She didn't know that the First Amendment gave (laughs) - allowed for the separation of church and state.


And CNN's left-wing legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin commented:


What the tape shows is she didn't know anything about the First Amendment, at least as I saw.

Of course that not true at all.  But on CNN and other channels of the liberal media, truth doesn't matter.  Other channels like CBS, where Nancy Cordes filed a report with Harry Smith on the Early Show:


"...we've been seeing a spate of strange claims from tea party candidates in recent weeks."

As supposed evidence of those "strange claims," Cordes pointed to Delaware Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell accurately noting that the phrase "separation of church and state" appears nowhere in the Constitution. Cordes remarked that O'Donnell's comment "actually drew gasps from her audience yesterday," and later concluded: "O'Donnell - who calls herself a strict constitutionalist - appeared unaware of one of the Constitution's most basic tenets."

Actually, Nancy, you - and your fellow big media types - are the ones who are unaware.  Unaware of the fact that you are mocking a Senatorial candidate for actually knowing something you don't!


"Separation of Church and State" is a legal doctrine that has been developed through Supreme Court case law beginning in 1947.  The "basic tenets" of the Constitution do not include those things that were written 160 years after it.


It's one thing to be ignorant.  It's another to proudly tout your ignorance as you attempt to condemn another for being ignorant.  Meet the left.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 12:40 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, October 22 2010

This part isn't new: a Democrat who campaigns as "pro-life" gets elected and then is pressured by his political party leadership into voting against life in slavish devotion to the Democrat Party's abortion obsession.


As a result, pro-life groups find it necessary to address that betrayal with voters.


This reality is playing itself out across the country.


But this part is new:


SBA [Susan B. Anthony] List sought to purchase four billboards across [Dem. Rep. Steve] Driehaus' Congressional district informing voters that his vote in favor of Obamacare was a vote for taxpayer funding of abortion.  Driehaus filed a complaint with the Ohio Elections Commission on Tuesday, October 6th alleging the SBA List was making false accusations, citing a criminal statute in the complaint.  SBA List said Driehaus' attorney convinced Lamar Companies to not to put up the billboards in order to avoid being added to the elections commission complaint.


"Through this criminal statute, he's even threatening me with jail time," Dannenfelser said.  "But we will not be silenced or intimidated.  In fact, we're emboldened to make certain that his constituents know the truth about his vote."


The SBA List is fighting back and running radio ads throughout his district that not only expose his vote, but also point out his attempts to legally intimidate pro-lifers into silence.


What has to malfunction in a person's soul to not only vote to expand abortion after proclaiming yourself pro-life, but then to threaten your supposedly fellow pro-lifers with jail time for addressing it?  Sad.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 11:30 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, October 22 2010

Big news in the race between incumbent Democrat "Silent" Joe Donnelly and his capable challenger, Republican Jackie Walorski.  Despite the flood of deceptive and negative ads run by the Donnelly campaign, Walorski has weathered the storm and is in a very strong position heading into the final stretch.


So much so that the well respected political analyst Charlie Cook has moved the race from his "leans Democratic" column into the "tossup" column.  Here's what the report stated:


Toss Up.  Donnelly is still in better shape than many other Democrats in comparably GOP-leaning districts in the industrial Midwest, but even internal Democratic polling shows him with a mid-single digit lead under 50 percent, suggesting GOP state Rep. Jackie Walorski has largely weathered Democrats' attacks and remains in close contention.  Look to this race as an early bellwether on Election Night.


It's a shame what Joe Donnelly allowed himself to become.  But that's no one's fault but his.  And now, hopefully, he may face the consequences.

Posted by: Anna Anderson AT 10:32 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, October 22 2010

No one could confuse me as being a big Juan Williams fan.  His commentaries and assessments of some stories makes me want to eat my arm.  But what just happened to him is ridiculous.


For those who are still unaware, Williams was canned at National Public Radio because he spoke bluntly and honestly about the very rational fear of Islamic terror: 


Juan also commented, "I mean, look, Bill, I'm not a bigot. You know the kind of books I've written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I've got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous."


But honesty is not a respected commodity at NPR, and as a result they issued this statement:


Late Wednesday night, NPR issued a statement praising Williams as a valuable contributor but saying it had given him notice that it is severing his contract. "His remarks on The O'Reilly Factor this past Monday were inconsistent with our editorial standards and practices, and undermined his credibility as a news analyst with NPR," the statement read.


Williams' presence on the largely conservative and often contentious prime-time talk shows of Fox News has long been a sore point with NPR News executives.


Evidently in the world of NPR, Juan Williams is a bigot.  A pathetic depiction of how far down this taxpayer supported "network" has gone in the bile pit of left wing political correctness. 


Juan can only be blamed for failing to recognize the obvious: if you speak truth, you are not going to be welcome at NPR.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 09:45 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, October 22 2010

My wife watches The Early Show in the morning.  I tolerate it when it's on then secretly turn the channel to ESPN at first chance.  Today I wasn't so lucky. 


This morning I was subjected to the most recent non-Levi Johnston controversy (he must not have been available this morning).  Parent groups have recently taken issue with some racy pictures taken by several actors and actresses from the television series "Glee".  Apparently parents don't seem to have the same openness to the idea of individuals from their child's favorite TV show posing half naked in provocative positions for a magazine.


Like everything out of the mainstream media, I come with the understanding that The Early Show's going to have a liberal bent.  When liberal media meets academia, I believe there needs to be a "common sense free zone" disclaimer at the bottom of the screen. 


Sure enough in The Early Show's (pathetic) attempt to cover the issue they trotted out two child psychologists.  Predictably, they emphasized the line that the actors were older than their parts (as if that were the issue), that this is the norm for GQ magazine shoots (as if that's a legitimate excuse), and that it's the parent's responsibility in explaining these issues to their children. 


Once again, the industry gets it wrong.  It's not about legality or parental responsibility.  This issue is about decency and professional restraint. 


In a hyper-sexualized culture there is already abundant pressure for children to be exposed to and engage in activities with deep and far-reaching consequences.  Despite the efforts of parents, children and adolescents often get their cues about what is and is not acceptable from media sources. 


It doesn't help when these media sources introduce sexually charged material to a child/adolescent targeted audience.  To be sure, parents have a primary responsibility in guiding and directing their children, but what about the responsibility of GQ magazine to avoid using child/teen icons for provocative shoots?  What about the responsibility of actors and actresses of child targeted shows to recognize their social influence?  What about the responsibility of TV producers to promote and protect family friendly programming? 


If tobacco companies were rightfully condemned for marketing to children, why not raise a similar concern over a more powerful industry pushing a more dangerous product?

Posted by: Joel Harris AT 09:09 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, October 22 2010

Most people expect problems with new technology and products. There is always something that can be improved. That is a reality even with green technology. There are challenges that need to be overcome before solar power, wind farms, and battery cars become a mainstream reality. At the same time, I don't think that setbacks will necessarily kill advancements and enhancements in the technology and products.


I do, however, expect straight talk from makers of green technology and our very own President. Instead, we get hype and deception.


Government Motors' all-electric car isn't all-electric and doesn't get near the touted hundreds of miles per gallon. Like "shovel-ready" jobs, maybe there's no such thing as "plug-ready" cars either.

The Chevy Volt, hailed by the Obama administration as the electric savior of the auto industry and the planet, makes its debut in showrooms next month, but it's already being rolled out for test drives by journalists. It appears we're all being taken for a ride.

Turns out that the combustion engine actually powers the vehicle in addition to recharging the battery when in use. Let's be honest - this makes the Volt a hybrid and not a true "all-electric." 


So it's not an all-electric car, but rather a pricey $41,000 hybrid that requires a taxpayer-funded $7,500 subsidy to get car shoppers to look at it. But gee, even despite the false advertising about the powertrain, isn't a car that gets 230 miles per gallon of gas worth it?


We heard GM's then-CEO Fritz Henderson claim the Volt would get 230 miles per gallon in city conditions. Popular Mechanics found the Volt to get about 37.5 mpg in city driving, and Motor Trend reports: "Without any plugging in, (a weeklong trip to Grandma's house) should return fuel economy in the high 30s to low 40s."


Car and Driver reported that "getting on the nearest highway and commuting with the 80-mph flow of traffic ? basically the worst-case scenario ? yielded 26 miles; a fairly spirited backroad loop netted 31; and a carefully modulated cruise below 60 mph pushed the figure into the upper 30s."


An 83% loss in fuel efficiency from the touted theoretical figure to actual real world experience. Hmmmm. That's going to save the planet.


Not to mention having to deal with the environmental hazards of lithium batteries or being dependent on places like Bolivia for the lithium in the first place.


As a presidential candidate, Mr. Obama pledged to put 1 million plug-in vehicles on the road by 2015. I suppose he could still fulfill that pledge; I don't see where he promised that they would necessarily be moving. Indeed, how can they be moving? As a presidential candidate, Mr. Obama indicated a willingness to bankrupt the coal industry, our primary source of power for the generation of electricity. We do not see any new nuclear reactor generators on the horizon. And we certainly are not going to get significant amounts of power from solar or wind generation any time soon. So what are these 1 million vehicles supposed to plug into in the first place?


Has it occurred to anyone yet that there is a wide disconnect between this administration and anything that has to do with reality?


Do you want to buy your next car from this guy?

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 08:25 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, October 21 2010

A huge story is breaking right now regarding the father of the American sexual revolution, Alfred Kinsey.  Known for some time now as a total fraud who falsified his research to gratify his own bizarre sexual fantasies, Kinsey remains a darling of the American left.

Even Indiana University - to their eternal shame - named an entire complex in his honor.


But allegations and evidence have now surfaced to prove that Kinsey was far more than just a disgraced researcher.  He was a monster:


Liberty Counsel, a Virginia-based public-interest law firm, is "seriously looking" at initiating legal action - including possibly a class-action lawsuit - against the Kinsey Institute at Indiana University.


Pioneering sex scientist Alfred Kinsey, widely considered the father of the sexual revolution whose influential research helped transform America's morals and sex laws, has been accused by critics of shoddy scholarly standards and, much more shockingly, participating in or encouraging the sexual molestation of hundreds of children to gather "research data."


"Kinsey and the Kinsey Institute should be held accountable for the massive fraud they've perpetrated on the United States and the world," said Mathew Staver, attorney and founder of Liberty Counsel.


"We are very interested in looking at that from a legal perspective," Staver told WND. "Some people were experimented on contrary to ethical standards. The case involves not only child abuse, but sexual abuse. We are investigating people who were victims."


The accounts of these victims are being released in an ongoing exposé by the online news site WorldNetDaily.  And they are devastating:


Yesterday, WND reported on the alleged child-rape of one 7-year-old victim of Kinsey's 1940s "research" into child sexual response. "Esther White" (a pseudonym), now in her 70s, is seeking a congressional investigation of Kinsey and his Institute.


In the shocking report, the former child victim explains that she witnessed Kinsey pay her father and grandfather after they sexually molested her repeatedly, timing her "sexual responses" with a stopwatch, and reporting on the "research data" to Kinsey.


This man was a pervert and an animal.  How telling that the left adores him.  Tragically there's more to come.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 01:40 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, October 21 2010

I tip my hat to the left - they can certainly make the abrogation of personal liberty and freedom sound good. The Los Angeles Times submits that coverage guarantee in Obamacare makes sense, and in order to accomplish that, mandatory coverage is necessary and proper:


The healthcare reform law enacted this year prohibits this kind of cherry-picking. Starting in 2014, it requires insurers to offer coverage to every applicant, and it bars them from charging higher premiums to those with preexisting medical conditions. Such guaranteed coverage is a double-edged sword: It protects consumers' access to a vital service, but it could also encourage healthy people not to buy policies until they need expensive treatment. To deter that kind of gamesmanship, the law requires all American adults to obtain insurance, with subsidies to make coverage more affordable to the working class...


The best approach is to spread risks, not concentrate them. That's why the coverage guarantee in the healthcare reform law makes sense. Congress may not have found the perfect mechanism to provide that guarantee without driving healthy people out of the system, but the right response is to keep working on the new law rather than abandoning it.


With their demands that health care be turned into a government-mandated right for all citizens (and illegal immigrants), the only logical way it can work is as the Times and others fans of Big Government indicate: by law, everyone must purchase a national group policy. In other words, nationalized healthcare.


Of course, they make this sound like it is the compassionate solution sought by all Americans. The reality is that this is smiley-faced fascism.


Since the point of nationalizing health insurance is to provide "equitable" access for everyone and to "spread the risks," then why not also regulate personal behavioral choices that increase health risks and drive up the cost for everyone? Examples abound: tobacco use; alcohol abuse; fatty foods; high sodium foods; meat. These are all areas of our lives that government can implement targeted regulations on the basis that it is caring for us more properly than we can care for ourselves.


(I submit, by the way, that in order to be consistent, government needs to also regulate high-risk sexual behavior. Maybe I'm cutting off my nose to spite my face, but if Obamacare becomes the inevitable way of life, I suggest that conservatives become the best socialists possible and press for logical applications of nanny-state care like sex behavior regulations.)


Anyway, why stop at health insurance? Wouldn't other mandatory insurance schemes make as much sense, too? How about flood insurance? Government already has the monopoly on that, why not expand it so that ALL homeowners are REQUIRED to carry the coverage? That would, after all, spread the risks away from those who own property in flood-prone areas.


I could go on, but I know you get my drift.


No matter how appealing they make it sound - no matter how many smiley face buttons they hand out along with government intrusion - the consequence of liberal ideology is to herd us into their fascist state.

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 12:07 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, October 21 2010

You may know that the Obama Administration has been a huge proponent of the homosexual political agenda from day one. Yet, it is one thing to promote a far left agenda, it's quite another to shirk your duty.

This administration has failed to adequately defend current law on marriage (and Don't Ask, Don't Tell) in courts of law around the nation. The homosexual demands groups know that they have an advantage using courts to force what they cannot achieve at the ballot box or in public opinion because the Justice Department is now only half-heartedly defending our laws.

Here is, perhaps, a more personal reason why the President won't defend marriage. On Friday, the Associated Press reported that the President's half brother in Kenya, a Muslim polygamist has married a teenager who is more than thirty years younger than him. (There always seems to be a depraved trend among polygamist men to marry younger and younger wives.)

Mary Aoko Ouma, the mother of the girl is furious that her daughter quit high school and married Malik Obama, whom she had tried to marry two years earlier, but the mother refused to give the then 17 yr old her permission. Malik Obama, 52, has two other wives in addition to Anyango. Polygamy is legal in Kenya if it falls under religious reasons or cultural traditions.

Posted by: Micah Clark AT 12:01 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, October 21 2010

For months I've been saying it: It's all about Sharia Islam.  In other words, we should leave behind all this utter nonsense about "moderate" vs. "radical" Islam.  It meaningless tripe that is actually being used by the Islamists against us.


Consider: you are deemed a "moderate" Muslim even if you believe that women should be degraded, infidels forced into submission, and the Constitution of the United States obliterated and replaced with Islamic long as you want to accomplish those ends through elections, court proceedings and decrees.


There's nothing "moderate" about treason.  Sorry.


That's why the entire framework of our discussion regarding Islam in America needs to be restructured.  It's all about Sharia (Islamic) law.  What I mean by that is that there are obviously many Muslims living in the United States who appreciate Western (Christian) values and have no desire to overthrow them.


They are content living in a country founded upon values that their own religion abhors and actually find it safer to live under Western traditions than Islamic ones.  To them, Sharia is personal and not something to be mandated upon the masses by the state.


And that is the question that must be asked.  Where do you stand on Sharia law?  Ask every immigrant, every politician, every cultural leader and opinion maker.  Ask them.


This is precisely the cause being advanced by some national political figures (like Newt Gingrich and Sharron Angle).  And it should come as no surprise that the same ignorant voices perpetuating the "moderate" vs. "radical" model are downplaying the threat of Sharia.


When you hear those voices, remember this (from Robert Spencer):


There have been successful attempts by Muslim workers at meat packing plants in Nebraska and Colorado to force their employers to restructure the work schedule to give them special breaks at times for Islamic prayer. These efforts initially met with protests from non-Muslim workers, who complained to no avail that the special breaks given to Muslims forced the non-Muslims to work longer hours, and thus discriminated against them. The result? Muslims in these plants have special privileges that other workers do not have - in accord with the privileged status Muslims enjoy over non-Muslims in Sharia societies.

Another example of Sharia insinuating itself into American life are the footbaths that have been constructed in airports and schools for the ablutions prescribed before Islamic prayers. Imagine the outcry if holy water fonts were being placed in airports for Catholic travelers - but Islamic footbaths have been dismissed as non-religious, on the pretext that anyone can use them. It would be interesting to see what would happen if a non-Muslim tried.

Sharia is what sets Islam apart from all other religions.  Islam is not truly a religion.  It is simultaneously a religious and political order.  And for that reason, if we value our current political system, we had best start addressing these issues.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 11:20 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, October 21 2010

Several months ago I did an interview with Steve Hargreaves of about a piece they were going to run on my hometown of Kokomo, IN.  Steve was a nice guy, but it became abundantly clear during the set-up and in the course of the interview that this was a piece meant to tout the great achievement of CNN's man, President Barack Obama.


Dissent really didn't fit the piece, and needed to be recast.  The piece has now come out, and unsurprisingly is a campaign commercial for big government Obamism (as the before Obama/after Obama picture posted with the story testifies). 


Alas, I didn't make it into the column.  Not that I'm overly disappointed in that.  Hargreaves knew the kind of voices he was looking for, and mine certainly wasn't one of them.


For instance, in one of our exchanges, Steve asked me how wonderful it was that Obama's stimulus bill gave Kokomo money to renovate the streets, plant flowers, and build new buildings for businesses to move into.

My response, as I recall, was pretty straight forward: buildings are nice, but if you don't have demand for what is being produced in those buildings, what are they good for?  The same goes for flowers.


And that is where the Obama stimulus has totally failed all of us...yes, even in Kokomo.  The national economy is stagnating, businesses are not hiring (despite all those purdy buildings Barack spent our money on), and consumer confidence is at dangerous lows.


These realities are all the consequence of Team Obama's failed economic stewardship. 


But when you're carrying a template, as CNN is doing, no time to include voices that point something like that out.  This piece of hyperpartisan spin was set up a year ago and totally fails to deliver.  It will likely have the same impact on people's minds as Obama's stimulus had on the economy.


Hargreaves may call his article "A Town Saved by Stimulus," but it's as misleading as it is glaringly biased and sycophantic.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 10:25 am   |  Permalink   |  2 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, October 21 2010

German Chancellor Angela Merkel has already demonstrated the folly of the ignorant economics being employed by U.S. leadership by doing the precise opposite with impressive results.  She is now speaking out on another issue that is haunting the United States: multiculturalism.


Commenting on the cultural climate of her country in Potsdam, here's what she said:


"Multikulti", the concept that "we are now living side by side and are happy about it," does not work, Merkel told a meeting of younger members of her conservative Christian Democratic Union (CDU) party at Potsdam near Berlin.


"This approach has failed, totally," she said, adding that immigrants should integrate and adopt Germany's culture and values.


"We feel tied to Christian values. Those who don't accept them don't have a place here," said the chancellor.


Must be nice having a leader courageous enough to state the obvious.  For too long we have been subject to the multiculturalist cult that has denied common sense and ignored reality.  Thomas Sowell put it this way:


This is not a lesson for Germany alone. In countries around the world, and over the centuries, peoples with jarring differences in language, cultures and values have been a major problem and, too often, sources of major disasters for the societies in which they co-exist.
Even the tragedies and atrocities associated with racial differences in racist countries have been exceeded by the tragedies and atrocities among people with clashing cultures who are physically indistinguishable from one another, as in the Balkans or Rwanda.

But those obvious lessons are totally ignored by the multiculturalists.  They cry racism or nativism if you even bring them up:


Expecting any group to adapt their lifestyles to the cultural values of the larger society around them is "cultural imperialism" according to the multicultural cult. And living in separate neighborhoods is considered to be so terrible that there are government-financed programs to take people from high-crime slums and put them in subsidized housing in middle-class neighborhoods.

There's a reason our Founders placed such a premium on unity (see the national motto they chose).  In unity rests the secret to the success of any vibrant people.  It need not be unity of background, but it needs to be unity of purpose, values and principles.


That Merkel not only realizes this, but is willing to boldly speak to it only makes me more desirous of a straight up trade: our President for their Chancellor.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 09:15 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, October 21 2010

Call the voters stupid, frustrated and afraid.  That should work.  This is the latest strategy coming from the Democrat party and their mouthpieces.  In the absence of a coherent strategy, why not blame the voters?  Afterall, the good done by this administration should be self-evident, but it's too complicated to explain. 


Just ask Joe Biden.  But according to the President, it's even deeper than that.  Apparently we're all just a bunch of impressionable idiots who are falling pray to the devious destructive strategy of a Republican party more interested in destroying the nation than helping "get the car out of the ditch:" 


Their attitude -- it was tactical on their part -- was that we were climbing out of such a deep hole, they had made such a big mess, that they figured it was going to take some time to repair the economy, longer than any of us would like. They knew that people would be frustrated. They knew people would be angry. And they figured if they just sat on the sidelines and opposed us every step of the way -- if they said no even to policies that they could agree with, that historically they had supported, then people might forget that they were the ones who had caused the mess -- (applause) -- and that people's anger and frustration would lead them to success in the next election. That was their strategy.


Let's all pause and shed a tear for Obama the martyr, struggling with all his might to push the car out of the ditch while these nasty Republicans are chugging on a Slurpee.  Once again:


Part of the reason that our politics seems so tough right now and facts and science and argument does not seem to be winning the day all the time is because we're hard-wired not to always think clearly when we're scared. And the country is scared.


So if we were smart and thinking rationally, we'd be all over Obamacare, and Obamanomics.  Might I offer a suggestion?  Perhaps the voters are smarter than you wish to give them credit.  Perhaps they want to hear a substantive argument rather than the pathetic strawmen that are constantly put forward and the endless references to the "failed policies of the past." 


Perhaps the voters don't like the change they've seen and are tired of being told to simply told that what's being done is for their own good.  Unity is a fine sounding theme to run on, but falls flat if the uniting principle is antithetical to the general population.  The people aren't buying Obama's vision of change and the message is falling flat.  Go ahead and continue to insult the voters. 


We'll see how that plays out in two weeks. 

Posted by: Joel Harris AT 08:24 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, October 20 2010

Recently I've been forced to confront a lot of far reaching and impacting decisions.  Barring a life interruption, I will be stepping into public office as a county councilman.  Like many local governments across this country, my county is facing a budget crisis. 


With lowered tax revenues and the natural inclination of government expansion, Huntington County (IN) is facing a decision on whether or not to levy more taxes on the population to ensure their budgets as they currently stand can remain.  Both sides raised their arguments for and against raising the local option income tax (LOIT).  It's at about this time when I was hit with a blast from the past.


This isn't the first time our nation has faced a budget crisis.  In our nation's history it was, in fact, the government that was bailed out by private citizens.  To be sure, governments across the nation will be faced with decisions of what they may have to do without.  The temptation is to avoid these decisions by requiring more from the population.  It's about this time in the ole' internal dialogue that I was reminded by words of wisdom from one of our most uncharismatic figures from our nation's history: Calvin Coolidge. 


I can't imagine a starker contrast between our current President and Calvin Coolidge.  President Obama built his presidency on soaring rhetoric and promise of hope and change.  He promised a government that was active in the lives of the people and has passed measure after measure of regulation, debt, and the expansion of government.  Calvin Coolidge, on the other hand, was arguably the most private of any President in our history.  His nickname was "Silent Cal" because of his low key approach and demeanor.  He believed in the power of individual and the necessity of economical, minimal government. 


This clip of Calvin Coolidge is a breath of fresh air in the era of big government.  As we see the debate of bailouts, stimulus, or even LOIT, perhaps we should revisit the words of Silent Cal. 



The country needs every ounce of its energy to restore itself.  The costs of government are all assessed upon the people.  This means that the farmer is doomed to provide a certain amount of money out of the sale of his produce, no matter how low the price, to pay his taxes.  The manufacturer, the professional man, the clerk must do the same from their income.  The wage earner, often at a higher rate when compared with his earning, makes his contribution perhaps not directly but indirectly in the advanced cost of everything he buys.  The expenses of the government reach everybody.  Taxes take from everyone a part of his earnings and force everyone to work for a certain part of his time for the government. 




These are some of the reasons why I want to cut down public expense. I want the

people of America to be able to work less for the government and more for themselves.  I want them to have the rewards of their own industry.  This is the chief meaning of freedom.  Until we can reestablish a condition under which the earnings of the people can be kept by the people, we are bound to suffer a severe and distinct curtailment of our liberty. 


Low taxes.  Small government.  More freedom.  Thanks for the word, Cal. 

Posted by: Joel Harris AT 05:19 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, October 20 2010

As a kid, my parents never had to actually punish me too often.  Typically, just a stern word and making it clear that they were disappointed in me did the trick.  And it wasn't just them.  Knowing that I had disappointed my teachers killed me.


That really hasn't changed much as I've grown older.  Though I know you can't please everyone, I always get uncomfortable if I think that I have disappointed my superiors.


Well, until recently.


Perhaps it's some dormant rebellious streak in me that is surfacing.  Or perhaps it's that a man can only take so much.  But whatever the reason, I have become so totally annoyed with the constant condescension and belittling coming from my President, that I'm immune to it.  I don't care.  I've recognized that I don't have the problem.  He does.


David Limbaugh recently commented on this man who thinks we are always wrong and he is always right:


When Obama runs into opposition on his agenda, it never occurs to him that he could be wrong. That's why every time his policies are rebuffed, he reacts the same way: "They don't understand my plan. It's too complicated. I haven't given enough speeches on the subject or spoken to people about their core values. I want the people to take another look at my plan."


This signature Obama arrogance reared its head again this past weekend, when Obama said that Americans' "fear and frustration" are what is driving their opposition to his agenda. The difficult economic times, which, of course, he blamelessly inherited, are interfering with the people's ability to "think clearly."


But fear not. He selflessly agreed to undertake the burden of breaking "through the fear and the frustration people are feeling." Hmm. What do you suppose he might say differently in his hundredth approach to this that he didn't cover the first 99 times? According to Obama, people can deal with Bush-induced "trauma" concerning the economy one of two ways. They can either push "away challenges" and look "backwards" or "meet these challenges" and "move forward."


Don't just casually pass over these words. Savor them for at least a second, and show me where he exhibits an iota of doubt in his failed policies. To the contrary, he is saying this is more a perception problem for the American people than it is their rational reaction to real problems he has created or exacerbated.


At this point, it may be the largest understatement in the world to suggest that our President has an ego issue.  But this much is clear: it's grating on many more Americans than just me.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 01:15 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, October 20 2010

Call her the Energizer Bunny, the Teflon Woman, or the Pitbull with Lipstick, Sarah Palin cannot be stopped.  The media has done all they could.  They've shown their worst.  And to no avail - "Caribou Barbie" has outlasted and conquered them.


At a recent event in CA, Palin was in typical-for-her, but rare for everyone else, form:


Sarah Palin's speech on Saturday at the Republican National Committee's get-out-the-vote rally in Anaheim, Calif., was a prime example of what Palin does best: slam the Obama Administration's lies and toxic policies with down-to-earth humor, optimism, and a no-nonsense confidence that drives the Left wild.

Palin boldly honored President Reagan's approach: "What this great country needs to get back on track is just that Reagan common sense, those principles, those time-tested truths that he applied, Reagan common-sense solutions?lower taxes, smaller, smarter government, less overreach and intrusion, strong, unapologetic national defense?remember, it was ?we win, you lose'."

She flashed the media some signature palm writing so they'd "have some easy takeaway" and didn't hesitate to let them know that, "Yes, I shall be invoking Reagan's name again. And again. And again. And again. You won't be hearing me invoking or quoting Alinsky or Mao. We're kind of a Reagan kind of crowd around here."


She declared that it's time to "fire Pelosi, retire Reid and their whole band of merry followers," and even offered some advice to our Apologizer-in-Chief: "Well, we've got a President today who's getting pretty good at apologizing, but see?he's apologizing to all the wrong people. So Mr. President, with all due respect, next time that urge to apologize waves on over you, I have some suggestions for who to apologize to. How about apologizing to the 15 million Americans who are looking for work today? Or saying sorry, oops, after the 3 million jobs were lost after your forced-through stimulus package came down the pike ... And make a joint apology, you know, cause you don't want to leave out Harry and Nancy and Barbara and all the others who were part of that lemon of a spending boondoggle, the biggest boondoggle in U.S. history."

And you could almost hear the hair being ripped from Katie Couric's head as Palin used her folksy charm to pump up the already-ecstatic crowd:


She called out Barbara Boxer's twisted, anti-business priorities: "How about, speaking of California, the priority of Barbara Boxer, chairing the committee that has control over, she can be able to turn on the water just up the road in the Central Valley, yes, to save those family farms and to save those crops that have fed our nation for generations and yet, instead, she'd rather protect a two-inch fish, that little stickleback thing. Now where I come from, we call a two-inch fish, we call that bait. And the people are more important than the bait."

Despite her tremendous national significance, Palin still possesses a regular, everyman quality that has little time for elitism: "He [Reagan] believed in us?the little guy?and he said that with all due respect. The little guy?just unpretentious, hard-working, patriotic, pro-family, freedom-loving, middle-class, job-creating little guys. That's whom Reagan could relate to . so how about we make November 2 freedom day and we take it back for the little guy?"

This woman is on fire and shows no signs of stopping.  I bet she can see 2012 from her house.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 11:50 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, October 20 2010

The long global nightmare is over: thanks to a European court, men have finally been granted breastfeeding leave time from work.  Justice may have been delayed, but it was not denied:


Equal rights for dads in a ruling from the European Union Court of Justice... Dad and mom are equal in the eyes of the court when it comes to feeding the baby for the first nine months.  The men are to awarded the same amount of time off as mothers get to breastfeed their babies.




The court called the law "an unjustified discrimination on grounds of sex" that fathers weren't granted breastfeeding leave in the same instances as women were, according to the report.

Words escape me.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 10:30 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, October 20 2010

The miraculous story of the rescued Chilean miners will not soon be forgotten - miniseries, books, tell-all interviews are all in the works.


And it comes as no surprise that the media is already seeking to sensationalize an already sensational story by focusing on, well, what the media always focuses on.  A recent headline on the Drudge Report screamed: "Sex, cannibalism, the cruel mind tricks: First interview with Chilean miner..."


But what will be conveniently left out of these sordid tales soon to emerge from South America is, of course, the Christian faith that permeated that mine.  Janice Shaw Crouse notes:


it was impossible to escape the religious significance of the rescue. The first rescuer made the sign of the cross as he was lowered into the mine to begin evacuating the trapped miners. Some reports identified Mario Gomez, the oldest trapped miner at 62, as the spiritual leader of the men. Gomez credited the Vatican for providing a "literal and spiritual" lifeline for the miners when they sent down 33 mini-Bibles and 33 rosaries. But not all of the captured miners were Catholics; the presence of evangelical believers reveals significant religious changes that are sweeping through Latin America and South America.


The Baptist wire services told the story of a Baptist pastor, Marcelo Leiva, and one of the miners, Jose Henriquez, who collaborated on the Bible studies that Henriquez was conducting for fellow evangelical believers underground. Henriquez's brother distributed T-shirts to those at Camp Esperanza, the tent city called "Camp Hope" set up for those awaiting the miners. The shirts bore a Bible verse: "To Him be the glory and honor. Because in his hands are the depths of the earth, and the heights of the mountains are His" (Psalm 95:4).


There is no question that the Chilean rescue involved expert planning, top-notch engineering, quality equipment, and the ingenious problem-solving of experts from a number of countries around the world. In addition, the miners give appropriate credit to their leaders, who kept them strong emotionally and physically. Villarroel said, "We had a boss ... every day he would tell us we had to be strong ... we didn't have hope. Strength comes from internal energy and prayer ... I never used to pray, [but] here I learned to pray. I got closer to God." In fact, Time Magazine reported that the miners often sang hymns and described the atmosphere underground as being like a church service. Jimmy Sanchez, one of the outspoken believers, said, "There are actually 34 of us, because God has never left us down here." Ultimately, Villarroel and the other rescued Chilean miners recognized -- as we must all learn to do -- that their fate rested not in human hands or expert plans alone, but in the providence of God. Villarroel surely spoke for the other miners -- many fell to their knees in prayer as they came out of the rescue capsule -- when he thanked God for a second chance at life. Omar Reygadas clutched his Bible as he exited the rescue capsule, and he knelt in prayer when his feet touched ground. His first words were "God Lives." From the first to the last rescued Chilean miner, these 33 men have learned much they can teach us about faith and what is real.


What is real to everyone but the media, that is.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 09:10 am   |  Permalink   |  1 Comment  |  Email
Wednesday, October 20 2010

The air is full of anticipation over the upcoming election. The question is not whether Republicans will gain any seats, but how many. Nice question to get to answer.


However, this election also poses a major challenge. Big Government and their Big Media minions are trying everything in their power to dilute the meaning and the fervor of the TEA Party movement. They are either unaware or willfully ignorant that this is not about political parties and their power. Americans in general, and TEA Party Americans in particular, want their political parties to actually remain true to their stated values and principles. This American political groundswell is a CONSERVATIVE movement, not a political party movement. It is a movement that expects to see action taken to begin returning to limited government and controlled spending and common sense policies.


The challenge CONSERVATIVES face is to not let go of the momentum! We are in a full court press, and we have the resources to go the distance. Whether elated or deflated, it's not time to pack it in after this election. The war has begun; battles are only partial victories or temporary setbacks. We expect our values and principles to be heard by our elected officials, and we must not back down.


This is especially true in the face of establishment Republicans who already indicate that they intend to sacrifice principles for popularity:


If they recapture the House, Republicans say they are wary of following the example of the class of 1994, which shut down the government in a standoff with President Bill Clinton. Top Republicans contend that passing legislation, or at least making a good faith effort to do so, will earn them more credibility with voters than refusing to waver from purist principles.


Who are they communing with? Haven't Republicans noticed lately that many TEA Party participants and other conservatives are expressing a great deal of animosity toward all incumbents who are allowing this administration and Congress to ruin our American Constitutional Republic?


Yet here is Rep. Darrell Issa (R., Calif.) saying, "It's pretty clear the American people expect us to use the existing gridlock to create compromise and advance their agenda. They want us to come together [with the administration] after we agree to disagree."


Newsflash, Rep. Issa (R, Calif)! No, we do not want you to "come together" with this administration. We want you to help us return America to its fundamental greatness through liberty and justice. We want you to get out of the way so that the will of Americans to excel and succeed is unfettered.


So, Rep. Issa (R, Calif), you can lead, or you can follow, or you can get out of the way. ?Cause we're going to return this nation to its foundational principles, and we've got a full court press in motion.

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 07:26 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, October 19 2010

Chechnya's parliament was overrun by Islamic militants today, leaving at least four dead and several wounded before they blew themselves up. Reports tell us that they shouted "Allah Akbar" (God is greatest) throughout their rampage. Russia is stunned by the magnitude of this attack.


Political correctness aside (see ya later, View ladies!), when is the world going to figure out that Islam is not its friend? When is Russia, who has been helping Iran create its nuclear power (& weapon?) capabilities, going to figure out that Islam is not its friend?


I am waiting for the old adage, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend," to kick in. Russia could do far worse than choosing its enemy America as its friend against our Islamic enemies. Hey, it worked in World War II after Hitler pulled the dagger trick on Russia.


If the world would get serious about it, radical, militant, terrorist, jihadist Muslims (how's that grab ya, View ladies?) could be fairly well contained. Instead of treating enemies of Islam like enemies (i.e., Israel), take a close look through an objective lens and recognize the true pathological ideology that Islam claims.


Several major religions, including human secularism, contain elements of "end of the world" theology. Orthodox Judaism proclaims that the world must be properly prepared to receive the Holy Messiah, so they set about to do good works. Christians believe that as more people turn their backs on God, an anti-Christ will rise up and enslave everyone, bringing everything to a point where Christ returns to overturn satan, gather His saints, and establish His Kingdom. Throughout this, Christians are taught to retain their Christ-like characteristics. Human secularism expresses certainty that the world will be destroyed by man unless everyone submits to a liberal, weed-toking central authority.


Islam teaches that the twelfth Imam - their Messiah equivalent - will appear out of chaos, and that obedient Muslims are called to create that chaos. Thus, there is no inherent Islamic morality prohibiting murder-suicide. In fact, it is celebrated. And what could be more murderous and suicidal than nuclear weapons in the hands of those seeking to destroy their many "satan" enemies?


Wake up, Russia and world! The enemy is Islam, and the enemy of your enemy is really your friend.

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 02:51 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, October 19 2010

President Obama once knew so little about life in the womb that he considered such knowledge "above his pay grade."


Nice to see he evidently feels qualified to speak to such "high pay grade" issues now:


the President recently offered an opinion about the pre-born, specifically about their sexuality.  Just yesterday, our increasingly capable President opined that people are born gay:


I don't think it's a choice. I think that people are born with a certain makeup, and that we're all children of God. We don't make determinations about who we love.


So let's make sure we get this:


Science has plainly proven for decades the fact that what is conceived in the womb is a human.  The humanity issue is settled scientifically.


Science has not found a shred of evidence to begin to suggest that a person's sexual choices are predetermined in the womb.  The sexual preference issue is not scientific.


Yet President Obama has decided he can build his policies regarding homosexuality around the non-existent science of the issue.  He cannot, however, build his policies regarding humanity around the existent science.


This from a man who pompously declares he will return science to its rightful place.  Idiocy.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 01:05 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, October 19 2010

This is just peachy, isn't it? 


Drug smuggling gangs in Mexico have sent well-armed assassins, or "sicarios," into Arizona to locate and kill bandits who are ambushing and stealing loads of cocaine, marijuana and heroin headed to buyers in the United States, the Department of Homeland Security has warned Arizona law enforcement authorities.


So how do the very people with the sworn duty to protect American citizens from all invasions do?  They take a big ol' pass on that one, opting instead for some signs:


The federal government has posted signs along Interstate 8 in the Vekol Valley warning travelers the area is unsafe because of drug and alien smugglers, and the local sheriff says Mexican drug cartels now control some parts of the state.


"DHS regularly shares information with state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies in an effort to provide situational awareness about intelligence and to keep our partners aware of any and all potential threats," the agency said in a statement released late Friday. "This particular information proved to be inaccurate."


Call it Homeland Security, Obama-style.  I know personally I feel beyond relieved that the very same folks who threaten and fight lawsuits against states trying to protect themselves against this type of aggression are promising to "share information" with them to help alleviate this problem.


Feel safe?

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 11:30 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, October 19 2010

Here's a fair question: which kind of politician should we fear more:


A.) A man who believes that kids are being brainwashed to believe that homosexuality is a valid, normal choice


B.) A man who has such little regard for decency and appropriateness he proudly touts the fact that he takes his young daughters to gay pride parades


That is the choice the voters of New York are getting to make.  And there's no question which side the mainstream media is on.


Whether it's NBC:


[Lauer to Paladino]: We've gone through a period of time in recent weeks here where there's been violence against homosexuals. Three men were attacked- I believe it was in Brooklyn- in the Bronx, excuse me. There was an attack against a man at the famous Stonewall Inn. There was also this suicide of a gay student at Rutgers. You say that you don't want to bring harm to homosexuals, but are you afraid that your words might incite someone who, perhaps, isn't as open-minded as you seem to be?




[Harry Smith to Paladino]:...this statement comes from, at a time when New Yorkers just learn about this horrendous attack by this gang on these young gay men in the Bronx, where they were tortured and sodomized....You don't feel like you've added any fuel to the fire of gay hatred by saying what you said?




[David Muir reporting]: Carl Paladino saying, among other things, that children should not be brainwashed, also criticizing his opponent for marching in the gay pride parade earlier this year. And these remarks do come right after that brutal hate crime right here in New York City, a crime that police believe could be among the worst in this city's history. The anti-gay remarks making front page headlines this morning were delivered by New York Republican gubernatorial candidate Carl Paladino during his visit to a Brooklyn synagogue.


The meme has been passed, the template in place, and the forces are now advancing.  And it's our culture that suffers.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 10:25 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, October 19 2010

I was listening to "Inside Edition" yesterday - always a good source of comic relief from and about the antics of those living in the land of left-believe. The program started off with a report about the Goldberg-Baher walk-off on their own show as they butted heads with invited guest Bill O'Reilly.


The ladies were "offended" that their guest did not use adjectives like "radical" or "terrorist" or "jihadist" to modify the Muslims who attacked America and killed Americans on 9/11. After calling their guest a "bigot" and cussing at him, these two stalwarts of modern feminism stormed off their own set. OK, lesson learned. Liberals deplore bigotry.


The next report was about the sudden national epidemic of and concern about bullying. Of course there had to be referrals to the recent suicides allegedly brought on by "bullying" of homosexuals. The report included rapper Eminem's disclosure that he was bullied in school. Is that all it takes to make it onto these shows? I'm a shoe-in! As a "new kid" sixth grader, I was tormented by a bigger kid who enjoyed using the "nickname" he laid on me.


When I didn't respond the way he thought I should, he asked me what I thought it meant. I said, "Something like a woodpecker - like Woody Woodpecker, I guess." He just laughed and walked off. Ignorance is bliss. I was even pushed around - literally - by one of the "mean girls." See how ready I am for the talk show misery circuits? Anyway, lesson learned. Libs deplore mean-spirited name-calling, pushing, shoving, and all forms of bullying.


Then with a straight face, "Inside Edition" went on to report about the Maureen Dowd caricature of certain Republican women as "mean girls." The IE report was pretty dry and noncommittal: no further references to bigotry and bullying and other social excesses. No shock or dismay over the bigotry and name-calling bullying being blatantly displayed. They report; we decide, I guess.


Lesson learned. Expect liberals to petition for more policies, regulations, and even laws to punish harshly those who speak impolitely to their favored folks, but don't expect them to apply their own standards when engaging those they don't particularly like.



Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 09:47 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, October 19 2010

There was a time when Mr. Obama was all about the open, unpredictable town hall meeting:


During the 2008 campaign, he made fun of Hillary Clinton for planting questions in her "town hall." In a 2007 town hall in Lebanon, N.H., Obama deadpanned, "By the way, these questions have not been pre-screened or pre-selected. Don't know what's coming up."


But of course that was the time when Barack Obama had no record.  That was a time when the questions he faced went something like this: "So why do you think we need to have hope?"  Or, "is change a good thing for the country?"  Or, "how do you feel when people say you have a funny name?"


When the whole country is seemingly caught up in your cult of personality - and when the media is dutifully perpetuating it - there is no reason to fear the honest question of citizens.  But a funny thing happened on the way to his most recent townhalls...Barack Obama got himself a record.


No more voting present.  No more running on meaningless, inspirational rhetoric.  And what results?  The "smartest president we've ever had" is left speechless and defenseless:


On September 23, in a town hall format that was not as controlled, Obama called on a middle-age black woman, Velma Hart, who thanked him for being there, affirmed that she had voted for him?and then said she was "exhausted" defending him; that she voted for a man "who said he was going to change things in a meaningful way for the middle class ... and I'm waiting, sir, I'm waiting." After describing the fear of a new "hot dogs and beans" era of her life, she asked the President, "Is this my new reality"?

Then there was the Mary Stier moment.

The very next week, Obama stood in a friendly back yard in Iowa when he got another zinger from another 2008 supporter. Mary Stier told the President of her 24-year-old college graduate son who could not find work. She said her son had "campaigned fiercely for you and was very inspired by your message of hope" but that he and his friends are "struggling" and "losing hope." No more backyards for Obama in this election.


These embarrassing exposures of the "man-child" in the White House prompted the administration to take steps to ensure it wouldn't happen again.  And that meant calling in actors to pose as "young people" for an MTV town hall:


On behalf of the President, casting website put out a casting call for "males and females 18+" to fill out a questionnaire to include "your name, phone number, hometown, school attending, your job and what issues, if any, you are interested in, or passionate about. Also provide a recent photo and short description of your political views." This job will be strictly for exposure; there will be no pay. Wonder if SAG condones this union-friendly President getting actors to work for free.




After all, a casting call is a call for actors placed by people who make up stories to entertain the public.


We've gone from "Don't know what's coming up" to hiring kid actors to ask posed questions.  That's what happened when our president actually took a job with responsibilities.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 09:05 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, October 19 2010

At one point, bail outs referred to government handouts to businesses "too big to fail."


Now, though, bail out is becoming the buzz word referring the president's crack economic team:


Alan Krueger, a top economics official at the Department of Treasury, will leave his post next month to return to academia, becoming the latest in a string of departures from the Obama administration's economic team.


As one member of the Liberty Tree team astutely observed, it makes no sense for so many of Obama's economic team to be bailing out when there is so much economic work left to be done, unless they know and sense something that their boss doesn't.


Central planning doesn't work! These academic economics superstars have hit the economy with everything in their socialist arsenal - short of completely dismantling the Constitution - and it hasn't worked! If it were working, they would stay there, pouring their hearts and their lives into the grand work of saving the American economy!


Alas, it hasn't turned out quite that way, so off they traipse back into their academic halls of learning so that they can further lambaste big, bad, evil capitalism with their failed theories and haughty airs.


They may not be "too big to fail," but by bailing now, they are declaring themselves "too smart to fail."

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 07:03 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Monday, October 18 2010

It's probably a fair to say that in ordinary times, many who believe in restricting the size and scope (and budgets) of government wouldn't be nearly so convicted and convinced when they realized how much they were benefitting from government programs.


But these are not ordinary times.  Many recognize the sincere danger we are now facing, and that painful sacrifice will be essential to survive it.


Yet besides those difficult choices that will be needed, there are plenty of places where we could begin trimming our government budget immediately.  Take for instance the 76 community groups and government agencies that thanks to Obama's Environmental Protection Agency will be sharing almost $2 million of your money in the name of "environmental justice."


Read this, and weep (for your children who ultimately are paying for it):


- The Connecticut Coalition for Environmental Justice will use some of the grant money to train eight housing authority residents, who will then teach 900 people living in multi-family housing in Hartford how to recycle.


- The West Harlem Environmental Action group will use its environmental justice grant to "identify and address the problems posed by climate change in Northern Manhattan" and to "develop a community-based climate change readiness plan."


- The Women's Health & Environmental Network in Philadelphia plans to educate senior citizens on climate change and how to lessen their carbon footprint. "Many seniors do not understand climate change and how they affect it or how to protect the environment," the project summary says.


- The Little Village Environmental Justice Organization in Chicago will conduct a grassroots campaign to address coal power plant emissions. According to the group's Web site, "We seek clean power for Chicago, and want the two largest polluters (Crawford and Fisk Power Plants) in our backyard removed."


- A grant recipient in Appalachia -- the heart of coal country -- will teach households in Franklin County, Ky., how to reduce household greenhouse gas emissions. The project called "Lighten Up, Frankfort!" will use the book "The Low Carbon Diet" to guide households through a series of actions to reduce their household energy use. The actions include "empowering" people to "lose unwanted pounds."


- A group called DEPAVE in Portland, Oregon, will address the "social and environmental impacts of heavily paved public spaces." It aims to "re-green" two North Portland schools, by replacing paved areas with "playfields and native plantings."  According to the project description, "the proposed de-paving projects will not only restore native soils, allow for on-site rainwater infiltration and beautify urban spaces, but will also serve as a method for community building and provide educational outreach opportunities."


If you're looking for places to begin trimming the fat, Mr. President, I humbly suggest starting there.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 01:30 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Monday, October 18 2010

It is quite probably that finding a more vacuous, profligate way of spending your time than watching an episode of The View is a futile endeavor.  The mindless blather produced from that show is simply unparalleled.  But something instructive did happen the other day when Bill O'Reilly showed up:


"Why is it inappropriate when 70 families died?" an outraged and incoherent Whoopi Goldberg questioned Bill O'Reilly on "The View" about the Ground Zero mosque, referring to 70 Muslims who died during the 9/11 attacks. "Because Muslims killed us on 9/11, that's why!" the cable-news kingpin matter-of-factly responded. "No!" Goldberg interjected. "Oh, My God! That is such bulls---!" Goldberg and her co-host Joy Behar stormed off set in huffy protest.


Okay, are we missing something here?  Were the terrorists of 9/11 not Muslims?  Were the actions of those professing Muslims not what caused the concern and outrage of building a mosque near the scene of the attack?  Was Bill wrong? 


Of course not.  This is what I meant earlier by "vacuous."  But given the left's rather annoying habit of rewriting history, perhaps we shouldn't be surprised at Joy and Whoopi's temper tantrum.  As Daniel Flynn chronicles:


The Party of the Ku Klux Klan couldn't have been the Party of Wilson, Roosevelt, and Kennedy. They were too noble to associate with such haters. 

Upton Sinclair, Jane Addams, The Masses, and the Progressive Party didn't push for Prohibition. They leaned too forward to support something so backward.

Oliver Wendell Holmes was a Proper Bostonian and a Harvard Man to boot. So, attributing to him the Supreme Court's imprimatur on eugenics and the accompanying cruel observation, "Three generations of imbeciles are enough," must surely be a misunderstanding. 

That the internment of Japanese Americans happened during the Roosevelt presidency is no proof of FDR's complicity. Mr. Conservative Robert Taft and J. Edgar Hoover, head of KGBUSA, surely had something to do with the American concentration camps that Franklin Roosevelt had nothing to do with.
Don't blame the liberals in power for the Palmer Raids, the House Committee on Un-American Activities, and the Smith Act. Call it "McCarthyism."

A Democrat president didn't drop the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Better to peg all subsequent conservative presidential candidates as the trigger-happy Dr. Strangeloves lest they nuke again.

The authorities framed a Communist for the murder of the president in Dallas. The John Birch Society, the mafia, and the CIA assassinated him.

Robert Kennedy can't be held responsible for bugging Martin Luther King's hotel rooms and wiretapping his phones. Kennedy's underling, J. Edgar Hoover, forced him to do it.

Peace-loving liberals would never have gotten America involved in the Vietnam War. The Republican falsely credited with ending the draft and bringing American troops home makes a more likely Vietnam villain.

A Democratic president didn't craft the "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays in the military. It must have been the work of homophobic right wingers. 


The left would rather not deal with history.  So instead they just rewrite it or ignore it, and then get mad and storm off the set when others don't.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 12:05 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Monday, October 18 2010

It wasn't that long ago that White House spin doctor Robert Gibbs stated the obvious: that Democrats may well lose Congress in November.  After that acknowledgment, Nancy Pelosi unleashed the fury on him.


It became pretty apparent in the days that followed the dust-up what was taking shape.  If Gibbs (and virtually every other political mind in America) proved right, and Republicans did take control, Pelosi would spin it not as a rejection of her, Reid and President Obama, but rather as a result of Bob Gibbs opening his mouth and discouraging the troops.


As ridiculous as such a strategy might have been, it appears that Gibbs is taking steps to avoid being the scapegoat.  AllahPundit covers the latest:


The funniest line: "There's an excitement about what this president is trying to do" on the campaign trail. That must explain why pieces like this are now regular features on op-ed pages and why the AP is running polls about O-bots either staying home in droves or defecting to the GOP. This is why they pay you the big bucks, Gibbsy.


There's an excitement alright, Bob.  It's electric, and has galvanized the placated masses more than anything in recent history.  It's the palpable energy to dismantle the establishment and return power to its rightful place - outside of Washington.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 11:30 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Monday, October 18 2010

Don't miss the critical trial that is going on in the Netherlands.  Dutch politician Geert Wilders is accused of insulting Islam.  On the first day of the trial, he pronounced (quite accurately) that far more than just him, the free speech of all was being tried.  


The editors at National Review haven't failed to pick up on the significance:


Free speech is indispensable in a free society, and many a great man has fought for that principle, some of them going to prison for it. It is a longstanding if hard-won principle in the West that Wilders has a fundamental right to make whatever comment he likes about Islam, its prophet, or its scriptures, and so do all of us. To the extent that Dutch law contradicts that principle, it contradicts what is best in Europe's heritage.


Furthermore, Wilders is an elected parliamentarian, leader of the third-largest party in his country. Public figures not only have a right to speak out, but a duty.


There is no question that Wilders has inflamed many with his provocative pronouncement that Islamism is the new Nazism.  But think about it: if the Islam is successful in silencing his opinion to say as much, does it not in some ways prove the validity of the accusation against it?


Stay tuned.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 10:05 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Monday, October 18 2010

My wife and I saw the movie "Secretariat" this weekend. I recommend it as a very well done production in the classic Disney family entertainment genre.


I'm not quite certain how to compare human and animal athletes, but ESPN includes Secretariat in its top 100 athletes of the century list. At 35th place, the great racehorse is ranked ahead of other sports greats like Mickey Mantle, Pete Sampras, and Willie Shoemaker. Agree or disagree with this comparison, I cannot imagine anyone not marveling at the accomplishment of Secretariat in the world of horseracing.


Yet, thanks to the United States federal government, this great feat was almost destroyed before it began. Upon the death of their father, Penny Chenery Tweety and her brother faced an inheritance tax bill around 6 MILLION DOLLARS. Even though the assets were there, they were not very liquid assets. They were property assets: land, buildings, equipment, and, of course, horses. In order to pay the tax man, these assets would have to be sold.


In stark terms, this family business was going to be destroyed because of federal government greed, which liberals like to champion and cheer.


Would there have been a Secretariat if he had been sold to a new owner, trainer, jockey, and handler? If not for the stubborn refusal of Penny to destroy her father's business, her tough entrepreneurial spirit, and her guts to take on massive financial risk, the wonder of Secretariat would never have materialized.


Which leaves us to wonder: how many other magnificent athletes, discoveries, and wonders have never been allowed to succeed because of this draconian death tax?

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 08:09 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, October 15 2010

In a column warning Christian parents about the status of the government school system, Dr. Karen Gushta addresses one of the greatest myths about education: that it is "neutral."


It's a totally irrational myth that is perpetuated in our culture and believed by otherwise very rational people.  Gushta writes,


I can only conclude that most parents don't know what's really going on inside their own schools. I also believe there is a prevailing mindset that even many Christian parents accept. This mindset is based on two lies: first, that all education should be neutral, and second, that the curricula of government-controlled schools are, in fact, "neutral."


Government schools are anything but neutral, especially when it comes to Christianity. They deny students knowledge of the most fundamental fact in the entire universe: that God created everything that exists - including man.


"Neutrality" of viewpoint in education is an utter myth. My great-uncle, the late Christian philosopher Cornelius Van Til, pointed out that ". every philosophy of education . is theistic or anti-theistic." Nevertheless, most parents don't think of today's government-controlled schooling as "anti-theistic." Even most Christian parents fail to acknowledge the indoctrination that is taking place.


Gushta is right.  Government schools, even those staffed with wonderful Christian teachers, have been co-opted and have become engines for the propagation of a humanistic worldview from Kindergarten to graduation.


From curriculum expectations to textbook content, humanists are firmly in control of the government system.  It's been their strategy from the start.


Yet, as Dr. Gushta discusses, many parents fall into the trap of the "my kid's school is fine" syndrome.  This syndrome stems from the inability to distinguish between good people working in the system and bad ideas that have become the nature of the system.


Homeschooling and private schools remain excellent options, but they aren't always possible.  For that reason, this column illustrates the necessity of parents staying vigilant and involved in their corporations.  Run for school board, sit on textbook adoption committees, discuss the assignments and work your children bring home, be visible in the schools and involved in its operation.


The humanists infiltrated the system and overtook it.  Getting it back won't be easy or quick, but it must be accomplished.  The future of our civilization depends on it.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 12:05 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, October 15 2010

The Illinois Family Institute has put out a spectacular analysis of the despicable exploitation going on right now at the behest of the homosexual lobby.


Following a string of suicides by young people engaged in homosexual behavior, the left and their media minions have seen it as an opportunity not to mourn and evaluate the real causes of the tragedies, but rather to use them as fuel in their cultural crusade to force sexual anarchy on the culture.  It's sick.


The storyline template is well established, well rehearsed, and quite familiar by now: any death that involves someone engaged in homosexuality is the result of the fear, hatred, and lack of acceptance of homosexuality perpetuated by Christians and those who embrace traditional morality.


No other potential reason is explored because no other explanation will be accepted.  Why?  Because this isn't about truth.  It's about an agenda.


If it was about truth, someone might be paying attention to what was written at The Daily Beast about the suicide of one of these confused young persons, Raymond Chase:


Chase did not seem to struggle with his gay identity -- he was out to his friends and family, and to a much larger and accepting social circle. [Ivonne] White (Chase's best friend) described him as the life of the party, loved by many and hated by none; "Straight guys fist-bumped him. Everyone just wanted to be around him," she said.

"This is something I want to say to everyone about Ray: He was never, ever bullied, and nobody was ever mean to him," said White, who thinks Chase could have been a comedian he was so funny. Some of the world's most beloved comedians, of course, are famous for concealing pain and depression with the Teflon of good humor.

White speculates that her friend might have been upset over a crush he had on a straight boy, a good friend, to whom Chase confessed his affection this summer. Though any romantic feelings were unrequited, the crush treated Chase with utter dignity and respect, before and after the admission. Still, Chase seemed haunted by his feelings, staying up until 4 a.m. the night before his suicide to talk to his roommate about that crush.

If it was about truth, the media might be paying attention to these distinct possibilities:


    1. Perhaps it wasn't the moral views about homosexuality of the students who filmed Tyler that were the problem, but rather that they have grown up in an invasive, obscene culture that has turned sexuality into a public spectator sport and kids into exhibitionists. Just look at the television shows and films that our children watch and the photos that teens post on their Facebook pages to understand better how they view sexuality and modesty.
    2. Perhaps Tyler felt justifiable shame for both engaging in a shameful act and then having this act made public -- and was offered no help in dealing with his impulses, his actions, or his shame. Christian apologist, Ravi Zacharias argues persuasively that a society that no longer feels shame is doomed. The question is not whether shame is good and necessary for quite obviously it is both. The question is, for which actions should we feel shame.
    3. Perhaps if Tyler had not been taught the bleakly deterministic view that he was "born" homosexual, he would have had more hope for the future and would have been more likely to resist homosexual temptation.
    4. Perhaps if the culture had not filled Tyler's head with titillating homosexual images and fallacious ideas, his conscience would have been stronger than his impulses.
    5. Perhaps if university life were not so decadent and hedonistic, students would not be engaging in sexual acts -- heterosexual or homosexual -- with the ease and frequency with which they do.

But none of this will be discussed, because the ones who claim to "care" about "homosexuals" are willing to condemn them to lives of pain, distress and anxiety so long as they can be used as vehicles to advance a left-wing humanist agenda.


That shouldn't just make us frustrated.  It should make us angry - righteous anger at those who exploit confused children and teenagers for their own evil ends.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 10:30 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, October 15 2010

For a little while now (perhaps since the grand inauguration), Big Media has been bemoaning the polarization of America. Prior to a couple of years ago, dissent was patriotic. Now, though, it is deemed seditious. (Also a provocative youtube from Penn Jillette, "Is Dissent Still Patriotic?" Caution: contains a few expletives.)


If Big Media is REALLY interested about the levels of polarization increasing in America, they should investigate their own reporting.


Last Sunday's Parade magazine contained an article about Iraqi refugees in Lincoln, Nebraska. I found the article to be upbeat and positive, but one sentence really jumped out. "And at a time when tensions are running high in the nation over building an Islamic community center near the 9/11 Memorial in New York City, this welcoming attitude is appealing to Muslims."


A time when tensions are running high in the nation!? Americans, including Islamic Americans, expressing disagreement over building a mosque at the Ground Zero site is "high tensions?" Sure, there has been some vocalized dissent, but it does not strike 99.9% (my unsubstantiated number) of Americans that "tensions are running high."


Can you imagine, after all, a group of Japanese telling Americans in 1951 that they were going to build a Bushido temple a couple of blocks down from Pearl Harbor? You might have seen "high tensions" then.  For now, the issue has dropped pretty much out of sight. It may pop up again among Big Media because there are unresolved issues, but I cannot see how Nina Burleigh is justified at all in her assessment that "tensions are running high in the nation."


Since Big Media is concerned about polarization in America, maybe they should stick to reporting instead of exaggerating.

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 10:00 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, October 15 2010

Constitutional scholar David Barton is putting out a message to ministers across America: you have a constitutional right and a Biblical responsibility to speak out and stand for truth.


Particularly in recent years, folks on the left have attempted to scare the church into silence.  Groups like the Freedom From Religion Foundation and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State have threatened to file complaints with the IRS about unfair "politicizing" in churches in an attempt to get the church's tax exempt status revoked.


A few things to say about that: First, obviously what bothers these groups is not that the church is speaking to the issues of the day (that's kind of what the church has always done).  It's because the message of Scripture opposes the humanist religious agenda being pursued by FFRF and AU.  It's the content, not the concept that annoys them.


Second, any church that would choose tax exemption over their Biblical responsibility of speaking truth to cultural issues is in desperate need of a change in leadership.


But the third point is what Barton is focusing on.  Despite these threats and complaints being filed, the IRS has not pursued any of the cases.  Why?  Barton explains:


"The IRS doesn't have any interest in doing this because if they do, I believe they know they are going to lose. And if they lose, you have 370,000 pastors in America who suddenly find out that there's no restriction on them," Barton suggests.

The WallBuilders president explains that churches are guaranteed tax exemption status under the Constitution, but he believes many pastors are afraid to speak about politics because they fear they will lose their letter of tax exemption.

"You cannot lose your tax exemption as a church because as a church, you have a constitutional standing for tax exemption," he points out. "So with that basis, losing your letter means absolutely nothing -- and that's something pastors are now figuring out."

The church has always been the moral conscience of America.  That is what annoys the left and they are using every tactic they can contrive to remove the church from the culture.  If they can accomplish this, they become the arbiters of American morality.  God help us if the church retreats.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 09:15 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, October 15 2010

It's a nice gesture, really.  It's not a shameless attempt to exchange food for votes.  It's not taking advantage of people's destitute and impoverished conditions for your political benefit.  No, this is just plain, simple neighborliness.


Democrats in South Dakota are holding three early-vote rallies on reservations this week that will feature "feeds" to attract potential voters.


That activity continues a long tradition of pairing food with voter rallies in areas of the state where Democrats garner as much as 95 percent of the vote.


Strong Native American turnout has been the difference in statewide races in past years, and it could be critical in upcoming races. The emergence of early voting has only intensified efforts to get out the vote in Indian Country. The practice of offering food at voting rallies can come close to violating the law.


Isn't this amazing?  Democrats are the ones who pursue policies that create a state of dependency for Native Americans.  This holds the Native Americans down in deplorable conditions that then every election cycle, those same Democrats come around and exploit to get their votes again.


Erin McCarrick, executive director of the South Dakota Democratic Party, said the events don't cross the line.


"It's not like you have to vote to get food," she said.


Right, everything is strictly on the up and up.  Did anyone ask Erin why it is that this loving act of altruism only seems to happen around election time?  Pathetic.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 08:00 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, October 14 2010

Since we are in the midst of our annual promotion of and support for missions at my church, I thought this a good time to give an update on the activities of that dangerous, subversive group of folks known as Christians. They are, after all, one of the most dangerous groups in and to America as far as the minds of many liberals go. Whatever.


Remember that cataclysmic earthquake in Haiti earlier this year? Remember the response among hundreds of groups and thousands of people? There were widespread concern and widespread acts of compassion. That was then, this is now. Who do you suppose is still there in the trenches with the devastated Haitian population doing what they can to rebuild lives? Let's find out.


Medical missionary Kristy Engel, based in the Dominican Republic, brings teams into Haiti about every other week to set up medical clinics in locations without regular care. After the hundreds of organizations stopped responding after a month or so, Kristy reports that hers is one of the few remaining teams that brings medical care into Haiti on a regular basis.


Christian volunteers from America give up vacation, work, and recreation time to assist Kristy's mission. Even more continue to donate to the ministries of this and other missions worldwide. They make these sacrifices because of their dedication and love for our Savior, Jesus Christ. (Watch report from American Baptist Churches International Ministries. Select WMO Feature Video.)


These are the activities of those dangerous Christians of whom the left express so much fear.

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 02:11 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, October 14 2010

How many times have we heard about the "greed" of Wall Street or CEOs and business owners.  Shoot, anyone who has succeeded and has attained wealth - regardless of what he or she chooses to do with that wealth - is an immediate target of the left's crusade of class envy and pegged a greedy miser.


But isn't it interesting that we never hear the "greed" argument leveled against those who produce nothing and yet take freely from those who do.  I'm talking, of course, about government.

When government confiscates people's property to give to others who will produce a higher tax revenue for the government, no one accuses them of greed.




And columnist Thomas Sowell points out another often ignored example of government greed:


There are escheat laws, under which the government can seize the assets of someone who has died and whose heirs have not claimed those assets after some period of time. The theory is that there is no reason why banks should get that money. On the other hand, there is no reason why politicians should get it either, but the politicians write the laws.


Like other laws, escheat laws have some plausible rationale. And, like other laws, what is actually done can end up going far beyond those rationales. The period during which a bank account can be dormant before the government moves in has been shortened to a very few years.


Those few years had elapsed before I had an opportunity to take an extended trip overseas, so the government would have seized the money ? and my personal papers in a safety deposit box ? if the bank had not warned me and I had not gotten there first.


The government doesn't have to prove that you are dead. The fact that your bank account had nothing added to it or taken from it for a few years is enough. Apparently politicians cannot imagine how someone would have money and not spend it, unless they were dead.


Government is given the power of confiscation.  They use it in this way.  Is that not a more egregious example of greed than anything a CEO has done or could do?

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 01:00 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, October 14 2010

President Obama's over-inflated sense of self-importance has gotten so bad, examples can't even fit into a single column.  But Jonah Goldberg's recent article highlights a few of the more annoying examples:


When Arkansas Democratic congressman Marion Berry complained that health-care reform felt like a replay of the Hillarycare debacle, Obama explained that the big difference between then and now was "me." In other words, the White House's plan for making everything work out was an unyielding confidence in the power of Obama's own cult of personality.


Now that the strategy has proved catastrophic, the self-pity is pouring out. Joe Biden, in a rare interregnum of lucidity, assailed his own base as whiners. Rahm Emanuel, as he was fleeing for the healthier and more civic-minded political environment of Chicago's backrooms, said, "I want to thank you for being the toughest leader any country could ask for in the toughest times any president has ever faced."


Yeah, that Civil War thing was a walk in the park for Lincoln.  Goldberg continued:


Last week, the president of the United States attacked Karl Rove by name ? twice! ? in a speech. He recently begged a crowd of black supporters not to "make me look bad" by staying home from the polls. In an interview with Rolling Stone, he scolded young voters that if they don't vote, it will be proof they "weren't serious in the first place."


It never dawns on him that were it not for the unseriousness of those voters, he might still be a one-term junior senator from Illinois.


Confidence is one thing.  Cockiness another.  And there have been few presidents who have had more of the latter with less reason than Barack Obama.

Posted by: Anna Anderson AT 11:53 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, October 14 2010

It was Margaret Thatcher who is credited with having correctly stated that, "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."


In France, they've run out.


Or at least they are running out quickly.  This reality is what caused French President Nicolas Sarkozy to build his administration around the difficult task of reforming the pension promises of the government.

And such a task has revealed the great difficulty coming to America if we don't start curbing our entitlement programs and government welfare initiatives now.  For once people come to expect handouts from their government, they will become restless when those false promises fail to materialize as advertised (a metaphysical certitude, by the way):

More than 3 million demonstrators - one in 20 of all French people - marched yesterday against the President's plans to raise the standard retirement age from 60 to 62. Tens of thousands of students joined the marches for the first time, threatening to radicalise the protests and broaden them into a rebellion against a deeply unpopular presidency.

Militant union branches in the railway and oil-refining industries were pushing last night for a showdown with Mr Sarkozy, who has made reform of the loss-making state pension system the make-or-break issue of his final 20 months in office.


After a series of largely theatrical 24-hour strikes in the past six weeks, militant workers were expected to vote last night and this morning for the kind of open-ended stoppages in strategic industries which have overturned previous attempts to reform the French social system.


Once again, this is why government should protect people's freedom to pursue happiness, not falsely guarantee happiness to the masses.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 10:40 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, October 14 2010

October is breast cancer awareness month. Sadly, a new report appearing in Life News finds that the Susan J. Komen Foundation gave contributions last year totaling $7.5 million to Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion provider.


Ironically, though largely ignored in the media, and greatly criticized when it is reported, more research continues to mount which seems to indicate that could be a link between abortion and breast cancer for many women. There have been more than 100 such studies pointing to a possible link.


For this reason, one has to wonder why the nation's most prominent breast cancer organization is giving millions to the abortion industry.

Posted by: Micah Clark AT 09:10 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, October 14 2010

This would make one heck of a campaign ad if the Republicans were so inclined.  Vasko Kohlmayer has taken Barack Obama's recent claim that "We are on the right path.we're on the right track," and compared it to what reality says about our current path.  It isn't pretty.


Here's a few of the lowlights:


According to Gallup, unemployment stood at 10.1 percent in September. Among Americans aged 18 to 29, the figure was nearly 14 percent.


Estimates of unfunded liabilities inherent in entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social Security range from $65 trillion to $200-plus trillion. Even if the lower-end appraisal is the correct one, the government is sunk in an insurmountable fiscal hole.


Nearly 42 million people are on food stamps today.


The Census Bureau reported that America's poverty rate was at a fifteen-year high of 14.3 percent in 2009.


In the last six weeks, the dollar has declined 7 percent against a basket of major world currencies.


In this calendar year alone, the U.S. has already racked up a trade deficit of more than $350 billion.


According to White House's own projections, the national debt will exceed 100 percent of GDP during next fiscal year.


Two years ago, our national debt was $10.2 trillion. During those 24 months alone, we added more than 30 percent to our national debt.


Underemployment -- which includes those who would like to work full-time but can find only part-time work -- is at a staggering 18.8 percent.


This is not the right path.  But it is the Obama path.  You have a choice in November.  Choose wisely.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 07:30 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, October 13 2010

FoxNews is reporting that news of an HIV positive porn star has temporarily shut down two of California's largest porn studios. The sad hunt is now on to identify and notify those who may have had sexual relations with this "star."


The text of the report states, "Porn actors are required by law to test negative for HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases within 30 days of going to work on a film."


In my opinion, this is criminally negligent. What good is a test to prevent the spread of STDs if the activity has already been going on for up to thirty days? Am I missing something here? I also recall learning that a person can be carrying the HIV virus for up to SIX MONTHS before it actually turns up positive in a test. (In the pursuit of accuracy and truth, I just researched this and found out that I am not spot on here. The estimated time for the HIV antibody to show positive is usually 3 weeks to 3 months. However, in rare cases it can take up to six months.)


The point is that testing negative for HIV within 30 days of "going to work on a film" may not reflect the accurate situation at all.


The lessons still unlearned are that sexual abstinence outside of marriage prevents STD infection 100% of the time (assuming that the married couple is STD free) and that the instructions of the Christian faith to treat other people with respect and love establishes the environment in which proper sexual conduct can be practiced.


Unfortunately, those who hate both the Christian faith and themselves will still leave these lessons unlearned.

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 08:50 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, October 13 2010

A few years ago, columnist Ellis Henican bemoaned the many assaults on Halloween, the "greatest kids' holiday of the year." Mr. Henican produced a list containing a surprising number of Halloween critics: "Fundamentalist Christians warn the celebration promotes devil worship. Prudes and feminists say the costumes have gotten too risqué. Civil-rights groups complain that too many Halloween ghosts resemble lynching victims. Even the witches feel aggrieved - and you probably thought Halloween was the witches' big night!"

I was quite amused that those frightening "fundamentalist Christians" are no longer the only antagonists of Halloween as the ubiquitous political correctness continues to run amuck. Trick or treat!


What really stood out, though, was Mr. Henican's failure to include what I think should be the primary criticism of Halloween celebrations today. With rising alarms over childhood obesity and diabetes, how can we possibly justify celebrating a holiday that has as its major component the doling out of mountains of candy to little trick or treaters? Certainly this is nothing short of child abuse perpetuated by Big Candy!


Since Mr. Henican missed this obvious worry (is he, perhaps, in league with Big Candy?), I offer my suggestions to rectify this critical concern:


(1) Give only tofu bar and rice cake treats.


(2) Give these treats only after the overweight little munchkins do wind sprints from door to door.


(3) Implore the ACLU to bring a suit against Big Candy and adult co-conspirators who insist on perpetuating this form of child abuse. There has to be a Constitutional violation in here someplace.


Spooky, isn't it?

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 05:58 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, October 13 2010

One of the more jaw-dropping developments [in the discrimination case of "Just Cookies"] comes from those most responsible for this controversy. The 2005 authors of the sexual orientation ordinance and several homosexual activists who pushed it through the [Indianapolis] City-County Council signed onto a joint editorial which promoted the homosexual concept of "tolerance" and "respect" (i.e. support for homosexuality). It also stated, "we believe it exceeds the intent of the ordinance to force a small business owner to support a political initiative he or she opposes.''


This statement lacks all credibility. It's like Rep. Barney Frank and Sen. Chris Dodd now expressing concern for the mortgage foreclosure crisis when they ignored all the warnings and wrote the very laws causing it.


I checked my notes. Here are some of the specific real life examples that the Alliance Defense Fund, AFA of Indiana, Advance America and the Indiana Family Institute offered back then as a warning to the Indianapolis City-County Council including Councilor Scott Keller and Jackie Nytes, lead authors of this joint editorial.


? "Sexual Orientation ordinances and policies have been used by 359 school districts covering 4,418 schools in 10 states to kick the Boy Scouts off campus according to GLSEN, the Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network."


? "A similar ordinance was used against the United Way in Ann Arbor, Michigan because they gave money to the Boy Scouts."


? "The Salvation Army in Portland, Maine had to give up a grant for Meals on Wheels for poor senior citizens because of an ordinance like this one being considered."


? In Madison, Wisconsin a single woman advertised rooms for rent. When she declined to rent to two lesbians out of sincerely held religious beliefs, she was fined and forced to attend sensitivity training and be monitored by the government for future violations.


? Georgetown University was forced by a court to give up their religious freedom as a Catholic institution and sponsor a homosexual club on campus because of a sexual orientation ordinance.


? Rolf Szabo an employee of Kodak for 23 years until he was fired one day for asking not to receive any more company e-mails regarding homosexuals coming out of the closet at work.


The proponents of this ordinance weren't concerned about this problem then. It is hard to believe that they are suddenly concerned now about religious liberty or freedom of conscience of business owners, employees or institutions.

Posted by: Micah Clark AT 03:34 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, October 13 2010

A man by the name of Liu Xiaobo has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to bring about peaceful political reform in the Communist one-party rule of China.


In a perfect depiction of how evil China is, those efforts earned him a one way ticket to jail - for 11 years (perhaps someone should mention this to liberal columnist Tom Friedman the next time he takes to envying the greatness of China). 


So how does the United Nations respond to this man's work for freedom and democracy earning him such a prize?  About as cool of a response as you could imagine:


U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon's guarded reaction to the awarding of this year's Nobel peace prize to an imprisoned Chinese dissident has raised eyebrows.


In a brief statement worded in a way that would not offend China, Ban avoided any direct criticism of Beijing's human rights record, praising it instead for economic, political and human rights progress.


The statement - released by a spokesman rather than by Ban himself - also did not call on China to release Liu Xiaobo, the imprisoned pro-democracy activist awarded the peace prize, or any other dissidents in Chinese jails.


The only concern implied in the four-sentence statement was that the decision to honor Liu could upset China and so "detract from advancement of the human rights agenda globally or the high prestige and inspirational power of the award."


You might think that this response was just due to the corruption, the anti-democratic philosophy, and the fraud that defines the UN.  But there's more to it than that:


Ban hopes to secure a second term as secretary-general when his current one ends late ext year, an ambition that will be thwarted should any permanent Security Council member - the U.S., China, Britain, France, Russia - veto his reappointment.


Ah yes...sleaze too.  And we remain part of, and continue to fund this corruption because...?

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 01:30 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, October 13 2010

Back on June 20 of this year I wrote these words in a column entitled "Spectacularly Unprepared for Office:"


We're learning the hard way: Barack Obama was spectacularly unprepared for this office.


The man who now occupies the White House is overmatched, overwhelmed and overcome by the responsibilities of an office he was not equipped to assume.  An office that is now - much to the chagrin of an embarrassed nation - utterly dwarfing him.


It took awhile, but it appears that at least some in the mainstream media (who have known for some time that such an assessment was accurate) are willingly acknowledging the truth of those statements publicly.


Take Time Magazine's Mark Halperin.  In a recent column, Halperin pointed out the obvious:


With the exception of core Obama Administration loyalists, most politically engaged elites have reached the same conclusions: the White House is in over its head, isolated, insular, arrogant and clueless about how to get along with or persuade members of Congress, the media, the business community or working-class voters. This view is held by Fox News pundits, executives and anchors at the major old-media outlets, reporters who cover the White House, Democratic and Republican congressional leaders and governors, many Democratic business people and lawyers who raised big money for Obama in 2008, and even some members of the Administration just beyond the inner circle. [...]


[T]here is a growing perception that Obama's decisions are causing harm ? that businesses are being hurt by the Administration's legislation and that economic recovery is stalling because of the uncertainty surrounding energy policy, health care, deficits, housing, immigration and spending.  And that sentiment is spreading.


Indeed it wildfire among those intellectually honest enough to acknowledge it.  Hats off to Halperin for being one who is.  The entire column is a good read as he goes on to explain how Obama's penchant for not taking blame is wearing thin on a lot of folks:


But Obama has exacerbated his political problems not just by failing to enact policies that would have actually turned the economy around, but also by authorizing a series of tactical moves intended to demonize Republicans and distract from the problems at hand. He has wasted time lambasting his foes when he should have been putting forth his agenda in a clear, optimistic fashion, defending the benefits of his key decisions during the past two years (health care and the Troubled Asset Relief Program, for example) and explaining what he would do with a re-elected Democratic majority to spur growth.


Throughout the year, we have been treated to Obama-led attacks on George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, Rush Limbaugh, Congressman Joe Barton (for his odd apology to BP), John Boehner (for seeking the speakership ? or was it something about an ant?) and Fox News (for everything). Suitable Democratic targets in some cases, perhaps, but not worth the time of a busy Commander in Chief.


Halerpin also takes on this whole Chamber of Commerce smear that Obama and the Democrats have unwisely engaged in:


In the past few days, we have witnessed the spectacle of the President himself and his top advisers wading into allegations that Republicans are attempting to buy the election using foreign money laundered through the Chamber of Commerce, combining with Karl Rove and his wealthy backers to fund a flood of negative television commercials. Not only is this issue convoluted and far-fetched, but it also distracts from the issues voters care about, frustrating political insiders and alienating struggling citizens (not that many are following such an offbeat story line).


You know things are bad when Time Magazine runs such an honest assessment.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 11:50 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, October 13 2010

A bombshell new book is providing the essential evidence to support the claim that Barack Obama's socialist roots run deep.  Stanley Kurtz writes,


A loose accusation of his being a socialist has trailed Obama for years, but without real evidence that he saw himself as part of this radical tradition. But the evidence exists, if not in plain sight then in the archives ? for example, the archived files of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), which include Obama's name on a conference registration list. That, along with some misleading admissions in the president's memoir, Dreams from My Father, makes it clear that Obama attended the 1983 and 1984 Socialist Scholars conferences, and quite possibly the 1985 conclave as well. A detailed account of these conferences (along with many other events from Obama's radical past) and the evidence for Obama's attendance at them can be found in my new book, Radical-in-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism.

Kurtz outlines Obama's political idol, Harold Washington and the strategies employed by the socialists that emerged from Washington's campaign.  It eerily reflects the very strategies Obama employed in his rise to power: class envy, community organizing, labor union manipulation.


Kurtz also highlights Obama connection to well known socialist ideologues like Peter Dreier, Frances Fox Piven, and then in the mid-1980s to the more well known names:


By the mid-1980s, James Cone, Jeremiah Wright's theological mentor, had struck up a close cooperative relationship with the DSA. Cone and a prominent follower spoke at the conferences Obama attended. Shortly after the 1984 conference, Cone joined Reverend Wright in Cuba, where they expressed support for the Cuban social system as a model for the United States. Wright touted his Cuba trips to his congregation for years. Obama would have quickly discovered Wright's ties to the liberation theologians he'd first learned of at the Socialist Scholars conferences. The connection helps explain Obama's choice of Wright as his pastor.

The little known Midwest Academy (an institution for training community organizers) is also documented as contributing heavily to the rise of Obama.  The Midwest Academy advocates stealth in the enactment of a socialist agenda.


As all these pieces are falling into place to understand Obama's socialism, Kurtz writes this line:


In the '70s and '80s, theory was put into action in a series of "populist" coalitions quietly controlled by the socialist leadership of the Midwest Academy and the DSA. The Citizen/Labor Energy Coalition, for example, fought a series of legislative battles against oil and gas companies. Its signature proposal was its call for a public energy corporation to "compete" with private companies.

Sound familiar?  Public option, anyone?


All in all, this book stands to provide the very evidence necessary to move beyond the theory of Obama's socialism to the proof.  Kurtz explains:


As I detail at length in Radical-in-Chief, deceptions and glaring omissions about his radical past reach far beyond Obama's involvement with the Socialist Scholars conferences and the Midwest Academy. Archival documents reveal that Obama lied during the 2008 campaign about his ties to ACORN. New evidence confirms that Obama has hidden the truth about his relationships to Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers. The unknown story of Obama's deep involvement with a radical group called UNO of Chicago is revealed. The claims of candidate Obama and his mentors that he shunned Saul Alinsky's confrontational tactics turn out to be a sugary fairy tale. The obfuscating techniques of Obama's memoir, Dreams from My Father, are exposed.

Understanding all this, it makes the upcoming elections all the more important.  The agenda must be stopped.  Most Democrats are complicit, the others spineless when it comes to resistance.  Vote them out.

Posted by: Anna Anderson AT 10:39 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, October 13 2010

When Mitt Romney declared in the 2008 presidential election that "freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom," he was widely panned for his alleged religious bigotry.


The humanist left was outrageously pompous demanding to know how anyone could be so backwards as to believe that something as draconian as traditional religious belief would be necessary for something as hip as freedom.


As it turns out, the entire history of the United States stands as pretty solid proof of his analysis.  Dennis Prager's recent column strikes this very chord:


Since the inception of the United States (and, indeed, before it in colonial America), liberty, i.e., personal freedom, has been linked to God.


Both reason and American values therefore make these claims:


1. The more important the state is, the less the liberty.


2. The more important God is, the smaller the state.


3. Therefore, the more important God is, the more liberty there is.


A proof of the validity of these assertions is that as this country ? the country, not the government ? becomes more secular, it becomes less free, just as has happened in other Western countries. We have far more laws governing human conduct than ever before in America's history. And Western Europe has even more, including limitations on as basic a liberty as free speech.


There is little question that the humanist left is currently waging an all out assault on anything remotely Judeo-Christian in the American public square.  Judging by self-evident lawsuits and public show-trials, no rational mind could conclude otherwise.


Before marching with them down this path, we would be wise to recognize the loss of freedom sure to accompany such a journey.  As Prager writes:


...commensurate with the removal of God from American society, the most left-wing government in American history is expanding state powers to an unprecedented degree.


Our left-wing party has passed ? more accurately imposed, since it did so without a single vote from the opposition party ? legislation that will massively expand state powers. And it is preparing to govern more and more of Americans' lives without passing any legislation. As reported by the Los Angeles Times last week: "White House staff changes are being made with an eye toward achieving goals through executive actions rather than by trying to push plans through the next Congress."


It was inevitable.


From its inception, the Left has regarded God and religion (especially the Judeo-Christian varieties) as impediments to its goals: "Trust in Us [left-wing intellectuals]" has supplanted "In God We Trust." And so, God-based liberty gives way to state-based controls.


And as Prager accurately points out, that is why the resistance against this movement has commenced.  It's not just for God.  It's also for the freedom that He authored.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 09:50 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, October 13 2010

Our vacationer-in-chief Barack Obama has played golf courses around the world.  His wife has sipped champagne in exotic locales.  But there's one destination that they haven't hit yet that they should: Cochise County, AZ.


And Sheriff Larry Dever knows exactly where to begin their tour:


Sheriff Larry Dever of Cochise County, Ariz., which sits on the U.S.-Mexico border, says if President Barack Obama were to visit that county he would like to take him to visit the grave of rancher Robert Krentz who was shot and killed on his own property in March by an attacker who fled south on foot into Mexico.


The attacker shot both Krentz and his dog after Krentz had radioed his brother to tell him he saw an immigrant who appeared to be in trouble and that his brother should notify the Border Patrol. 


"I'd take him to Rob Krentz's gravesite," Dever told, following his appearance at an event earlier this month at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C. "That's where I'd take him."


But there are a few more pleasure-filled hot spots for our first couple to take in as well:


"Come spend two or three days and camp out with one of my ranchers out in the areas where we're getting hammered, and spend some time there," Dever said. "When you're trying to go to bed at night and things start going bump and you know that stuff is moving - that's how you experience it."


Dever said he also would show Obama the evidence of the high traffic flow along the U.S. and Mexico border in Arizona.


"Then I'd take him to the trash sites - the lay-up areas - where people just leave tons of garbage and human waste," Dever said. "I'd take him and I'd show him the trails that come across the border that are as wide as a road and three feet deep from the incessant foot traffic going across.


Simply put, the President has a constitutional job to do in protecting our borders.  Citizens' lives are being ruined and destroyed because of his unwillingness or inability to do so.


That's why a trip to Cochise County would be one vacation I would encourage the President to take.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 08:45 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, October 12 2010

Along with every American conservative, I look forward to the changes in the political landscape this November. It remains to be seen how well conservative candidates will fare, but I have no doubt that Democrats will lose seats in the House and Senate. Even so, I still have concerns.


My primary concern stems from the lack of knowledge many Americans appear to have of basic economics. Without a doubt, comprehensive economics is a complicated topic. Nevertheless, there are some elemental principles that everyone should grasp. Among them is the reality that if you take on too much debt, it is going to take time and sacrifice to work that debt off.


Not only is the American economy carrying too much debt, this Congress and administration continues to spend beyond its means minute by minute. Estimates suggest that the national debt grows by one MILLION DOLLARS per minute! And some of those estimates were made prior to the massive TARP bailouts.


The reality is that this is not going to go away anytime soon. Just to slow it down, much less turn it around, is going to be painful. As we stand now, every American is carrying $30,000-$31,000 in federal debt alone.


As conservatives attempt to stop this train wreck, their efforts are going to be assaulted like never before. It is going to be hard to withstand the assault because they are not going to be able to have much to show for it. Who is going to care about federal debt when they are experiencing the reality of government entitlement and service cuts? The left will definitely have the propaganda ammunition available, and they will not be hesitating to use it.


Unfortunately, large numbers of Americans will be willingly duped by it. The image of a pendulum has often been used to describe political swings from party to party and ideology to ideology. I don't think pendulums are appropriate anymore.


We are more like ping-pong balls; as soon as we move to one side of the table, the paddle comes along and smacks us to the other side. We head for the other side on the basis of reaction alone. If conservative leadership - and I mean real conservatives - is not willing to withstand the assault and convince American citizens where our best interests lay, then we will be returning to deadly liberalism as fast as the ping-pong ball can go.


We must be in this for the long haul. We must remain steadfast in our convictions. We must continually seek to look for ways to deal with these dangers in the best ways possible.


We must lead with both common sense and true compassion.

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 05:45 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, October 12 2010

I see that the Obama administration has just lifted the offshore drilling moratorium.


While I think that is good news, I nevertheless wonder what has changed. Have safer procedures been implemented? Are the regulatory agencies better able to perform their duties?


I suspect it has more to do with trying to take away one more significant criticism that can be leveled at the Democrat party during this campaigning season.


What do you think?

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 03:46 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, October 12 2010

As the most anti-human rights president the United States has ever known continues seeking to find ways to allow experimentation, mutilation and obliteration of frozen human embryos (and finance it with tax dollars), amazing stories like this continue to surface to demonstrate how evil it really is:


A healthy baby boy was born from an embryo frozen for almost 20 years in what was hailed Sunday as scientific breakthrough that could allow women to start families much later in life.




The baby boy was born from a batch of five embryos frozen in 1990 in the U.S. by a couple who no longer needed them after they conceived their own child through IVF treatment.


These "snowflake babies" are miraculous.


Life is a powerful, wonderful force.  It's a shame that our President and his allies on the left continue to disregard, deny and destroy it.

Posted by: Anna Anderson AT 02:06 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, October 12 2010

An unbelievable exchange took place on the "O'Reilly Factor" last week that should boil the blood of any law-abiding American citizen paying attention.


The Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano - the woman whose job description includes protecting Americans from those who enter the country illegally - was asked a point blank question by Bill O'Reilly about recently outed illegal alien Nicky Diaz (the woman Democrats sacrificed on a platter to try to score political points for Jerry Brown against Meg Whitman):


O'REILLY: All right, now we got to go to the Nicky Diaz situation. As you know she was illegal alien, who worked for Meg Whitman who is running for governor of California for nine years. She comes out. She admits to the nation she had a bogus Social Security number and was employed for nine years. She lied to an employment agency in California. That's how she got to Mrs. Whitman's house in the first place. Now, what is Homeland Security/ICE going to do about her?


JANET NAPOLITANO, HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY: You know, I don't know the answer to that question.


O'REILLY: Shouldn't you know it Madam Secretary? You are in charge and this is a huge case. Shouldn't you know the answer to that question?


NAPOLITANO: Well, I will know it at some point. But, I don't know it right now. I mean I think obviously this is ultimately a matter for California voters to decide in terms.....


That's simply unbelievable.  The same woman who has told the people of Arizona that enforcing immigration laws is not their issue to decide now, in order to escape having to actually do her job, says it is an issue that the people of California can decide.


That position is not only an outrageous double standard, it doesn't even make sense.  The people of California are voting for a Governor.  Even if they choose Jerry Brown, how does that count as an endorsement of Nicky Diaz being allowed to violate immigration laws?

Diaz admitted she entered the country illegally.  She admitted she committed perjury.  She admitted she lied on her employment application.  She admitted she fraudulently used a fake Social Security number.


And the Secretary of Homeland Security isn't sure how to handle that?  The law is clear.  If she's not sure, it's only because she's not sure she likes what the law tells her she has to do...but it's not her call.  Or at least it shouldn't be.


This is yet another indication of the lack of seriousness the entire Obama administration has for upholding their constitutional obligations to the people of this country.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 12:45 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, October 12 2010

There's not much question that by the time 2012 comes around, Americans are going to be desperate for an executive who knows how to budget.  Fiscal responsibility is - in all likelihood - going to be the number one issue of the upcoming presidential campaign season.


That could be why so many people are thinking Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels, despite not being a photogenic candidate like Sarah Palin or Mitt Romney, is a darkhorse for the Republican nomination.


Daniels has been increasingly the focus of many prominent national conservative writers.most recently, Michael Barone:


As much as any American politician of his generation, he's proved that cutting spending and gaining a reputation as a skinflint is good politics.


Now Daniels is being mentioned as a presidential candidate, and he doesn't deny that he's thinking about it. He's been holding dinners with national policy experts in Indianapolis, much as George W. Bush did in Austin, Texas, a dozen years ago.



He goes on. "This is a survival-level issue for the country. We won't be a leader without major change in the federal fiscal picture. We're going to have to do fundamental things you say are impossible."



He thinks voters may be ready to support such changes because they've had a searing experience with debt, and their lives are changing. Younger people may be ready to put up with lower Social Security benefits for high earners because they've seen that some companies' new hires aren't getting the pensions and benefits their elders got. "There's nothing radical about this. It's already happened all over the place."


He's also got some more short-term proposals - a payroll tax holiday to stimulate the economy, reviving the presidential power of impoundment (not spending money Congress has appropriated) and a moratorium on federal regulations.


After Barack Obama, this will be sweet music to many people's ears.  It sounds odd to say that because Daniels is talking about some painful budget cuts.  And even those who like the way it sounds may not like it when it starts happening.  But it needs to start happening if we still care about the concept of preserving the blessings of liberty to our posterity.


The one concerning part about Daniels is his persistent disregard of what he considers "social and philosophical" issues.  In Barone's piece he is quoted again as saying:


And he says that, if he runs, he'll be a different kind of candidate. As for "the federal fiscal picture - and why don't we have the philosophic debate tomorrow - as for today, can we agree that the arithmetic doesn't work? We're going to have higher and higher levels of debt."


For someone who understands we need "fundamental change," he has too flippant a regard for "fundamentals."  Daniels needs to understand that at the heart of fiscal irresponsibility is a monster that resides at the heart of all irresponsibility: moral breakdown.  You can't promote and achieve a fundamental change in fiscal policy without a fundamental change in the moral climate.


I hope Daniels learns that lesson.  Quickly.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 11:00 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, October 12 2010

The Republican candidate for Governor in New York has faced a hostile media that doesn't want him to win.  It's going to get a lot worse for him after his recent stance against homosexuality.


According to the New York Post, Carl Paladino gave a speech to about 50 at the K'hal Adas Kashau synagogue that turned the tables on homosexual activists, whose game has always been to portray themselves as victims of those oppressive people with religious values.


Paladino stated that,


children should not be "brainwashed into thinking that homosexuality is an equally valid and successful option. It isn't."


and that,


kids "would be much better off and much more successful getting married and raising a family."


Paladino also properly portrayed the homosexual movement not as a passive movement that is merely interested in stopping bullying and mistreatment.  Rather, they have an aggressive agenda that seeks to bully and discriminate anyone who will not condone and approve of their sexual anarchy with the force of law:


He did tell the congregants that religious values are under attack. "The ruling elite of this society has got to get over their hostility towards religious people and their values," he said.


"We've got to stop mocking religion in this country. We have to stop pandering to the pornographers and the perverts who seek to target our children and destroy their lives."


This is as blunt and direct of an attack on the homosexual movement I have seen by an American political candidate.  As a result, there is no doubt that the hostile "gay" lobby and their stalwart media allies will unleash on Paladino in unimaginable ways.


In fact, even the Post article went beyond reporting the story and accused Paladino of "anti-gay rhetoric."


The truth is that the remarks above are not "anti-gay."  They are pro-religious freedom.  They are anti-discrimination against the rights of conscience.


The lines have been drawn, and Carl Paladino has taken his stand.  He shouldn't stand alone.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 09:05 am   |  Permalink   |  2 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, October 12 2010

A courageous minister in Iowa, and his church, is standing up to the radical left-wing group Americans United for the Separation of Church and State.  According to the report at OneNewsNow:

Next month, 
voters in The Hawkeye State will have an opportunity to vote against renewing terms for three state Supreme Court justices who voted in favor of homosexual "marriage." Pastor Cary Gordon of Cornerstone World Outreach in Sioux City sent a letter to pastors around the state encouraging them to join in the effort to remove the three from the bench. In response, Americans United for Separation of Church and State filed a complaint against the Sioux City pastor.


Pastor Gordon tells OneNewsNow that Christians are often accused of shoving their religion down others' throats - and if they say the same things inside the walls of the church, they are accused of bringing politics into religion. "You can't have it both ways," he remarks.




Gordon stresses that despite complaints from groups like Americans United, he will continue to preach his convictions on Sunday.
"I have never, nor will I ever, get a message from the Holy Spirit and then go check with the IRS tax code first to see if it's okay to preach it," he states. "I'm tired of pastors submitting to this tyranny -- and I'm expecting to try to get the IRS to sue us so that we can take it all the way to the Supreme Court and restore freedom in America's pulpits."

Hats off to this minister for understanding to whom he owes his allegiance.  Tax-exempt status is a nice benefit, but it has become one of Satan's strongest weapons against the church in American culture.


American history is littered with examples of how the church has been at the forefront of cultural battles.  Indeed, George Washington himself wrote in his Farewell Address,


"In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness (religion and morality), these firmest props of men and Citizens."


In other words, if you seek to remove religion from the public square (as Americans United seeks to do), don't claim to be patriotic because you are undermining the very foundation of our culture.

This case also points out the necessity of supporting Christian law firms that battle this type of anti-Christian agenda.  According to the story:


Gordon's church is represented by Christian attorneys from Liberty Institute.


My wife and I just discussed making another contribution to a similar group, the Alliance Defense Fund.  It won't be much, but it will be something.  Stories like this remind us of why "something" is so important.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 08:21 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, October 12 2010

In spite of the fiercely relentless opposition faced by former President Bush, we never heard him complaining on the campaign trail like our man in the office does now. Every time we turn around, it seems, he's on the air someplace. And every time he's on the air, he has some new conspiracy theory. Take his latest target, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, for instance.


A new Democratic TV ad all but accuses the U.S. Chamber of Commerce of using foreign funds to secretly back Republican congressional candidates. Democrats presented no evidence to substantiate the charge.


But Obama minions find it near to impossible to make this one stick, as even the New York Times notes:


"Just this week, we learned that one of the largest groups paying for these ads regularly takes in money from foreign corporations," Mr. Obama said. "So groups that receive foreign money are spending huge sums to influence American elections."


But a closer examination shows that there is little evidence that what the chamber does in collecting overseas dues is improper or even unusual, according to both liberal and conservative election-law lawyers and campaign finance documents.


What is even more hilariously ironic about this whole ordeal is the White House response:


Asked to back up the allegation, White House adviser David Axelrod offered no proof but said, "Why not simply disclose where this money is coming from and then all of these questions would be answered."


Why not simply disclose where the birth certificate is, Messrs. Axelrod and Obama? Let's see, since there are "birthers," then Obama and company must be "commercers."


So, you want a little whine with that campaign, Mr. President?

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 07:00 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Monday, October 11 2010

We all know how well the Democrats watch out for the "little guy." If it wasn't for the P.O.R. (Pelosi - Obama - Reid) coalition, well, we just wouldn't have an American middle class.


Obviously, then, we can be assured that all is well when the Democrats declare that the Bush tax cuts need to expire. That'll fix the fat cats!


Except that once again the "little guy" will be hit hard.


Low-income workers stand to lose the most if lawmakers fail to reach a consensus on the Bush-era tax cuts, according to a new report from the Tax Foundation.


The report states that on Jan. 1 the doubling of the child tax credit, increased standard deductions and income credits and the creation of the 10 percent tax bracket ? all of which primarily aimed at non-wealthy taxpayers ? will vanish if gridlock persists in Washington.  


Nothing is certain except death and taxes, so the saying goes, but Democrats are adamant that death takes a back seat.

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 08:08 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Monday, October 11 2010

Those free-thinking, free-wheeling liberals have really gotten themselves into a free-speech pickle. The U.S. Supreme Court case is Snyder v. Phelps.


The Phelps side of the case are some named defendants from the Westboro Baptist Church who have picketed military funerals with their anti-homosexual message. The Snyder side of the case are family members whose son was killed in Iraq.


The Snyders' filed a federal lawsuit claiming defamation of character; the defense is protection of free-speech. The case has reached the Supreme Court.


The left, who have been about defamation of character for decades while hiding behind a contorted view of the First Amendment, now must face turned tables. To deny that Phelps cannot be obnoxiously rude and disruptive in public protest is to deny the main operating procedure of the left.


To claim that Phelps' is not protected by Constitutional free speech is to remove their own thin veneer of public protection against liberals' antics. Yet, here is a group expressing a message through protest that is reprehensible to the left. Tsk. Tsk.


Enter a solution forwarded by LA Times columnist Tim Rutten:


"It's the sound argument but a bloodless one ? and to be morally and socially responsible, as well as constitutionally correct, it requires that those advancing it recognize that although government must be neutral, the news media must not be indifferent to the implications of the Snyder family's claims."


In short, Mr. Rutten clings to the notion that "the news media ought to do the decent and the rational thing and ignore Westboro's future protests."


Even this "solution" poses problems, not the least is which it openly exposes the falsehood of Big Media neutrality. Is it the job of a free press to suppress news on the basis of a subjective determination that an event is "bizarre and sensational?"


If that is the case, can we not petition Big Media to stop covering the antics of Lady Gaga? Another problem raised by Mr. Rutten's "solution" is that the mere act of writing that the press ignore Westboro's actions draws attention to them and continues to provide the publicity they seek.


Quite a pickle.

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 12:04 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Monday, October 11 2010

It's no secret that ObamaCare is killing the states.  Its demands require states to open the Medicaid rolls to tens of thousands of new enrollees that the state must then find a way to pay for somehow.


This, along with other factors, have led many states to take ObamaCare to court.  And while that long legal challenge works its way up the ladder to its inevitable appearance before the U.S. Supreme Court, there are interesting battles that take place along the way.


Not the least of these would be the inter-family battle that's brewing in Nevada. 


Bob Cusack at The Hill had the story:


Gubernatorial candidate Rory Reid (D) said Thursday that the new health reform law could hurt Nevada.

During a televised debate, Rory Reid, the son of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), said he does not support the legal challenges against the health overhaul. Yet, he does believe that President Obama's signature achievement could negatively affect Nevada.

"I don't deny, however," Rory Reid said, "that Nevada needs to be vigilant on this issue. The law that was passed gives time for the new system to go into effect, but there is potential for it to put significant pressure on states because Medicaid rates could go up significantly."

There's no question that there will be quite a few Nevadans who vote against Senator Harry Reid this year for his pivotal role in pushing through the Obama agenda (with its signature item, ObamaCare).  But who would have thought that one of them might be his own son?

Posted by: Anna Anderson AT 11:02 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Monday, October 11 2010

As its ratings have crashed, CNN has tried desperately to paint itself as the voice of moderation left in cable news coverage.  Fox is right wing, MSNBC is left wing, but CNN is the great disseminator of objective news.


You might believe that's not a bad marketing ploy, until you actually think through it.  Here's the way they envision it happening: people are truly upset with what they perceive to be bias coming from CNN's competition.  So, in frustration, they turn to CNN and find that right down the middle.

That would be a fine strategy if it weren't for the fact that CNN is about as right down the middle as Tiger Woods' recent drives.


Case in point:


On the 2:00 PM segment of CNN Newsroom today, anchor Don Lemon concluded with a message for President Obama.  Prefacing his comment with the obligatory, "This isn't about Republican or Democrat. It's about being an American," Lemon got to the point:


I'm not a pollster, but here is what I hear in the barber shops, the grocery store, the gym, the gas station, hey, CNN, guy, what's up with our president, man?


What is he waiting on? What is he afraid of? Just this morning at the coffee shop, a man walked up to me and he said, Don, I didn't support President Bush's policies, but I respected his confidence to carry them out no matter what the opposition.


The same guy went on to say, the Republicans are never going to like Obama. Why does he keep trying so hard to please them? Mr. President, I don't the answer. I hope you do.


Yes, no doubt all of his reminders to Republicans that they "drove the car in the ditch," that their ideas are "half-baked," that they "can't be trusted with the keys," that he "won," and that he "[doesn't] want folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking" but rather, "just get out of the way so we can clean up the mess" really went a long way to please them.


Give it up, Don.


You too, CNN.  Your new marketing strategy of being the only credible news agency on cable isn't going to last past one CNN Newsroom commentary from Don Lemon.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 09:45 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Monday, October 11 2010

I'm all for honoring the deceased, but this?


A government investigator says 89,000 stimulus payments of $250 each went to people who were either dead or in prison.


The Social Security Administration's inspector general said in a report Thursday that $18 million went to 72,000 people who were dead. The report estimates that a little more than half the payments were returned.


Which obviously begs the question, what happened to the rest of it?  But that wasn't all:


The report said $4.3 million went to a little more than 17,000 prison inmates.


Ah yes, the incarcerated.  Obviously another group of people we want to make sure we stimulate.


Again, what does all this say?  Despite the best of intentions, government bureaucracies don't function efficiently or effectively.  Their mismanagement is epic, as is evidenced here once again.


Obviously no one would assert that there are people in the administration who actually intend to spend $18 million to stimulate the economic activity of dead people.  But it happened because of poor management and clerical errors.


Who then, in their right mind, could possibly think that increasing bureaucracies, government control and regulation is going to be a benefit to our economy, our healthcare, our education.our anything?

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 08:30 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, October 08 2010

It has just been announced that the new National Security Adviser appointed by President Barack H. Obama is Tom Donilon. It comes as no surprise to me that a president would appoint his cronies to administration positions, and Mr. Donilon does have national security experience in multiple administrations.


In all honesty, I have no personal objection to it; as I indicated, Washington politics are all about favoritism.


But let's clear up one BIG MYTH, shall we? The myth is that the Democrat party is one of indigence that rejects the influence of Big Business - the party that stands for and with the "regular American."


As a Senator and presidential candidate, Mr. Obama railed against the lobbyist culture that controlled politics and promised to end "business as usual" in Washington politics. With this in mind, let's take a quick look at Mr. Donilon's involvement in the Democrat's new Washington.


In 2006, Mr. Donilon oversaw the office from which Fannie Mae lobbyists used their ties to politicians in an effort to prevent increased federal oversight of the mortgage giant. In 2009, it was reported that Mr. Donilon "earned $3.9 million [in 2008] as a partner at the law firm of O'Melveny & Myers LLP, where his clients include Citigroup, Inc., Goldman, Sachs & Co., and Obama fundraiser and heiress Penny Pritzker."


The Democrat party, with its ties to Big Business, Big Media, and Big Entertainment, bears very little resemblance to the mainstream Americans it claims to protect.


Let's bust the myth of Democrat party indigence. Democrats are the party of opulence.

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 02:54 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, October 08 2010

There's a lot of uncertainty surrounding the state of the election.  Nearly every analyst concedes that the Republicans will gain seats, but the debate surrounds whether it will be enough for them to gain control of the House and Senate.  Many are admitting (Bob Shrum excluded) that the House is a very likely loss for the Democrats, but most picture a scenario of a 40-45 seat turnover with a ceiling of the mid 50's.  Even fewer believe the Republicans are likely to gain the ten seats needed to regain control of the Senate, holding that a 6 to 8 seat gain is more likely. 


Guiding a lot of these projections are traditional understandings of the demography of the nation and the polling data.  Recent polls have sent alarm bells among Democrat camps as generic ballots have turned Republican.  The "enthusiasm" gap has also been disturbing for many of the Democrat pundits.  Despite this, there has been a general lessening of anxiety as several of the polls have fluctuated a bit in their favor. 


The general argument goes that Republicans are destined to pick up some seats as the Democrats have (A) overextended their hold into deeply Republican districts in recent elections, (B) it's a mid-term election which often hurts the party in power anyway, but that (C) gains will be limited to cherry-picked districts. 


A recent poll from an obscure district in Michigan provides interesting insight into why most of the experts are wrong to relax. 

The Michigan 15th district is a seat held by Rep. John Dingell.  He's currently the longest serving member of the House and prior to him his father held the seat.  A Dingell has been in Congress since 1932.  Dingell represents a district that is solidly Democrat.  According to the Cook Partisan index, this district is a D+13, which means that a Democrat will average 13 points above the national average (which is an additional two points in the Democrat favor).  So just to break even, a Republican challenger needs to gain fifteen points on his opponent. 


So what does this recent poll show?  Political newcomer Rob Steele is leading John Dingell by 4 points.  If this holds true, this represents nearly a 20 point Republican swing!  For perspective, consider that there are 68 Democrats in seats with a Republican favored Cook Partisan rating.  If you add all the D+13 and under seats there's an additional 110 seats in play.  If Dingell is an entrenched Democrat in a solidly Democrat leaning district and he's polling under his challenger, how many other races are in the same boat?


So what's going on here?  In early polling, people are more likely to remain undecided unless they know the candidate (which greatly helps the incumbent).  As a general rule, the primary indicator in early polling is not how close the race is polling, but rather if the incumbent is polling above 50%.  Below the 50% mark indicates trouble for the incumbent.  As the election gets closer, the greater indicator is how many undecided voters remain undecided.  If the incumbent is still leading by a fair margin and there are very few undecided voters, then this is also good news for the incumbent. 


The best indicator down the stretch is to see how the independents are voting.  If it's as bad as the polls are showing, as Jay Cost of the Weekly Standard highlights, it's extremely bad news for the Democrats in November.  Just how bad?  Let's just say that I'm sticking to my prediction of a 79 seat turnover in the House and 10 seats in the Senate, but if the Michigan poll is an indication of things to come, it could be well over 100 and 12. 

Posted by: Joel Harris AT 01:29 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, October 08 2010

Matt Lauer is a joke.  A total joke.


As though any more proof of his stumbling-all-over-himself devotion to left-wing politicians and causes was needed, Lauer's recent performances during Today Show interviews have provided it.


When a Republican comes in to the studio, like New York Gubernatorial candidate Carl Paladino, we see Tough Guy Matt:


LAUER: You have seemed to embrace the mantle of the angry candidate. Is that what you think voters want right now? 

LAUER: Isn't it nasty campaigning between candidates that gets people nowhere once an official is elected? 

LAUER: how can you practice that gutter politics for a long period of time and then all of a sudden say "That's not me any more?"

LAUER: You are brash, there's no question about it. You speak in blunt terms.For some reason, I look at you, I'm not sure you're a bridge builder. Tell me I'm wrong.


LAUER: Obviously there are a lot of Democrats out there who don't like you, it's a Democratically dominated state. There are some Republicans who don't like you...Rick Lazio, who you ran against in the primary won't endorse you. He apparently has a low opinion of you-

But when a Democrat comes onto the show, like DNC Chairman Tim Kaine, we see a Matt Lauer actually prodding the Democrats to be more aggressive against those evil Republicans.  Far from grilling, let's call this Miss Congeniality Matt:


LAUER: If Republican candidates use that idea out on the campaign trail, how do you suggest the Democrats counter it?


LAUER: Let's talk about voter turnout. Obviously it's key to you folks in the November midterm elections.


LAUER: So how do Democrats chip away at those numbers in the next four weeks?


LAUER: As the chairman of the DNC, any reason why that would kind of get your juices flowing? You think it might be a good idea?


And let's not forget Matt's recent interview with President Obama where his only challenge was pushing Obama from the left, wanting to know why he hadn't been "rigorous enough in pushing back against" Republicans.


Pathetic, Matt.  If Republicans go on the offensive, it's bitter, angry, and nasty.  If Democrats do, it's "pushing back" and "countering."  And folks wonder why no one trusts the MSM anymore.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 11:45 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, October 08 2010

The promise: ObamaCare will not cause you to lose the healthcare coverage you've got.


The problem: ObamaCare was poised to cause nearly a million workers to lose the healthcare coverage they had.


The shady solution:

Nearly a million workers won't get a consumer protection in the U.S. health reform law meant to cap insurance costs because the government exempted their employers.


Thirty companies and organizations, including McDonald's  and Jack in the Box, won't be required to raise the minimum annual benefit included in low-cost health plans, which are often used to cover part-time or low-wage employees.


The Department of Health and Human Services, which provided a list of exemptions, said it granted waivers in late September so workers with such plans wouldn't lose coverage from employers who might choose instead to drop health insurance altogether.


The reason: We are a month away from consequential congressional elections and ObamaCare was about to be revealed as the total sham that it is.


The result: Pretty soon, it will be just you and me left to pick up the tab for this monstrous entitlement that is already larger, already more expensive, already more destructive than even its original critics predicted.


The answer: Vote every single member of Congress who voted for ObamaCare out of office and replace them with those who are committed to nipping it in the bud.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 10:40 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, October 08 2010

We all know how much the left blathers on about the necessity to "separate" church and state. But how about the need to separate journalism and state? Mainstream (Big Media) journalists claim over and over that they are professional, objective, and unbiased in their news analysis and reporting, but they are called out over and over by everyday folks who know better. Even the venerable Walter Cronkite openly admitted to a certain bias and perspective among journalists.


So it should come as no shock that Russian journalists have a fair amount of an attraction to their former president and current Prime Minister Vladimir Putin. But have these Russian journalist coeds perhaps tipped their hands - and other body parts - a bit too much?


Maybe, just maybe, we need separation of journalism and state more than we need separation of church and state.

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 10:03 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, October 08 2010

Isn't it about time Congress passed a law forbidding rain on weekends?  I mean, who likes rain on weekends?  And since we don't like it, we should just ban it by law, right?


Obviously this is a stupid idea.  Why?  Because simply enacting a law doesn't override the laws of nature. 


John Stossel has written a piece that explains how enacting a law (say, ObamaCare) doesn't override the laws of we are now realizing.


The laws of economics have struck back.

Health insurers Wellpoint, Cigna, Aetna, Humana and CoventryOne will stop writing policies for all children. Why? Because Obamacare requires that they insure already sick children for the same price as well children.

That sounds compassionate, but - in case Obamacare fanatics haven't noticed - sick children need more medical care. Insurance is about risk, and already sick children are 100 percent certain to be sick when their coverage begins. So if the government mandates that insurance companies cover sick children at the lower well-children price, insurers will quit the market rather than sandbag their shareholders. This is not callousness - it's fiduciary responsibility. Insurance companies are not charities. So, thanks to the compassionate Congress and president, parents of sick children will be saved from expensive insurance - by being unable to obtain any insurance! That's how government compassion works.

Stossel points out that in 2014, we're going to expand this idiocy to adults.  Any guesses how that will affect the health insurance companies?


Obviously this could not have been lost on all those "brilliant" folks in the Obama Administration.  They knew this would happen.  They counted on this happening.  By knowing the laws of economics cannot be violated without destructive consequences, they violated the laws so that the private health insurance companies (that they want to destroy) will be the ones who suffer those consequences.


And once the private health insurance industry is in shambles, the government steps in and whammo.universal, socialized healthcare is a reality...which was their goal all along.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 09:15 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, October 08 2010

Newt Gingrich has been called the idea man for the conservative movement.  At times, they are bad ideas (like partnering with Pelosi to make conservatism green).  At times they are good this one:


"Most Americans would like to get a paycheck," Gingrich said. "Most Americans would not like to be forced to have food stamps handed out by liberal Democrats."


Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is advising Republican candidates on November's ballots to frame the choice for voters between Democrats as "the party of food stamps" while selling the GOP as "the party of paychecks."


The Democrats think tagging the Republicans as the Party of No is a smart move.  It's already been discussed why this is a bad move.  If Republicans take Gingrich's advice, it could be a double whammy on the Party of Food Stamps come election day. 

Posted by: Anna Anderson AT 07:04 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, October 07 2010

These are certainly taxing times - in more ways than one. The Economic Cycle Research Institute (ECRI) Weekly Leading Index, which measures the prospects for future economic activity, recently fell to a -10 level. This is a level it last hit at the end of 2008 during the depth of the Great Recession when Gross Domestic Product (GDP) fell the fastest.


In other words, the American economy was shrinking, and shrinking fast. Even though the index has turned up slightly since this low, it still suggests that the economy continues to shrink, and all the government spending in the world won't keep it afloat.


Facing this economic situation, our Federal leadership would ideally cut the size of government in an effort to put more capital into the hands of the private sector in order to foster more investment, production, and more jobs.


In an almost criminal move, this administration proposes quite the opposite. Hey, here's an idea: with the economy still teetering on the brink of another downturn, let's raise taxes! Yeah, that's the ticket! Those tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 are set to expire in two months, so let's not renew them. They carry the name "Bush" on them, and we can't have any of that.


According to the Congressional Budget Office, higher taxes will increase to over 2% of GDP annually at a time when nominal growth is decidedly below that mark.


Do the math. This administration is ready to raise taxes by an amount more than the growth of the economy.


A new contraction of the economy should not surprise anyone.

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 07:01 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, October 07 2010

A recent spate of suicides by young people believed to be engaged in the practice of homosexuality has given the media a green-light to exploit those deaths and tee-up anyone with traditional moral values.


And they never miss such an opportunity.  First, CNN brought on their "legal analyst" Jeffrey Toobin:


"These groups don't think homosexuality is normal," Toobin remarked of conservative groups. "They think it's wrong. They think it is a menace to society. So they are the ones who are making it harder for kids, who feel isolated enough as it is, to come forward."

"I mean, this is not some sort of value-neutral approach by these conservative groups. They are trying to make homosexuality an outcast condition, and that's part of the problem," Toobin insisted.

Then, Larry King hosted three "gay-rights" activists, alleged comedians Kathy Griffin and Wanda Sykes, and singer Lance Bass in an anti-Christian lollapalooza.  Griffin got things started:


Look, let's cut the crap. I think that the way that we had trickle-down economics in the 80s, this is trickle down homophobia. And I really want people to connect the dots. And that's why I believe there's a connection between Prop 8, Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and now the string of teen suicides. It's almost sanctioned to bully gay people and treat them as second-class citizens.

Sykes then wandered in to contribute, though it became pretty clear that philosophical and intellectual conversations aren't exactly her cup of tea:


Sykes claimed that religious leaders who "preach that homophobia is wrong...cause harm to the gay and lesbian community." In context, it can be assumed Sykes meant that preaching homosexuality is wrong. Later in the show, Sykes lectured religious leaders again: "They don't teach the love part [of the Bible]. I'll put it that way. They don't teach the love part enough. And it's all driven on by fear."

And finally, Lance Bass chimed in:


"And it goes back to our leaders, I think. You know, once we finally get rid of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, when everyone is equal and being able to get married, that's what's teaching our younger generation, you know, what is right and what is wrong."

Amazing, isn't it?  Someone should inform Mr. Bass that the notions of right and wrong is exactly what motivates those who oppose the societal embrace of this deadly lifestyle choice of homosexuality.  And Ms. Sykes, it's that "deadly" part which renders your little commentary absurd.  How is it "loving" to push young people in the direction of making deadly choices with their sexual behavior?


And Ms. Griffin might do well to consider that if she's looking for culprits in these sad cultural trends like suicide, she might be better off picking up a mirror.  For more on that, check out Linda Harvey's excellent commentary where she concludes:


But comfort does not equate with goodness. Even if people became much more placid about open homosexuality among 13-year-olds, it still eventually emerges as the brutal violation of childhood innocence, and natural gender and heterosexual identity that it is. The essence of authentic goodness cannot be suppressed without dire consequences now or later.


The answer is what the answer always has been in America: Punish the guilty and continue to uphold the honorable, the true and the good. No other path will be fair or just for our children, now and in the future.


The grand social experiment of sexual anarchy is collapsing before our eyes with tragic results.  It's time we turn the tables and focus in on who is to blame.  So far, the media doesn't seem too interested in doing that.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 01:30 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, October 07 2010

2010 is a big year in national politics.  And for reasons you may not be thinking about.  Every 10 years the Census determines apportionment for the various states of the union.  That is, states are reassigned a number of representatives to Congress based on their population.


But regardless of whether a state's representation changes, the district lines of that state are redrawn.  And they are redrawn for a decade.  This is an incredibly significant power belonging to state legislatures that profoundly shapes the direction of the national government.


If you don't believe me, take a look at these remarkable numbers compiled by Micah Clark at AFA-IN:


One reason why the 2010 elections are so important for both sides is that whichever party controls the Indiana General Assembly, particularly the Indiana House, after this election, will get to redraw the district lines for the decade. The Democrats won the 1990 and 2000 elections to redraw district lines in the Indiana House. In the last twenty years, the Republicans have held the majority only twice (4 years).


For an example of the power of redistricting, consider this: In 2002, after the Indiana House lines had been redrawn by the Democrats, 759,365 Hoosiers cast votes for Republican House members. Only 548,783 Hoosiers cast votes for Democrat House members. That's a deficit of 210,582 votes across the entire state for House Democrats!   Yet, because of how the district lines had been drawn, they still held a 52-48 advantage in the Indiana House and Rep. Patrick Bauer remained its Speaker.


Incidentally, in 2002 the outcome of 13 races were determined by less than a 10% margin. Democrats won 10 out of those 13 seats. One House race was won by just 37 votes, another by just 63 votes. Regardless of what district you live in, your vote still matters. Yet, how the new lines are redrawn will be one of the biggest, most heated battles of the next session.


As you prepare for these elections, don't forget about state representative and state senator races...they are crucially important for a number of reasons, not the least of these being the enormous power of redistricting.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 12:50 pm   |  Permalink   |  4 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, October 07 2010

Hats off to Jerome Hudson for speaking out in a way that many conservatives are afraid to do.


For those who don't know, Hudson is a black conservative who rocketed to fame after penning a powerful testimony of his experiences at the Glenn Beck "Restoring Honor" rally. 


Hudson is at it again, calling attention to the uncomfortable question that black support for Obama may be, in fact, racist:


With poverty rates at an all-time high, black unemployment numbers at daunting levels, and Obamacare bringing no change on killing black babies, stunningly, black support for Obama is up.

In fact, black approval of President Obama is virtually unchanged at 91 percent since his inauguration.
Now, unless we believe that 91 percent of blacks are truly as radical as Obama (and every indication is that blacks are far more conservative than he is), then what explains how Obama could have 91% approval, when even among Democrats as a whole, that number is lower at
just 79 percent?


After ripping through a number of startling facts demonstrating that:


  1. black poverty is higher under Obama than under Bush
  2. black unemployment is higher under Obama than under Bush (it was lower under Bush than Clinton)
  3. George Bush had a much greater record on upward social mobility for blacks than Obama has
  4. blacks (only 13% of the population) make up 22.6% of Americans on food stamps today
  5. in just four days, more blacks die in abortion clinics than the KKK killed in its entire history


Hudson called for the necessary conversation:


It's time for a frank discussion about the folly of monolithic voting among black Americans.  When 91 percent of any racial group votes one way, it's either out of racism or blind groupthink.  Neither of these is good for America.


If Eric Holder thinks we're a nation of cowards on race, maybe it's time he and his cronies start manning up and answering Mr. Hudson's accurate points?

Posted by: Anna Anderson AT 11:29 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, October 07 2010

The folks over at MSNBC have apparently become infatuated with referring to the Republican Party as the Party of No.  It's funny how being the Party of No was a blessed thing when it was the Republicans who were pushing their legislation just a few short years ago.


But that's politics and not anything to get too worked up about.


The important part may be how bad of a strategy the left is embracing by slapping this label on the Republicans.  And for proof of this, you need look no further than the Democrats themselves.


When the American people are wanting government action to solve a problem, blasting Republicans as obstructionists works well.  Bill Clinton's successful tagging of Republicans as being at fault for the government shutdown is a perfect example.  Newt lost his mojo and Bill was riding high.


But when the American people think the government is going in the wrong direction, being the party of obstruction also works well.  Nancy Pelosi's strategy of fighting George W. Bush at every turn is a perfect example.  Bush was blamed and we saw the rise of the new left.


So what the Democrat left is doing right now defies their own understanding.  Americans are obviously opposed to the current direction Pelosi and Obama are taking them.  Therefore, tagging the Republicans as obstructionists to that direction is not a wise political strategy.  In fact, it's one the Republican Party is shrewdly using to their own advantage.


At a small, informal breakfast in Midtown New York Tuesday morning, House Republican leader John Boehner said the lame-duck Congress, scheduled roughly for November 15 through December 22, will pass a bill that extends all the Bush tax cuts. And he said President Obama will not veto that bill.




More generally, the Republican leader is focused on stopping any regulatory, tax, and trade barriers to job creation. When asked about the main agenda point for a GOP Congress, Boehner said, "Stop all the bad stuff."


And there it is.  To the chagrin of MSNBC and all the folks on the left, that slogan is enough for Republicans to run on successfully.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 10:45 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, October 07 2010

There is a saying out there that Green is the new Red.  Many of the Left's defenders say that this is fear mongering and hyperbole on the part of the Right.  But let's take a look at Exhibit A from 10:10, a climate change advocacy group. 


10:10 is responsible for sponsoring a video (WARNING: Contains graphic content) created by Richard Curtis (Four Weddings and a Funeral, Bridget Jones' Diary) and supported by its share of Hollywood elites.


What's in this doozy of a video?  It starts in a classroom with a teacher preaching on the importance of cutting carbon emissions.  After this bit of propaganda, the teacher then survey's the classroom of those who will and will not embrace the climate change agenda with a show of hands.  After an assurance of choice and freedom from pressure, the teacher then presses a button and blows the children up.  Really.  The same routine is repeated in several different settings, but you get the picture...the very gory, bloody picture.    


For starters, it's hard to understand the point of the video.  Is the video trying to argue "embrace climate change or be blown up?"  Somehow I feel that gratuitous violence traditionally isn't the most compelling message in a free society.  What it does demonstrate, though, is both the sanctimonious nature of the far left and the totalitarian streak that exists in their ranks. 


Most telling is the comments of the creators of this ad.  "We 'killed' five people to make No Pressure - a mere blip compared to the 300,000 real people who now die each year from climate change," Franny Armstrong said.  What's blowing up a few political opponents?  Perhaps all of us "deniers" should be sent to the appropriate re-education camps or face the consequences.

Posted by: Joel Harris AT 08:36 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, October 06 2010

We know how disappointing our current president is to conservatives - who knew it all along. We are certainly seeing how disappointing he is becoming to those beloved "moderates." But what about his hard-core liberal constituents?



Doing some research recently, I ran across Nile Gardiner's article over at the U.K. Telegraph describing the shock that European liberals have expressed at Obama. Granted, it is a bit dated - coming up on a year old - but has anything changed?

It is no coincidence that Barack Obama held a key campaign rally last year in front of hundreds of thousands of adoring Germans, as though he were running for Mayor of Berlin. Obama remains in many ways a quintessentially European politician, a firm believer in big government, large-scale state intervention, social liberalism, supranational institutions, and the projection of soft power abroad. His political philosophy is frequently more attuned to Brussels or Strasbourg than it is to Washington.


For a host of reasons however, President Obama is increasingly viewed by his natural allies in Europe- the left-wing intelligentsia in particular - as a mounting disappointment, whether it is dithering over attending the climate change summit in Copenhagen, supposedly ignoring the momentous changes within the European Union, making little progress with the Middle East peace process, adopting protectionist trade policies, a lack of commitment to human rights, the list goes on.


It is impossible to please all of the people, but it is equally impossible to please even some of the people when your political platform is all based on fabrications.

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 10:45 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, October 06 2010

There are times when it appears that the left is incapable of rational thought. OK - most of the time.


Liberals have had an infatuation with the European way of life for years. Except for nuclear power. Point out to libs the success of European nuclear power energy sources, and they stammer out all kinds of gibberish about nuclear power being certain suicide, and that it's not all that successful even in Europe.



On the other hand, point out to those living in the land of left-believe the obvious failures of government-run health care in Europe, and they go screaming how conservatives are nothing but a bunch of hate-mongering Neanderthals. Go figure.


Here's a glimpse of our health care to come:

Government Heath Care Follies: Britain's National Health Service in Warwickshire recently assigned Mavis Eldridge to receive care at the Selly Oak Hospital in Birmingham for the age-related macular degeneration she is suffering in her left eye. The decision was puzzling to Eldridge and her doctors because her right eye is already being treated for the same disorder at University Hospital in Coventry, 20 miles away.


University officials said they were booked up.  Under Britain's Department of Health guidelines, prisoners about to be released, and who had previously taken drugs but cured their addiction while incarcerated, are being purposely re-addicted by wardens, using methadone. According to researchers, the former addicts will then be less likely to overdose when they get back on the street. Reportedly, more than 460 prisoners have been "retoxified" in the last five years.


We can hardly wait.

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 08:11 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, October 06 2010

Is it just me, or does anyone else ever notice how similar high-ranking members of the Democrat party and America's enemies old and new sound? Let's try it out, shall we?


Some of America's enemies:

Quote by Mikhail Gorbachev, communist and former leader of U.S.S.R.: "The emerging 'environmentalization' of our civilization and the need for vigorous action in the interest of the entire global community will inevitably have multiple political consequences. Perhaps the most important of them will be a gradual change in the status of the United Nations. Inevitably, it must assume some aspects of a world government."


Osama bin Laden: "The huge climate change is affecting our (Islamic) nation and is causing great catastrophes throughout the Islamic world."


Some of America's Democrats and Liberals:

Quote by John Holdren, President Obama's science czar: "A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States...De-development means bringing our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology and the global resource situation...Redistribution of wealth both within and among nations is absolutely essential, if a decent life is to be provided for every human being."


Quote by Al Gore, former vice president: "Adopting a central organizing principle means embarking on an all-out effort to use every policy and program, every law and institution, to halt the destruction of the environment."


Quote by Ted Turner, billionaire, founder of CNN and major UN donor: "A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal."


Quote by Dixy Lee Ray, former liberal Democrat governor of State of Washington, U.S.: "The objective, clearly enunciated by the leaders of UNCED, is to bring about a change in the present system of independent nations. The future is to be World Government with central planning by the United Nations. Fear of environmental crises - whether real or not - is expected to lead to - compliance"


Give him a bit of a makeover and a smiley-face button, and Osama bin Laden could run successfully as a Democrat candidate anywhere in the nation. Indeed, it sounds to me like there are some who would prefer him to Sarah Palin, Christine O'Donnell, Sharron Angle, and other conservative candidates.


Amazing! Simply amazing!

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 06:30 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, October 06 2010

Every election year brings out its share of mud-flinging and negative ads.  And while every season seems to top the next, the truth of the matter is that smearing your opponent is second nature in politics.  If you can paint your opponent in a negative light, people will be less likely to vote for them.  It's a cheap tactic but it's shown to work.   


But sometimes a candidate can be some obscene in their zealousness to demonize their opponent that it actually demonstrates a character flaw in the one doing the attack.


Enter Alan Grayson.  Alan Grayson is a Democrat incumbent in Florida's Eighth District.  Grayson is about as far left as one can get but represents a marginally Republican area.  He's also no stranger to controversy.  His most memorable moments include calling federal advisor Linda Robertson a "K-Street whore", calling Dick Cheney a vampire, telling Cheney to "Shut the (expletive) up", and for arguing that Republicans want Americans to die, that they have perpetuated a holocaust, and that Republicans and Fox News are the enemies of America.  And I've been told that the Right is the party of hate. 


All of these are prime examples of the character of Rep. Grayson, but his most recent ad is simply beyond belief.  His opponent in this election is Dan Webster, a former State Senator.  In this most recent ad, he attempts to picture Sen. Webster as a religious extremist on par with the Taliban.  Interjected in the ad are clips of Sen. Webster demanding that "wives should submit to your husband", "submit to me" and "that's in the Bible".  The only problem with this is that Sen. Webster's quotes were spliced and hacked so as to paint a picture opposite of the one Rep. Grayson was arguing.  Check out the video for yourself. 


I'm not sure what the most disturbing element in this incident is: the fact that Rep. Grayson equates his opponent's mainstream religious views with a murderous theocratic regime, that he distorted and spliced Sen. Webster's words to do so, or the fact that he refuses to back down from the ad.  Rep. Grayson, it's a bad sign when you're a liberal and both AND MSNBC think you've gone too far. 

Posted by: Joel Harris AT 02:17 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, October 06 2010

They flip out when they are called on supporting child sacrifice.


They go berserk when they are called on their lack of support for human rights.

They lose control when they are called on supporting death panels.


And yet, time and again (as Joel Harris wrote about earlier), the spokesmen for the left reveal the evil that has corrupted them and continues to dominate their humanist positions. 

In an interview with the BBC on Oct. 4, Virginia Ironside, a columnist for the U.K. Independent made a jaw-dropping statement - that abortion and euthanasia could somehow be considered to be acts of kindness.


IRONSIDE: [I] think that if I were a mother of a suffering child, I would be the first to want I mean a deeply suffering child I would be the first one to put a pillow over its face, as I would with any suffering thing and I think the difference is that my feeling of horror, suffering is many greater than my feeling of getting rid of a couple of cells because suffering can go on for years.

SUSANNA REID (HOST): I'm sorry. I was just about to introduce the next guest, but that is a pretty horrifying thing to say, that you would put a pillow over a --


IRONSIDE: Of course I would, if it was a child I really loved who was any agony. I think any good mother would.

REID: That's going cause shock amongst some people.

IRONSIDE: I don't know any mother who wouldn't say if this was there was nothing else that could be done and it was

OTHER GUEST: That's just not true. That's just

REID: Do you think mothers would agree with you?

IRONSIDE: I think a lot would. Maybe not any, but a lot.


From Margaret Sanger to Virginia Ironside, there is much to fear when it comes to the left's contempt for the value and sanctity of human life. 


Their worldview teaches that life is nothing more than a mere product or machine part.  And when a part doesn't fit into the machine anymore, what do you do?  You discard it.


Those are the people we should fear.  Those are the people we should strive to keep from power.  Those are the people who belong confined to the fringes of our societies.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 01:30 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, October 06 2010

Fear the October surprise. 

That is the standard line given to politicians whose campaigns seem to be going well heading into the final stretch.  Typically October surprises are unrelated issues that have nothing to do with the actual abilities of the politician in question, but are brought up by that politician's opponent to shock the electorate enough to generate a bounce for the attacker.


Thomas Sowell calls it "red herring" politics.


And nowhere is there a clearer example of this type of desperate red herring maneuver than what is going on in California's Governor race, where the left attempted to drop a bomb on Republican candidate Meg Whitman's campaign.


They trotted out a young woman who is an illegal immigrant.  Evidently, this young woman forged her paperwork and her Social Security number in order to gain employment.  That employment was a housekeeping job for Meg Whitman.


Whitman paid and treated her well.  But when she found out that the woman was illegal, she fired her.  As Sowell writes,


What is Meg Whitman supposed to be guilty of? Not being able to tell false documents from real ones? Is that what voters are supposed to use to determine who to vote for as governor of California? A far more important question is whether voters can tell false issues from real ones.


Jerry Brown's campaign is hoping that they can't. 


And given Jerry Brown's track record during his previous term as California's chief executive, maybe you can't blame them.  It was an embarrassment then, and stands to be much worse if given another shot. 


This is precisely why the red herrings are flying in the Golden State.

Posted by: Anna Anderson AT 12:31 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, October 06 2010

While the Associated Press and other media outlets are focusing on New Jersey Governor Chris Christie's recent trip to Iowa to campaign for Terry Branstad as an indication of his interest in 2012, I think the real story is what he said.


According to the wire report,


Christie said Republicans must deliver on their conservative promises if they gain power during the November elections. If they don't follow through, he said voters will send the GOP "to the wilderness, and they are going to send us there for a long, long time."


"As a party, it is put up or shut up time," he said.


Voters are willing to accept the political pain of deep cuts in government spending as long as they know the pain is being spread equally, Christie argued. It makes sense to shrink government in tough economic times, and politicians seem to be the last to get that message, he said.


"We lost our way a number of years ago, and we became tax and spend light," he said. "Less spending, smaller government, less regulation, smaller government ? we're going to be all about that again. We have to step up and stand for those principles again."


He described former President Ronald Reagan as the last truly successful Republican political leader, because he stuck to those basic core principles "and that's what we need to be about today."


That's the story.  Leading Republicans are starting to get it.  They're starting to understand that the "big tent" philosophy of the left-leaning establishment is not good for the party, because no one wants to come in. 
Far better to have a small tent, but one that people are crowding to get into. 


There is one concerning part of Christie's position though:


Christie is among those who argue that Republicans can succeed when they focus on fiscal conservatism, often at the expense of focusing on key social issues.....


Obviously this is the AP speaking for Christie, but it would be a shame to see him take this dangerous path.  If he truly believes that conservatism sells, he is right. 


But like Reagan, he has to understand that it's a three-legged stool that includes social issues.  Without that leg, the stool collapses, as will Christie.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 11:00 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, October 06 2010

The president of Concerned Women for America, Wendy Wright, has a very interesting piece out at the American Thinker. 


It comes on the heels of Obama's newly-found interest in expounding upon his faith, something I dealt with previously here. 


Simply put, looking at Obama's track record, it is hard to reconcile his policy positions with any understanding of Biblical Christianity.  In fact, as Wright illustrates, just one of his policies violates all ten of the Ten Commandments!


Though some of these violations might be regarded as a bit of a stretch, many of them are patently obvious.  For instance:


#5. Honor your father and mother.


As parents age, it oftentimes falls on their children to make their health care decisions. It can be heart-wrenching. But it is our responsibility and duty as their children.


Under ObamaCare, that privilege will be stripped from us and given to unaccountable bureaucrats. They will ultimately decide what health care our parents can get. Medical advances will be stymied, and what is available will be rationed. The elderly will be denied hip replacements and heart surgeries, medical wonders that provide full and productive lives. This will lead to unnecessary disabilities and untimely deaths. Parents will be at the mercy of bureaucrats tasked with calculating costs, rather than a family motivated by love and honor.


Throw in the admonitions against coveting, theft, false witness and you begin to see what she's talking about.  And don't forget this one:


#6. You shall not murder.


ObamaCare allows government funding of abortion, the murder of the most innocent.


"By their fruits they will be known."  Obama's fruit continues to sour.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 09:20 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, October 06 2010

I tuned into "Dancing with the Stars" Monday night while one of the celebrities and her professional partner were already on the floor. I enjoyed their brightly colored costumes as they danced their samba. It was after their performance that I learned that it was "story night," and that their story was "gay pride."


It never dawned on me during their routine that their rainbow-colored costumes represented their pro-homosexual "story." Yes, I know that the homosexual movement has co-opted the rainbow as their symbol, and that is my point.


I am saddened that decent words and symbols can be so twisted into new meanings that automatically and totally represent this immorality and other debauchery. I like rainbows very much and would like to display stickers and other rainbow themed paraphernalia, but I cannot unless I do not mind being associated with the radical homosexual movement. Similarly, I dare not apply the word "gay" to another happy person. Sad.


One of the early persistent themes of the homosexual agenda was to "remove the government from their bedrooms." Fine. As far as I can tell, they have accomplished that. But that has certainly not stopped them from cramming their immorality into everyone else's life. I would be quite pleased to see homosexuals removed from our living rooms and especially out of our pocketbooks.



Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 07:43 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, October 05 2010

This is the argument that the pro-choice advocates are left with when the argument gets reduced to moral grounds.  Not coincidentally, this is also a major reason why you rarely see this side come out in public debate.  After all, it's much more comfortable to see the discussion revolve around "the woman's right to their body" or "keeping government out of the doctor's office" or even to keep things scientific throwing out terms like "fetus" and "embryo" than it is to deal with the moral questions of taking life. 


But when the moral question does come out, it's worth highlighting as is most evidenced by a recent debate on the BBC.  On a Sunday morning show, abortion advocate Virginia Ironside and pro-life advocate Rev. Joanna Jepson confronted the question of abortion and morality.  It led to this stunning revelation from Ms. Ironside:


If I were the mother of a suffering child - I mean a deeply suffering child - I would be the first to want to put a pillow over its face . . . If it was a child I really loved, who was in agony, I think any good mother would.


She then went on to argue how abortion can be a "good decision" that mothers can be "proud" of.  According to Ironside and her supporters, taking the life of children subjected to disability, or "unwanted" or "fatherless" children is really a "moral", "unselfish" and merciful act. 


But let's not stop there.  Let's expand this out to the other "unfortunate" and "unwanted" individuals subject to lives of "suffering".  Let's start with the poor.  In the slums of India quite literally millions of children are born to families destined to a life of poverty and poor health.  In the state of the current global recession, more people and children will be subjected to lives with less food and greater economic turmoil.  Why not be merciful and spare them of this suffering? 


Why not minorities?  Statistics show that those born to black families in America are disproportionately disadvantaged in comparison to other ethnicities.  This is also true in nearly every country, so the same principle could be extended.  How about trauma victims?  Let's simply take the lives of those exposed to severe trauma or to rape or sexual assault.  They are destined to suffer.  Why not free them and the people they engage of this burden? 


An old college friend, Matt Swaim, summed up this disturbed line of reasoning best when he said, "Pain is worse than death. Disability is worse than existence. And they will kill you because they say they love you. If you can't solve the suffering, get rid of the sufferer."


There is one word for this kind of thinking: depravity.  From the beginning of time man has attempted to justify immorality through fine sounding moral argument.  Ms. Ironside and this pro-choice argument is no exception to this rule. 

Posted by: Joel Harris AT 09:47 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, October 05 2010

There's an interesting piece over at Scientific American about "Faith and Foolishness" written by left wing scientist Lawrence M. Krauss.

While the early parts of the article focus on Krauss' dismay that Americans are resisting the embrace of the secular humanist interpretation of science to a greater degree than those in other industrialized nations, the latter parts make for some entertaining reading.


For instance, Krauss is apparently still carrying a chip on his shoulder from an event that occurred last May.  Apparently, Krauss had attended a conference on science where a speaker from the Vatican gave a keynote address.


After the address, it seems Krauss decided to attempt an ill-advised "gotcha" moment:


When I questioned how he reconciled his own reasonable views about science with the sometimes absurd and unjust activities of the Church?from false claims about condoms and AIDS in Africa to pedophilia among the clergy?I was denounced by one speaker after another for my intolerance.


Gee, professor...ya think?  Is Mr. Krauss really surprised that he received condemnation for attempting a slap at the Catholic Church like this?  If the Catholic Church was teaching the legitimacy of child molesting, I suppose it would be a reasonable question.  But they don't.  And it wasn't.  It was an arrogant atheist trying to embarrass the keynote speaker at an event.


Krauss also lamented that religion in America is leading to the death of women:


Religious leaders need to be held accountable for their ideas. In my state of Arizona, Sister Margaret McBride, a senior administrator at St. Joseph's Hospital in Phoenix, recently authorized a legal abortion to save the life of a 27-year-old mother of four who was 11 weeks pregnant and suffering from severe complications of pulmonary hypertension; she made that decision after consultation with the mother's family, her doctors and the local ethics committee. Yet the bishop of Phoenix, Thomas Olm­sted, immediately excommunicated Sister Margaret, saying, "The mother's life cannot be preferred over the child's." Ordinarily, a man who would callously let a woman die and orphan her children would be called a monster; this should not change just because he is a cleric.


Yes, and ordinarily sir, a man who would callously suggest burning a child to death with saline and decapitating her would be called a monster.  This should not change just because he is a scientist.


Krauss concludes with this howler:


Keeping religion immune from criticism is both unwarranted and dangerous. Unless we are willing to expose religious irrationality whenever it arises, we will encourage irrational public policy and promote ignorance over education for our children.


Does this man honestly think that fundamentalist Christians are immune from criticism in our culture?  If so, perhaps he should break free from the laboratory just long enough to actually observe our culture.


And is there not something odd about a man who promotes the idea that, "first there was nothing, and then it exploded," turning around and complaining about promoting ignorance?

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 12:45 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, October 05 2010

There used to be a time when communists knew they couldn't let their presence be known as they infiltrated the events of so-called progressives.  They knew that though those progressives had weak minds that were fertile ground for manipulation, outing themselves as communists would embarrass their "useful idiots" and hurt their ability to use them.


With the election of Barack Obama, evidently times have changed:


A close look at the Saturday "One Nation" rally in Washington reveals something quite telling. It was a major gathering of the "progressive" left, highly billed, vigorously promoted. And it happened to include -- in fact, it warmly accepted -- the endorsement of Communist Party USA.

Expectedly, a bunch of the rally's
endorsers carried the word "progress" or "progressive" in their title, from People's Organization for Progress to Progressive Democrats of America. More still unhesitatingly describe themselves as progressive, from racial eugenicist Margaret Sanger's Planned Parenthood to Norman Lear's heirs at People for the American Way, plus the usual suspects from the "social justice" Religious Left.

And then, too, there was CPUSA.

Kengor outlines the communists' long history of duping the liberals and progressives in his piece.  But what should concern all of us is not that progressives have been easily manipulated by communists in the past, but rather that they don't even need to be anymore:


And that was precisely what spilled into the streets on Saturday, October 2 in the "One Nation" rally, fittingly centralized in Washington. This time, however, the collective was unafraid, buttressed by a confidence that coaxed the communists out of the closet and into the welcoming arms of "progressives."

Gee, you'd think that after the collapse of the USSR and the Berlin Wall, and after 100 million corpses, progressives would be fleeing communists like the plague.

Kengor's right.  They should be.  That they're not is beyond frightening.

Posted by: Anna Anderson AT 11:01 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, October 05 2010

The mere fact that everybody and their brother is trying to figure out what, exactly, Obama believes, is a startling commentary on how easily manipulated we have become as a people.


How is it even possible that a man can meteorically rise to the top of the American federal government without anyone actually knowing who he is and what he believes?  The cult of personality is strong.  And while the mainstream media is no longer a monopoly, they obviously still wield great influence over our people.


Anti-colonialist, socialist, intellectual Marxist, atheist, Muslim...everyone has an opinion.  I have my own, but found this most recent contribution to the discussion by Human Events writer Benjamin Wiker to be persuasive:


The important thing about this testimonial (if true), is that I'd finally be able to peg Obama's real motivations. He'd be a rather typical example, straight from the 19th Century, of a Christian liberal who stopped believing in the essential dogmas of Christianity but still clung to a heavily modified form of its social doctrines.

In this new liberal faith, Jesus was demoted to being a great moral exemplar, a kind of revolutionary put to death for preaching a radical social doctrine Roman and Jewish leaders found too politically unsettling. The liberalized form of Christianity had, and still has, its own evangelical goal that defined its decidedly political bent: heaven must be brought to Earth, and governments must take on the task of wiping every tear away.

If that is what Obama really is?not a Muslim, but severely liberalized Christian?then there's at least a little hope. There is no doubt that Obama is a liberal, but liberalism is, in great part, the passionate embrace of Christianity, except without the embarrassing God part.

To be more exact, it's a secularized form of Christianity, taking all the evangelical zeal originally directed to the kingdom of God, and pointing it toward constructing a this-worldly secular utopia.

Wiker found this possibility somewhat comforting, as he noted:


But if Christianity still has some faint hold on his heart, Obama might yet see that government cannot take the place of God, that sins are very real and spread evenly among the population, both rich and poor, and that creating a kingdom of heaven is best left in divine (rather than bureaucratic) hands.

But Wiker isn't buying this profession of faith.  And I'm not either.  There's too much else that surrounds this man Obama contradicting such a claim.  It's what Scripture means when it says by their fruits they will be known.


Obama's fruit has bloomed and is blooming...and it isn't fruit that comes from Biblical Christianity.  Which means, Obama's recent venture into the realm of faith discussion may be much more related to his Machiavellian manipulation of the masses than a window into his heart.


As Wiker notes,


I am not suggesting that Obama is a ruthless Machiavellian, slitting throats behind the scene. But whatever he intends, his sudden use of the language of evangelical Christianity (very sudden, i.e., as in "never happened before") cannot help but seem to be a poorly orchestrated attempt to salvage whatever he can of the Left's hold on the political helm by appearing to be a Christian.


If Wiker's right, it takes the dangerousness of the Obama administration and magnifies it tenfold.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 09:43 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, October 05 2010

I admit that initially I was skeptical.  I didn't think it was possible - even for Mr. Hope and Change - for Barack Obama's new tone to effectively bring all our mortal enemies in the world to the bargaining table for a rousing rendition of Kumbaya.


When he went on his Apologize-for-America World Tour, I criticized him.  When he handed out reset buttons and constantly blamed his predecessor for causing all the aggression and anger directed towards us, I scoffed.  When he lectured that our invasion of Iraq is what precipitated the rise of global terror, I berated his position.


But I am man enough to admit when I'm wrong.  And with results like this, there's just no arguing with reality:


Iran's president Sunday called for U.S. leaders to be "buried" in response to what he says are American threats of military attack against Tehran's nuclear program.


Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is known for brash rhetoric in addressing the West, but in a speech Sunday he went a step further using a deeply offensive insult in response to U.S. statements that the military option against Iran is still on the table.


"May the undertaker bury you, your table and your body, which has soiled the world," he said using language in Iran reserved for hated enemies.


Compelling results, as always, from the strategy of appeasement.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 08:30 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Monday, October 04 2010

America has found it's next great communicator.  Ed Schultz.


His performance at the sparse "One Nation" rally in Washington was one to behold.  First, merely compare the name and theme of the event (unity) with the words from Schultz's "speech:"


The conservative voices in America, they are holding you down.  They don't believe in your freedom.  They want the concentration of wealth.  They've shipped your jobs overseas...They don't want us to have healthcare...They suppress your vote...they want discrimination.


Nothing like mean-spirited deception and bitter partisanship to inspire unity among the people!


But besides that, so much of this speech was an English or speech teacher's nightmare.


For example, Ed kept asking over and over,


Are you Americans?  Are you Americans?


Perhaps this was meant to fire up the audience.  It confused them.  Other than the illegal aliens there, it was kind of an obvious question, no?


To our brothers and sisters who have seen their jobs go overseas, we will not let that happen.


Say what?  If the job has already gone overseas, what are you not going to let happen?  If it's already there, what does this even mean?


You love this country.  We died for this country. Ed channeling Barack Obama, who sees dead people?  Who died for this country, Ed?  I mean, given the fact that they are alive to hear you speak those words (though to be fair, many of them resembled corpses while listening to Ed's rant), pretty much obliterates the notion that they died for this country, doesn't it?


They don't want you to organize in the workplace.  They suppress your vote.


This coming from the same man, and cheered by the same crowd, that favors the Employee Free Choice Act...a union-demanded piece of legislation that would - ironically enough - destroy the secret ballot vote in the workplace, and would open it up to union bosses to use bullying and intimidation tactics.


And this is only the beginning.  If you can stomach it, you really should watch the speech.  It's inane, grammatically atrocious, and full of so many meaningless platitudes that it would destroy the credibility of any other speaker in the country.

But this is Ed Schultz, and you can't destroy what isn't there in the first place.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 01:25 pm   |  Permalink   |  1 Comment  |  Email
Monday, October 04 2010

A small business in Indianapolis, Just Cookies, is the most recent target of the bullying tactics of the radical homosexual lobby.  Thanks to the ill-advised "anti-discrimination" statute foolishly enacted by the city of Indianapolis, the Mayor's office is now considering evicting the business since they did not agree to condone homosexuality by participating in "National Coming Out Day."


Read Peter's explanation of the discrimination taking place against those with moral values here.


But here's the most recent update of how the people of Indianapolis and the state of Indiana have responded to this story:


1. Over 3,000 emails have been sent to the Mayor's office complaining about any potential punishment of Just Cookies.


2. Reports are that the Mayor's office has fielded hundreds of calls supportive of Just Cookies' rights.


3. Just Cookies sold out of cookies twice the very day this story became national and statewide news.


4. Reports are that people were lined up ten deep at times just to encourage the owners.


5. Two of the greatest religious liberties law firms (Alliance Defense Fund and Liberty Counsel) have been in touch with the owners to offer assistance.

Posted by: Anna Anderson AT 12:16 pm   |  Permalink   |  2 Comments  |  Email
Monday, October 04 2010

On Friday, I commented on her outraged condemnation of James O'Keefe's disgusting attempted prank on CNN.


I said then that the seriousness with which we can take her cries of sexism depended entirely on her willingness to condemn sexist behavior on her own side of the political aisle.


Finding examples of it would not be difficult.  In fact, I gave her two to start with: Bob Beckel's explosion of "You're just a woman," or Keith Olbermann's "mashed up bag of meat with lipstick on it."


And now, another:


Jay Leno on Friday made an oral sex joke about Delaware Republican senatorial candidate Christine O'Donnell.


His "Tonight Show" guest was "Family Guy" creator Seth MacFarlane, who last week himself made a sexual comment about O'Donnell on HBO's "Real Time" as NewsBusters previously reported.


Leno brought this up with MacFarlane who joked, "I think the second she opened her mouth, it would probably ruin everything."


The "Tonight Show" host responded, "Or make it really good."


So what say you, Ms. Leo?  Does making jokes about oral sex with a successful and prominent conservative woman count as sexism in your book?

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 11:20 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Monday, October 04 2010

Remember when Sarah Palin's remarks about Obamacare death panels spurred the left on to an overtime apoplectic fit? Her studied remarks were labeled "disgusting" and "outrageous."


Leave it to a liberal, though, to actually confirm the accuracy of conservatives' analysis of social issues. In a weekend McClatchy newspaper editorial, "veteran Canadian journailst" Bogdan Kipling writes,


Had the Democrats merely listened to the wise counsel of such progressives as Reps. Jim McDermott (D-WA) and Texas maverick Jim Hightower and pressed for single-payer while they had a staggering majority they likely could have avoided all of this.


From a Canadian perspective, they might be far happier if they had. Yes, the Canadian system has some major flaws, but most of the country's 34-million inhabitants seem relatively happy with it. It provides all the necessities, but few of the expensive frills of the American system.


Then again most Canadians are hardy enough souls that they have no desire to cling to a life that is not really living. What could be more horrendous than to be kept alive for a few more months by excruciatingly painful operations that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars? What could be more undignified at the end of the life than to have a nursing-care attendant wake you up to wipe dribble from your chin? And what could be more heartrending than have your family and loved ones see you in such a pathetic condition?


When it comes to prolonging life beyond its normal range, Americans might do well to remember Shakespeare's immortal lines in Julius Caesar: "Cowards die many times before their deaths; the valiant never taste of death but once."


Suck it up America! By the time the ObamaCare disaster craps out; you're going to have to.


Yes, leave it to the left to determine that they can decide what the "normal range" of life is. Being the elitist liberal that he is, of course Kipling perceives that Canadian citizens are "relatively happy" with their national rationed health care. That is the system that has been foisted onto them - for their own good, of course. With no choice, what else are they going to do but to "seem relatively happy" with it and "suck it up?"


But then, some Canadians take advantage of the ability to supplement their rationed "no frills" health care with American treatment by making the trip across the border to receive services in a more timely manner. Perhaps those who the Canadian system has determined are exceeding the "normal range" of life seek a second opinion.


Sure, at some point a person or family might have to decide when further care and treatment is fruitless. The dangerous arrogance lodged in Obamacare and all the other socialist style, government-run health care systems is that a government has the capability and the imperative to make that life-and-death decision in place of the patient and family.


Even though the left continually want to make Palin and other conservatives out to be backwater know-nothings, whose analysis of today's issues always ultimately ring true?

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 10:14 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Monday, October 04 2010

There are some people you just don't want on your team. 


This is an axiom that dates back to the days of kickball on the elementary playground.  The kid who would whiff three times and strike out; the kid who sat in the outfield and picked daisies; the kid who would try to make an impossible throw, fall down and manage to deflate the ball in the process.


Bob Shrum is the political equivalent of that kid.


His involvement in a political campaign has been the sweet kiss of death for more candidates and causes than one can imagine (he's 0 for 7 in presidential campaigns).  Yet somehow, some way, he continues to find work.


One can fairly imagine then, the collective groans coming up from the Democratic Party leadership when they read Shrum's latest column.  In it, Shrum dusted off his crystal ball and made a prophecy regarding the coming elections:


I now think the Democrats will hold the Congress - yes, the House as well as the Senate - and turn back high-profile Republican challengers in California and elsewhere.


Shrum predicts the failure of tea party supported Republican candidates from Delaware to California, Pennsylvania to Kentucky, all because - as he sees it - the Republican opposition to Obama's agenda is becoming increasingly unpopular.


It's a pretty good analysis, apart from it being totally detached from reality.


But carry on, Bob!  Here's to hoping your wizard-like skills of predicting the future are still as honed as they were on election day 2004 when, after reading exit polls, you walked by your boss John Kerry and clairvoyantly asked, "Can I be the first to call you Mr. President?" 

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 10:10 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Monday, October 04 2010

Oh dear.  This is embarrassing.


MSNBC host Ed Schultz, on August 31st, 2010 (commenting on the turnout for Glenn Beck's "Restoring Honor" rally):


I could get every union head in this country, I could organize every progressive group in this country, the main bloggers.  This could be The Ed March.  Folks, 300,000 people on the heels of six months' promotion, that ain't no big shakes!




I bet I could do that!  I bet I could do that with this radio show and my TV show and six' months' production, six months' promotion, if I had the budget I could equal that march.  I know I could!  I know I could!


I know that I could get Leo Gerard, I could get the Service Employees International Union, I could get AFSCME, I could get all these - I guarantee you, I could do more than 300,000!  It ain't a big deal!


And now, the pictures that are just, well, judge for yourself.


Ed's "One Nation" rally:




Glenn's "Restoring Honor" rally:



Ain't a big deal.  I'm sure it's just because Ed didn't have six months to prepare.

Posted by: Anna Anderson AT 07:56 am   |  Permalink   |  1 Comment  |  Email
Sunday, October 03 2010

Sadly, reports are breaking that:


[T]he [U.S.] government conducted medical experiments in the 1940s in which doctors infected soldiers, prisoners and mental patients in Guatemala with syphilis and other sexually transmitted diseases. The experiments, led by a federal doctor who helped conduct the famous Tuskegee syphilis study in Alabama, involved about 1,500 men and women who were unwittingly drafted into studies aimed at determining the effectiveness of penicillin.


These medical experiments were conducted between 1946 and 1948, so I do not think that even the most creative liberal can pin this one on the Bush administration. In fact, which party was in the White House then? Let's see... Hmmmm.


Anyway, this should give a clear warning signal to even those living in the land of left-believe. Small, transparent government held responsible to the people do not conduct secret experiments on uninformed and unwilling people. Large, out-of-control governments staffed by professional politicians and bureaucrats that become too complex for the citizens to easily monitor get away with conducting secret experiments. Since it was possible to get away with this in the 1940s, imagine the potential today.


For some odd reason, liberals express reprehension at this type of Big Government tyranny - as well they should - then turn around and deride mercilessly TEA Party participants for demanding smaller, more accountable, Constitutional government.


Hey, maybe their government should conduct experiments on liberals. Oh, wait a minute. There's got to be something there worth experimenting on in the first place.


Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 09:01 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Saturday, October 02 2010

Speaking at an event for Gen44, our president said, "People are frustrated, their anxious, they're scared about the future. And they have a right to be impatient about the pace of change. I'm impatient. It took time to free the slaves."


Yes, Mr. President, it took time to free the slaves because the DEMOCRAT political party in America refused to end that peculiar institution and blocked every effort to do so.


Yes, Mr. President, it took time to free the slaves because the DEMOCRAT political party in America chose to secede from the Union.


Yes, Mr. President, it took time to free the slaves because the REPUBLICAN political party in America had to fight a bitter, costly war in order to preserve the Union and to secure the freedom of the slaves.


So, Mr. President, as a white conservative Republican, I accept your words of appreciation. You're welcome, Mr. President.

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 09:00 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Saturday, October 02 2010

I want you to pause and reflect a moment on September 11, 2001. Four American commercial jets and all their passengers obliterated by mid-morning of that day. The World Trade Center twin towers demolished. The American center of military planning attacked. 2,977 innocent victims brutally and violently massacred on that day of infamy.


Now consider breaking reports concerning the exposed plots to attack major cities in Europe in the same murderous manner.

Osama bin Laden emerged Friday as possibly a key figure in a European terror plot, raising speculation he may be flexing his muscles in a move to show a besieged al-Qaida remains strong and able to launch major attacks on Western targets.

U.S. counterterrorism officials said they believe that senior al-Qaida leaders, including bin Laden, were involved in the plan to strike several European cities in a coordinated assault.

These terrorists and enemies of freedom clearly intend to wage unrestricted warfare against everyday citizens doing everyday activities. They do not care who they kill, how they kill them, or where they kill them.


They want to murder you, your husband or wife, your children, your grandchildren, and everyone else they consider their enemy - which is everyone else who is not a radical, terrorist Muslim. (And if you are a radical, terrorist Muslim, then you can be expected to sacrifice your own life for the sake of butchering your enemies). The enemies of freedom have not stopped plotting more murderous rampages. They still hate us; we are still at war with a dangerously deadly foe.


Now think back to a few days ago and Anna's post about the ACLU lawsuit against the Obama administration for its targeted killings of terrorists. Yes, our beloved ACLU wants to protect the lives of those who seek to butcher each and every one of us. Think about what this means for Europeans and Americans under the threat of death from these monsters.


This is what it means to me: the aclu and their allies are fifth-columnists. On my blog in 2006 (My Take: Enemies Foreign and Domestic and Fifth-Columnists Strike Again), I detailed the reasons and evidence for my declaration.


I have long decided that if America is once again attacked on a scale similar to 9/11, I will hold those fifth-columnists personally responsible for their part. I doubt that they care much about what goes on at chuckschants, but I think that every American, especially every new victim created by another attack, should hold all of these organizations and individuals responsible for refusing to support America's efforts to defeat these dangerous, fanatic, and deadly enemies of the free world. This latest plot could have been that attack. Over and over we have heard from these organizations, including elected politicians of the Democratic Party, protest about being called unpatriotic because of their opposition to this war. When their opposition impedes America's ability to win and provides sensitive information to our enemies, then, yes, they are unpatriotic. Their actions speak louder than their words.


Sadly, nothing has changed in the four years since.

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 06:00 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Saturday, October 02 2010

On September 30th, the president spoke at a $30,400 per person dinner fundraiser hosted at the home of a couple of friends. Linda Douglass, a former CBS and ABC reporter who joined the White House to publicize and promote the national health care plan, and her husband, John Phillips, a wealthy lawyer, also own a home in Italy.


During his visit, our "friend-of-the-little-guy" president asked his hosts why he had not been invited to Italy for a visit. "I'd appreciate a little break and some Tuscan sun. Some pasta. I can use it."


Does it not strike anyone else as a wee bit odd that Democrats always get to proclaim that they are the party that represents working, struggling Americans? Yet over and over, Americans are treated to some display of opulence - if I were a liberal penning this article, I would write obscene opulence - by the left.


How many readers own a second home in Italy? How many of you even personally know someone who owns a second home in Italy? How many of you can afford $30,400 a plate fundraiser dinners? But Democrats get away with a free pass every time they tell us how they are on the side of Joe the Plumber and other working Americans?


I think that all Americans ought to contact Mr. and Mrs. Douglass-Phillips and request a bit of a break in Italy. We'd like some Tuscan sun and pasta, too.


Party of working Americans? Right.
Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 12:30 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, October 01 2010

What would happen if teachers were allowed to speak for themselves, rather than having their opinions determined for them by their teachers' union bosses?


Thanks to the American Association of Educators, you don't have to wonder.


The AAE is the largest national non-union teachers' association.  They offer an alternative to the partisan politics and non-educational agendas of the teacher labor unions.  In other words, they focus on improving education rather than spending hard-working teacher dues on a radical, anti-American, anti-Christian agenda.


Every year, the AAE conducts a survey of its members, asking real teachers to express their opinions on issues rather than telling them what their opinions should be (ala NEA).


The answers might surprise you:


Eighty percent of teachers surveyed support a value-added assessment when student test scores are used as part of teacher evaluation.


Eighty-one percent of those surveyed responded that tenure is not necessary for an educator to properly perform his or her job effectively. Further, eighty percent of respondents disagree that achieving tenure indicates an effective teacher.


When posed with examples in states like Colorado, AAE members overwhelmingly support (81 percent) a policy that teachers may lose tenure if they are deemed ineffective for two consecutive years.


With regard to compensation, despite strong efforts by the labor unions to keep educators on a structured pay scale based on tenure, AAE members support certain types of differentiated pay and disagree strongly with the saying, "Last hired, first fired." More than 80 percent of survey participants supported teachers being paid more for taking on additional roles and responsibilities in their schools, and 79 percent supported educators being paid more to teach in high need schools such as inner city or rural schools.


The National Education Association and its subsidiaries remain the most powerful, and consequently the most dangerous union operating in the United States.  But times might be

"AAE is committed to surveying its members on a regular basis so that we can better serve and represent their views," stressed AAE Executive Director, Mr. Gary Beckner. "The labor unions claim to represent teachers and oppose reforms at every turn. It's clear that sentiments are changing and teachers are warming to reforms. These survey results indicate a complete contradiction to the same old union mantras."


For the sake of our country and our kids, here's to hoping the AAE and other groups like it continue to grow, prosper and delegitimize the radical left-wing agenda of the teachers' unions.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 01:30 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, October 01 2010

CNN ran with the story of James O'Keefe (famous for his ACORN exposing pimp routine) and his sick attempted prank of a CNN reporter.

The details of the attempted prank are gross, childish and completely indefensible, to be sure.  They are garnering the condemnation of CNN and the left, obviously.  But they are also being roundly criticized and disavowed by the right as well.  Brent Bozell of Media Research Center issued this statement:


The MRC unequivocally denounces James O'Keefe for his attempted assault on CNN. It isn't just childish and immature; it's ugly, dishonest and filthy. There is no place in the conservative movement for this type of behavior and that's exactly what I warned about in a commentary piece I submitted to just two days ago.


Bottom line: We want nothing to do with O'Keefe or his dirty antics.


What remains to be seen is whether the left, in expressing their understandable animosity towards O'Keefe's prank will be equally concerned about the degradation of women by their own.


For instance, Alex Leo writes at the Huffington Post:


This language and this plan is so obviously the work of people threatened by women with power, by women they can't control, by women with opposing views, by women who are not submissive to them.


It is vital we recognize this for what it was: not simply a partisan attack on supposed liberals, but an attack on women. These assumptions are common, even if outlandish sex-boat plans are not.


The seriousness with which we can take Ms. Leo depends largely on whether she will simultaneously condemn folks like Democrat strategist Bob Beckel and other slime merchants on her own side of the political aisle when they attack strong, conservative women.


Leo concludes,


This issue is beyond left and right, it's about demanding these actions not be tolerated and demanding people take a stand.


You're right, Ms. Leo.  So when the next Palin attack comes (or on other rising conservative women), we'll be looking for your piece.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 11:00 am   |  Permalink   |  1 Comment  |  Email
Friday, October 01 2010

You might remember when Barack Obama gave one of his typical holier-than-thou lectures a few months ago at the University of Michigan commencement, declaring:


For if we choose only to expose ourselves to opinions and viewpoints that are in line with our own, studies suggest that we become more polarized, more set in our ways.


There were many Americans who reasonably rolled their eyes at such a sanctimonious plea from a guy that had declared an all-out war on Fox News, among other blatantly biased gestures.


Well, once again demonstrating how seriously he takes his own lectures, Mr. "Let's Expose Ourselves to Other Opinions" has struck.  And it's so hypocritical that even CNN noticed:


JOHN KING, HOST: Sometimes you feel sad to be left out of a big debate. This is not one of those sometimes. In an interview with "Rolling Stone," President Obama voiced the opinion that Fox News is a "destructive" force in our society. On the other hand, the left hand in this case, Obama spokesman Bill Burton said the President believes MSNBC commentators Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow provide "an invaluable service" to that same society and democracy. So, according to the President this is "destructive."


Which begs the question: if the president doesn't even take seriously the very standards he arrogantly sets for others, why should we?

Posted by: Anna Anderson AT 10:17 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, October 01 2010

For those who still believe the homosexual lobby isn't an active force in our culture threatening the very civil liberties and freedoms perpetuated by our recognition of moral authority, pull your head from the sand long enough to recognize what is happening in Indianapolis:


The owners of a cookie shop that has operated for more than two decades inside the Indianapolis City Market could face eviction.


The city is investigating whether the owner of Just Cookies engaged in discrimination last week when he cited moral objections to homosexuality as his reason for declining a customer's request to provide rainbow-iced cookies for a "National Coming Out Day" event planned for Oct. 7 at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis.


"That could be grounds for taking away their stand in the market," said Wayne Schmidt, president of the City Market Board, who said Just Cookies is on a month-to-month lease. "I'd hate to lose them, but we can't tolerate any kind of discrimination like that.


Keep in mind, this isn't a case where the business owners are asking their customers whether they are gay or straight and then kicking out or refusing to sell cookies to those who are "gay."


Indeed, Lily Stockton (co-owner) said, "I don't ask people about their sexual orientation. Everyone is welcome to come buy our cookies."


No, this was a request from Heather Browning (IUPUI's coordinator of something called "social justice education" in the Office of Student Involvement) to make a large special order for an event specifically glorifying the homosexual lifestyle.


The owner, David Stockton, said that he could not in good conscience endorse that activity and encouraged Ms. Browning to take her business elsewhere, which she did.


But now the city government is getting involved, and is preparing to revoke the company's lease for violating a city ordinance against discriminatory policies.


This is precisely the problem with such ordinances that, with the best of intentions, confuse someone's behavior (homosexuality) with someone's identity.  Do we really want people and businesses to be unable to "discriminate" against people based on their behavior?


Child molesters as teachers?  Don't discriminate!  Violent sex offenders as Boy Scout leaders?  Don't discriminate!  Obviously this is an absurd proposition.  But what is more absurd is that so many seemingly rational people can't grasp how we are laying the illogical groundwork for such a cultural foundation of shifting sand.


Some get it:


Micah Clark, who heads the American Family Association of Indiana, said the Stocktons have nothing to apologize for -- and that business owners should be well within their rights to refuse such special requests on moral grounds.


Clark said he planned to contact the Stocktons and see whether they might be interested in any legal assistance that his organization could provide.


"You have to wonder, what rights do business owners have?" Clark said. "It's one thing if someone walks into a store and buys a cookie off the shelf, but (the Stocktons) were being asked to become part of the (National Coming Out Day) celebration.


"To make rainbow cookies for a special event with which the company has a disagreement -- I think that goes beyond the pale of what we should expect companies to do."


For all those who continue to ignorantly believe that the homosexual movement respects the rights of conscience, religion, and speech...all evidence to the contrary.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 07:51 am   |  Permalink   |  1 Comment  |  Email
click between 3-5 pm ET