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

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

Saturday, December 31 2011

The Start of the 2012 Indiana General Assembly is right around the corner. For the eighth year in a row, the Indiana Capitol Commission is hosting a prayer service to start off the legislative session. Last year more than 300 people attended this important event, which numerous churches have promoted because it is important to pray for those in authority over us.

Matthew Barnes, a very gifted and talented young man, leads the Capitol Commission of Indiana. He has a servant's heart for ministry within the limestone walls of your Indiana State House. Matthew is one of the most respected people in the capitol. His dedication to serving the needs of legislators and staff as a volunteer chaplain has inspired other pastors across the nation to follow his calling here in Indiana. Matthew is appreciated for his service, and to his credit, he is recognized as a non-partisan resource there purely for soul care needs of legislators. Many legislators have unique needs and pressures that come from working in downtown Indianapolis far away from their homes and families.

The Capitol Commission prayer service is open to anyone who supports the goals of this ministry (which is funded solely through private donations.) The service begins at noon on the main floor of the State House on Wednesday, January 4th. Here is the line up for the service:

KEEP READING

Posted by: Micah Clark AT 06:17 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Saturday, December 31 2011

Before I was able to write this, I had to lie down for a few minutes at let my head stop spinning. I was just watching R.T. Rybak, the Vice-Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, on C-SPAN's Washington Journal doing his best to spin the truth to prop up Pres. Obama. We are going to have to endure this nonsense until November. Prepare yourself for a frustrating campaign season.

 

 

It is sad when a President can't run on the success of his first administration. His campaign strategy is primarily going to be about the Republicans in the House, and secondarily on the terrible economy he inherited from President Bush. True to form, Mr. Rybak did not focus on President Obama's accomplishments (even missing the soon-to-be constantly recited fact that "President Obama got Osama bin Laden"). It was as if he was giving excuses why President Obama was not able to do the things he promised in the last campaign. It speaks volumes on this administration's dismal performance concerning the economy and foreign affairs.

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Matthew W. Turner AT 12:12 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, December 28 2011

Trumpeted across Big Entertainment and Big Media outlets last week has been a list of the First Family's TV shows. At the top of the list for the First Lady and her daughters is "Modern Family."

 

 

Little wonder, then, that America has become a land of moral quagmire. I have never watched an episode, so I am way behind the times. I am a pop culture Neanderthal (with apologies to the Geico caveman). Nevertheless, I am not completely ignorant of the show's content; after all, it is crammed down the throats of non-viewers via plenty of other venues such as promotions, talk shows, articles, and the like. It does not take a discerning viewer - like me - long to put two and two together and come up with the thrust of the program. And the program's thrust is to further rupture the overall moral climate of the nation and world. The Wikipedia article about the program cites this controversy:

Modern Family drew criticism from the LGBT community for its portrayal of Cameron and Mitchell as not being physically affectionate with each other. The criticism spawned a Facebook campaign to demand Mitchell and Cameron be allowed to kiss. In response to the controversy, producers released a statement that a season two episode would address Mitchell's discomfort with public displays of affection. Executive producer Levitan has said that it was unfortunate that the issue had arisen, since the show's writers had always planned on such a scene "as part of the natural development of the show." The episode "The Kiss" eventually aired with the kiss scene in the background which drew praise from multiple critics.

The debauchery of the sexual anarchy revolution marches on, and this is the "favorite TV show" that informs and shapes the Obama children in their formative years.

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 07:35 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, December 28 2011

Last Thursday, Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller's office made the case for the law prohibiting abortion providers like Planned Parenthood from receiving state taxpayer funding. Solicitor General Tom Fisher made the appeal in Chicago before the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, a federal agency that deals with these kinds of funding disputes with the states. Such disputes are fairly common as states make all sorts of adjustments to fit their own public policy and criteria. Fisher argued that state law allows Indiana to set qualifications for funding of service providers. He asked the agency to reconsider its ruling in June barring the new state law (HEA 1210) from taking effect.

"This is the appropriate forum for the dispute between Indiana and the federal government over whether our State's plan can prevent indirect Medicaid funding for abortion procedures by precluding Medicaid funds from going to abortion providers. We contend the State was fully within its authority to set provider qualifications for Medicaid funding, so we are asking the federal agency to reverse its earlier decision and approve Indiana's Medicaid plan amendment," Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller said.

KEEP READING

Posted by: Micah Clark AT 06:52 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, December 27 2011

James Madison, known as the "Chief Architect of the Constitution," observed in 1785, "Religion must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right."As an unalienable right, the government has virtually no justification for interfering with a church's operations, or doctrines. Prominent founding era Supreme Court Justice, Joseph Story observed, "The rights of conscience are beyond the just reach of any human power. They must not be encroached upon by human authority."

I doubt if many of the pastors and concerned citizens in Vanderburgh County were thinking of these exact quotes over the last few days. Yet, hundreds of them contacted the Board of County Commissioners to express their concerns over a proposed "non-discrimination ordinance" because they realized it actually discriminated against people of faith. They understood that it could force them to violate their consciences in order to continue to operate as they are.

The county was set to pass a "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" ordinance that had flown past the city council two weeks earlier. It had easily passed with very little discussion. Preventing its spread countywide last night had appeared to be a losing battle.

KEEP READING

Posted by: Micah Clark AT 06:27 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Monday, December 26 2011

Peter Heck will be taking some time away from the radio show here at the end of 2011 and into the very beginning of 2012.  In his place will be a capable line-up of guest hosts and special programming you don't want to miss:

Monday, December 26: WIOU Sports Special Programming
Tuesday, December 27: WIOU Sports Special Programming
Wednesday, December 28: Guest Host Joel Harris
Thursday, December 29: The Best of the Peter Heck Radio Show
Friday, December 30: Guest Host Craig Jackson

Monday, January 2: WIOU Sports Special Programming
Tuesday, January 3: Guest Host John Branyan

Peter will return to the studio on Wednesday, January 4th...the day after the Iowa Caucuses.

Posted by: Anna Anderson AT 09:00 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Monday, December 26 2011

This week's lib-quote is not really made by someone I consider a liberal by modern application. However, it is a quote being used by atheists who have coerced their way into displacing some of the Christmas displays at a coastal park in Santa Monica, California. Instead of bringing messages of hope and peace to the community, they like to force on park participants their typical incivility and vulgarity. One of their "displays" reads:

"Religions are all alike ? founded upon fables and mythologies. ? Thomas Jefferson."

 

As noted above, I do not hold Thomas Jefferson to be anything like the person that modern liberals make him out to be in their forms of rewritten history. However, the use of this so-called quote makes it my lib-quote choice of the week. A couple of observations:

 

First, I attempted to fact-check the quote itself. My first inclination was to wonder about the context. I know that Jefferson was swayed by the emerging rationalism of his period, but that does not mean that he ever developed a complete animosity toward religion. He certainly developed a big dose of skepticism, but it did not lead to a complete rejection of religion as far as I know. My fact-check attempts have not been completely thorough, but I did run across a letter written to The Argonaut, a local paper, in which Eric Cooper of Santa Monica observes:

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 07:29 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Monday, December 26 2011

It's time to address two myths about small, private schools and homeschooling which still linger today. I can understand why the public questioned the overall quality of these alternatives to the government schools when the movement began. After all, we do not have near the resources afforded to the government schools, nor the regulations which supposedly guards the public from "unqualified staff" and "unapproved curriculum." However, after thirty years of success, you would think the debate would be over. Parents who choose to leave the government schools can rest assured their children can receive a quality, well-rounded education at a fraction of the cost they are told private schools cost.

 

 

The first myth deals with academic excellence. There is ample statistical proof the government schools do not hold an academic advantage to alternatives. Nearly every private school and homeschooler I know administers nationally standardized achievement tests and encourages their students to take college and military entrance exams, and every college our students have applied for has accepted them. The only people who ever question our quality are other public school administrators, and that has only happened a few times in my twenty-plus years.

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Matthew W. Turner AT 07:00 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Monday, December 26 2011

Even though it's well past thanksgiving, I want to express my thanks for the joy I get from watching MSNBC. No, I don't watch it for the news...I watch for its comedic effect. The things their wacky hosts say crack me up. For those of you who can't stand to watch MSNBC, here is the link to the "Lean Forward" commercial featuring Lawrence O'Donnell. I found it to be quite entertaining. I laughed so hard I hurt myself.

 

 

After regaining my composure, I realized there were at least two things to be deduced from this commercial. First, MSNBC will do their part by being an advocate for President Obama's reelection bid. The ad is a direct attack on every conservative Republican candidate. Also, this is yet another case study into the warped reality in which the left lives. Larry actually claimed the jobs the candidates now have, and all others by implication, were created by the government.

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Matthew W. Turner AT 06:03 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Saturday, December 24 2011

And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed. (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.) And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.

 

And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David.) To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.

 

 

And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered. And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.

 

And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid. And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger. And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.

 

And it came to pass, as the angels were gone away from them into heaven, the shepherds said one to another, Let us now go even unto Bethlehem, and see this thing which is come to pass, which the Lord hath made known unto us. And they came with haste, and found Mary, and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger. And when they had seen it, they made known abroad the saying which was told them concerning this child. And all they that heard it wondered at those things which were told them by the shepherds. But Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart.

 

And the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things that they had heard and seen, as it was told unto them.

Posted by: Anna Anderson AT 06:00 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, December 23 2011

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

 

A couple months ago, I had an on-air conversation with veteran liberal commentator Cokie Roberts who spent a great deal of time discussing her belief that then Republican frontrunner Mitt Romney would struggle in early Republican primary states because they are heavy laden with evangelical Christian voters. Those voters, she supposed, would struggle against their inner bigot when it came to voting for a Mormon.

 

Curious about this sudden liberal concern over anti-religious zealotry, I followed up her analysis with a question: "On the heels of the outrageous leftwing attacks on the Mormon church during the Proposition 8 battle in California, and given some of the recent mockery of the Mormon faith coming from left wing commentators like Bill Maher, suppose Mitt Romney does win the nomination, Ms. Roberts. How much worse do you think the religious bigotry of the left will be in the general election?" Though she eventually acknowledged that yes, "there could be some of that," overall she seemed dumbfounded at the question.

 

And why wouldn't she be? For well over a generation, the bigot label has been reserved solely for conservatives who disagree with the prevailing societal winds as defined by the left. Liberals, meanwhile, who for years have expressed personal disdain for traditional values and those who espouse them, have proven collectively immune from such a hostile characterization. And this phenomenon extends beyond the world of politics. Just ask Tim Tebow.

 

 

Though there may be no other topic more thoroughly exhausted than the Tebow "controversy," the left-wing frenzy surrounding this affable, genial and genuine 24 year old football superstar is quite instructive. Though originally masked by left-wing sportswriters as professional criticism of a quarterback who lacked sufficient skills to win in the NFL, it didn't take long before the real motivation behind the anti-Tebow strains became self-evident. When NBC Sports commentator Jelisa Castrodale observed that, "The NFL's other backup-turned-starters don't generate this type of negativity," CBS analyst Randy Cross explained why: "People, especially the media, root against him because of what he stands for." Vilifying someone simply because of their beliefs...sounds a lot like what the left has called bigotry, doesn't it?

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:07 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, December 23 2011

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

 

Earlier this year there was a lot of talk about how Ron Paul, the libertarian Congressman running for President as a Republican, was being ?ignored' by the media despite his strong showing in multiple polls. In fact, on the radio show we played some hilarious audio from Jon Stewart's Daily Show where he lampooned the media sources for essentially pretending Paul wasn't even in the race.

 

 

I did my best to explain at the time why Paul was being ignored, though I doubt that it made any of his ardent supporters feel better or more content with the situation as they perceived it. Nonetheless, as Paul has continued to rise in Iowa, and now has a legitimate shot at winning the Iowa caucuses on January 3, maybe it's time to consider the flip side: why is Ron Paul being given special treatment by the media.

 

I'm not talking about special treatment in the form of flattering stories about him or constant invitations to do interviews. I'm talking about the fact that the media is ignoring or burying things about Paul that would destroy and drive from the race most everyone else. Dare I say that the media 'ignoring' Paul is the only thing that has kept him in the race. I'm talking, of course, about the offensive and racist stories that appeared under Ron Paul's name in his own newsletters years ago. Paul claims vehemently that he didn't write them. But he doesn't know who did? Really? How is that any better than Herman Cain saying that he paid a woman associate large sums of money without the knowledge of his wife for years but never had an inappropriate relationship?

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:06 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, December 22 2011

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

 

So there's this big headline on Drudge and around various internet sites that I think is hilarious: "Newt Gingrich tells gay man to vote for Obama." And this is being made into some big coup, some big, breaking, bombshell story. And I'm just sitting here asking the question, "Why?" Why is this a surprise? Why is this wrong? Why was this the wrong answer? Why does anyone have a beef with this?

 

 

If anything, it's refreshingly honest. If someone who wants to see an expansion of the welfare state goes up to a Republican candidate and says, "I want to see the welfare state expanded, tell me how you're going to do that for me?" what would expect an honest Republican who doesn't believe in the expansion of the welfare state to say? Wouldn't it be something like, "Well, sir, I don't think I'm your guy because I don't think the expansion of the welfare state is in the best interest of our country as a whole. You may see it as benefitting you personally, but as president I have an obligation to the country."

 

Well, that is essentially what Newt said to this "gay man" who approached him. Here's the "earthshattering" scoop:

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:09 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, December 22 2011

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

 

Ann Curry took her role as one of the multiple Obama press secretaries very seriously this week when she hosted Michele Bachmann on the Today Show. It's just so hilarious to watch the difference in the mode of questioning, the questions themselves, and the tone these supposedly objective journalists take when they interview the challengers of Obama and the supporters of Obama. The idea that Curry or Lauer or any of them would ever have the kind of tone with David Axelrod that they have with Michele Bachmann is just a total and utter joke. And yet they continue to parade around like we all don't notice, that we all don't realize what comical characters they really are, that we all don't realize that they are totally in the tank for Obama and that their interviews of conservatives aren't more like debates.

 

 

Just take a look at the way Curry started off her interview:

On Wednesday's NBC Today, co-host Ann Curry led off an interview with Congresswoman Michele Bachmann by wondering if House Speaker John Boehner was a liar or just incompetent: "Did House Speaker John Boehner mislead the Senate into thinking this payroll tax extension was a done deal? Or has he lost all control of Republican Tea Party members of the House?"

Oh, now there's some objective journalism isn't it? No leading there. No presupposition that this is a Republican problem no matter which way you slice it. You noticed that, right? Curry's question sets up a choice: was Boehner A.) misleading or B.) just totally not in control of the Senate. Can I suggest a letter C? C.) or is Ann Curry a total liberal fraud masking herself as a journalist? C!

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:08 pm   |  Permalink   |  1 Comment  |  Email
Thursday, December 22 2011

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

 

As most folks on the conservative right are concentrating on the race for the presidential nomination (which makes sense), there's an interesting undercurrent of conversation taking place about the potential options for VP. In many ways, though the position is historically not all that it's cracked up to be in terms of power or stepping-stone value, a quality VP pick can energize a ticket in profound ways. Certainly Palin did that for McCain in 2008, and there's hopes among some staunch conservatives that if they end up with a drab nominee in 2012, there could be another Palin punch waiting in the wings.

 

 

Names that have been discussed to this point are those of Florida Senator Marco Rubio (who, though a rising star in the conservative movement has said he doesn't want the job), Florida Congressman Allen West (who, though a rising star in the conservative movement has said he doesn't want the job), Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal (who, though a rising star...you get it), and even former presidential candidate Herman Cain. Any of those - for different reasons - would seemingly make outstanding choices that could ignite the conservative juices dampened by a potential lackluster nominee like Romney or Newt.

 

But here's another name that has surfaced lately: former Secretary of State, Condi Rice. And unlike the other names being discussed, according to a recent Washington Times piece, it appears she's quite interested in the job:

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:07 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, December 22 2011

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

 

Tom Blumer has a great story over at his BizzyBlog that is being totally ignored by the liberal mainstream media. And there's no wondering as to why it's not getting any attention by these left-wing "news" sources. Here's the reason:

The establishment press will never tell their readers, listeners and viewers that the five best-performing states in job growth through the first eleven months of this year, as well as nine of the top eleven, have relatively conservative Republicans occupying their respective governors' mansions. If these eleven star performers had only performed as well as the rest of the nation, over 300,000 fewer people would be working, and the unemployment rate would be at least 0.2% higher.

 

As will be seen after the jump, the list, based on date released today by Uncle Sam's Bureau of Labor Statistics, includes several against which the Obama administration has undertaken significant job-killing or job-deferring actions (i.e., these states have outperformed despite the handicaps, and would have done much better without them): Here it is:

 

 

Nine red states with 21% of the population are responsible for almost one-third of this year's seasonally adjusted job growth. Only two blue states have been relatively strong contributors. Job growth in the rest of the country has been barely half of that seen in the eleven listed states.

There were two states on that list that immediately jumped out at me: Louisiana and Texas. And they jumped out at me not just because they are led by very well-known and well respected conservative governors in Bobby Jindal and Rick Perry, respectively. Though I think that's worth noting, the bigger story is the fact that they are on this list - Louisiana especially at number 5 - after being victims of Obama's job crushing regulations and moves.

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:06 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, December 21 2011

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

 

Why am I not surprised that this one was caught and edited out by the censors over at CBS' 60 Minutes? In their recent interview with President Barack Obama, the Commander-in-Chief made a truly outrageous, disconnected-from-reality remark that shows the depths to which his self-obsession has grown.

 

 

Check this out:

President Barack Obama sat for an extensive interview with CBS's "60 Minutes" last week, though it appears the portion of the interview actually broadcast on TV left out a statement where Obama essentially declared himself the fourth best president in terms of his accomplishments.

 

The statement was only made available online as part of the full interview on "60 Minutes Overtime."

 

According to a transcript posted on the "60 Minutes" website, Obama said he would hold his accomplishments so far as president against those of Lyndon B. Johnson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln.

 

"I would put our legislative and foreign policy accomplishments in our first two years against any president ? with the possible exceptions of Johnson, F.D.R., and Lincoln ? just in terms of what we've gotten done in modern history," Obama told CBS's Steve Kroft.

One can only assume he isn't talking about the sheer volume of legislation he has been able to pass, but rather the value of that legislation. Otherwise, this statement would be objectively false. If he's talking about the value of the legislation, by contrast, it's just...well...objectively false. Actually it's a bit more than that. It's conceited and ludicrous.

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:09 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, December 21 2011

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

 

In the world of Sarah Palin there is but one rule: expect the unexpected. It's why, though I had a strong suspicion all along that Palin would enter the 2012 presidential race, I was never confident of that fact. And as the field began to emerge - featuring two individuals (Bachmann and Perry) that Palin had very strong relationships with, I began to doubt my own suspicions.

 

 

As everyone knows, Palin made the decision not to enter the race, disappointing many staunch conservatives who thought that she would bring the necessary moxie and star power to confront the Obama/media juggernaut that will face whoever the eventual nominee is. Or did she? From Reuters:

Tea Party champion Sarah Palin, who has already ruled out a 2012 presidential run, on Monday attempted to dangle her name anew as a possible Republican candidate, although it's probably too late.

 

In an interview to air on Fox Business Network's "Follow the Money" program, the 2008 Republican nominee for vice president was asked whether she would still consider a run for the White House.

 

"It's not too late for folks to jump in," Palin said. "Who knows what will happen in the future."

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:08 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, December 21 2011

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

 

I have really lost a lot of respect for Representative Ron Paul after his shameful performance on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno last weekend. Having heard him and all of his supporters trumpet how much of a "man of principle" he is, Paul showed no principle and no class as he hurled character-assassinating smears at fellow Republican candidates Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann. By suggesting that they must "hate Muslims" and "gays," Paul appealed to the lowest strategy used by liberals in trying to discredit their conservative opponents: ad hominem attacks.

 


Really, Mr. Paul?

 

Having built up an increasing amount of respect and admiration in more mainstream conservative circles for his dogged opposition to government waste, Paul blew much of it with that little performance. I don't know if that is what motivated Rich Lowry's stinging dismantling of Paul's candidacy or if it was the emerging concern that Paul might pull off an unlikely (and ultimately meaningless) victory in the upcoming Iowa caucuses, but whatever it was, Lowry let loose:

The fight over Ron Paul isn't a battle for the soul of the Republican Party so much as for its standards. Throughout his career, Paul hasn't been able to distinguish between fringy cranks and aboveboard purists. He has taken a principled anti-government position and associated it with loons and bigots. It may be the ultimate commentary on the weakness of this Republican field that it hasn't even been able to produce a respectable out-there libertarian.

 

Paul can be a winsome figure in his irritable, absent-minded-professor way. Invariably wearing a suit jacket that looks a size or two too big, he has stood out in the debates for his knowledge and for his entirely consistent worldview applied to any problem, politics be damned. He gives listeners reason to smile or nod a couple of times every debate, and reason to wonder if he has been reading too much Noam Chomsky.

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:07 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, December 21 2011

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

 

I remember when I was in high school and college there was a young Christian singer named Rebecca St. James who had started to become pretty famous for her ability to rock. I never went to a concert of hers, but did own a CD as I recall. Anyway, I had totally forgotten about her until I just saw not long ago that she had come out with a new book on holding to Christian values in dating called, "What Is He Thinking?"

 

I learned a little bit more about this book, about her, and about the state of mind of some Fox News commentators when St. James appeared on Sean Hannity's "Great American Panel" the other night talking about Tim Tebow as a role model for kids.

 

 

Needless to say, I was more than impressed by St. James and the way she handled the buffoonery of her fellow panelists:

Fellow "Hannity" co-chairs on the "Great American Panel" - political pundit and Fox anchor/correspondent Bob Beckel and actor turned Sirius XM radio host Jay Thomas - proved less than supportive of St. James' beliefs.

 

When it came to sex before marriage, Thomas said that he doesn't "buy a car before driving it first," suggesting that not sleeping with your future spouse could lead to complications in marriage. On the subject of Tebow, while expressing praise for the quarterback's accomplishments and "attitude," he quipped?"I have no interest in my sons being like Tim Tebow."

 

"My kids would die of boredom if they were like Tim Tebow," he said.

 

Hannity, who has personally endorsed St. James' latest book, noted: "Don't we make fun of people that have good values? If a guy tells you he's 28 and still a virgin?you're going to laugh at him!"

 

"That's right," retorted Thomas.

 

But St. James responded: "I'm sad for you that you'd laugh at him and I'm sad actually that you, as a parent, wouldn't want Tim Tebow as a role model for your kids. I think most people that are watching tonight would want a Tim Tebow as a role model for their kids?he's an outstanding young man with values and morals."

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:06 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, December 20 2011

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

 

I was doing some work after the radio show last night and I was overhearing the conversation some ESPN announcers were having on the upcoming NBA season. One of them referenced the question marks surrounding the LA Lakers and their star Kobe Bryant. For those who are unaware, Bryant and his wife Vanessa are divorcing. The announcers were far more interested in talking about the effects the divorce might have on the basketball performance of Bryant than the cultural impact yet another dissolved marriage would have - which I guess makes sense given that it was ESPN.

 

 

But when one of them made the comment that he "wishes Kobe the best in the divorce as a man who has been through one," and then subsequently made some off-handed remark about "finding the right one," I was just beyond disillusioned. We are really poisoning our kids' minds, aren't we? All this talk about "finding the right one" or "looking for our true soul mate," it's just bogus. Actually more than that, it's based off of a mythical religion - Greek mythology to be precise.

 

Do you know that's where the idea of a soul mate came from? The Greeks taught that man was originally designed as having two different sides, two faces, four arms, four legs. And Zeus got all worried about how strong man was becoming and that he might try to rival his power, so he split him in two. Thus, began the eternal quest of every human being to find their "other half." That's where it originated, but we glorify it in our movies, our books, and in our hearts as true. And it's poison.

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:09 pm   |  Permalink   |  1 Comment  |  Email
Tuesday, December 20 2011

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

 

I knew it would come to this, and now here we are. For years and years I have used my radio show platform to warn listeners that if we didn't start taming down our belching and trading in our SUVs it wouldn't be long until Polar Bears started turning into cannibals. The logical connection between the two is just too obvious, too glaring, too simple to fail to see.

 

 

And, just as I warned, the folks at Newsbusters chronicle an alarming story coming out of LiveScience magazine:

A story prominently displayed on the Science News headlines at Yahoo! News on Friday came from LiveScience.com, which used this question as its headline: "Is Global Warming Driving Polar Bears to Cannibalism?" and later in the article, after asking the question "are polar bears more often resorting to cannibalism because of increased hunger and desperation, or are we simply more frequently observing a behavior that has always existed?" they proceeded to address the cannibalism side of the question without even considering the idea that this behavior might indeed be normal for polar bears.

After asking what was causing the polar bears' descent to cannibalism, the article proceeded to state that the answer to the question would "reveal whether or not the Svalbard polar bear population has started to feel the heat from climate change." In other words, the writer suggested the probability that young polar bear cubs being cannibalized by adult polar bears has been caused by people being unsafe with their car's emissions or overusing their barbecue pit.

 

This statement is followed by data which reportedly shows a drop in the Arctic polar ice and then the observation is made that this gives polar bears less time to hunt 'their preferred prey' - seals - on ice, which results in thinner bears. Polar bear biologist Eric Regehr is then quoted as saying "Lower food (i.e., seal) access has been shown to result in lower body condition (i.e., thinner bears)." What the article fails to give more than a passing mention to, is the fact that polar bears, though they prefer to hunt seals, also eat many other foods and hunt other prey. Polar bears have been known to also eat reindeer, musk ox, shellfish, berries, roots and many other foods. So though seals may be their preferred food, they are certainly not their only food as the statements seem to imply.

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:08 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, December 20 2011

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

 

Signs are emerging that Barack Obama's attempts to instigate and spark a class war before the 2012 election, which he shamefully sees as the only way he can be re-elected, are not working. Gallup has the story:

While President Barack Obama has focused his rhetoric in recent weeks on depicting a reckless Wall Street and insufficiently taxed "millionaires and billionaires" as threats to the American middle class, a newly released Gallup poll indicates that Americans apparently have been coming to a different conclusion during Obama's presidency, with fewer people now seeing big business as the "biggest threat" to the country in the future and more seeing big government as the "biggest threat."

 

 

Over the last forty-five years, Gallup has periodically asked this question: "In your opinion, which of the following will be the biggest threat to the country in the future--big business, big labor, or big government?"

 

When Gallup asked the question in a survey conducted Dec. 4-7, 2008, a month after President Obama was elected but before he was inaugurated, 53 percent said big government was the biggest threat, 31 percent said big business was the biggest threat, and 11 percent said big labor.

 

Three months later, in a survey conducted March 27-29, 2009, 55 percent said big government was the biggest threat, 32 percent said big business, and 10 percent said big labor.

 

When Gallup asked the question again two weeks ago--in a survey conducted from Nov. 28-Dec. 1--the percentage saying big government would be the biggest threat to the country in the future had grown to 64 percent--an increase of 11 percentage points from December 2008.

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:07 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, December 20 2011

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

 

Well this headline from Tehran pretty much says it all: "Obama Begs Iran to Give Him Back His Toy Plane." The story doesn't get much better for our American pride:

US President Obama is hoping that the Iranian government is in a Christmas mood because he has asked Tehran to send him his Christmas present back.

 

We are still wondering how he shamelessly asked Tehran to give the US back the stealth drone which had violated the Iranian airspace for espionage.



"We have asked for it back. We'll see how the Iranians respond," Obama said following a meeting at the White House with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

Obama's comments were the first official confirmation that the United States had asked for the return of the RQ-70 drone that was downed by Iran over a week ago.

During the last ten days, Pentagon and State Department officials have repeatedly said they were unaware of any efforts by the American government to contact Iran to have the drone returned to the US.

Speaking later in the afternoon US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said she was doubtful the US would get its "equipment" back.

What an embarrassment. The mightiest military power in the world going hat in hand to an aggressive terror state and asking like the little orphan Oliver to please get our "toy plane" back. Subjected to the mockery of madmen as a result, our diplomatic strength and standing takes another blow.

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:06 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Monday, December 19 2011

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

 

In case you ever looked at the actions taken by our current president and asked yourself the question, "Does this guy even have a clue what this country is all about?" allow me to provide the answer: no. Now this isn't just a rhetorical bomb I'm hurling or an attempt to throw red meat to the president's most vociferous opponents. I'm quite serious. He doesn't seem to have a clue, based on his own words.

 

 

Here's the story as reported by CNSNews:

At a campaign fundraiser at the Hyatt Regency Hotel in Washington, D.C. on Tuesday, President Barack Obama said that the vision of America he is fighting for "is the vision that is truest to our history."

 

He then went on to cite his accomplishments in bringing the federal government to the "rescue" of the economy and the auto industry, in ending the war in Iraq, in lifting the ban on homosexuality in the military, in enacting his health-care reform plan and in bringing "some integrity to the financial sector."

 

"I am confident that the vision that we believe in so deeply and that we've worked so hard for is the vision that is truest to our history and most representative of the core decency of the American people," Obama told a group of contributors.

The vision that is "truest to our history" is one that includes the government bailing out companies it favors, encouraging homosexuality and sodomy in our armed forces, and attempting to take over a huge sector of the American economy - forcing Americans to pay for something they may not want simply as a consequence of breathing? Might I ask whose history that vision is truest to, because every single one of those things represents a marked departure from the practices of our history. Every single one of those things were scorned by our Founding Fathers.

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:09 pm   |  Permalink   |  3 Comments  |  Email
Monday, December 19 2011
Hear the audio version here (segments older than 3 weeks may be unavailable)

 

Rush Limbaugh recently accused Ron Paul of running to the left of Barack Obama. I can only imagine the emails Rush incurred from the online legion of Paulites. And to a certain extent, I can see where their frustration would come from in that Ron Paul is far from liberal when it comes to government spending. The truth is, though, that Rush is clearly talking about Paul's national defense policies and verbiage - something that endears and ingratiates himself with the anti-war crowd and Occupy crowd of the left.

 

 

I know Paul likes to talk about how drastically cutting military spending is something that can "bring Democrats" into the Republican fold, but what he doesn't seem to understand (or at least acknowledge) is that such a move will drive many defense conservatives from the Republican fold. As I've said on a number of occasions, I tend to agree with Paul that we shouldn't use our military strictly as a "world policeman" or that we shouldn't have military bases scattered all over the world. But gutting defense spending and failing to acknowledge the extreme danger that isolationism can bring is a big concern of mine.

 

So from a national defense perspective, you can see the logic behind Rush's comment. But over the last few days we have seen yet another unflattering similarity Ron Paul has with the left: willingness to vilify his opposition with outrageously irresponsible smears. Via The Blaze:

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:08 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Monday, December 19 2011

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

 

First for the good news:

Kim Jong Il, North Korea's mercurial and enigmatic longtime leader, has died of heart failure. He was 69.

 

In a "special broadcast" Monday from the North Korean capital, state media said Kim died of a heart ailment on a train due to a "great mental and physical strain" on Dec. 17 during a "high intensity field inspection." It said an autopsy was done on Dec. 18 and "fully confirmed" the diagnosis.

 

 

Kim is believed to have suffered a stroke in 2008, but he had appeared relatively vigorous in photos and video from recent trips to China and Russia and in numerous trips around the country carefully documented by state media. The communist country's "Dear Leader" - reputed to have had a taste for cigars, cognac and gourmet cuisine - was believed to have had diabetes and heart disease.

 

"It is the biggest loss for the party ... and it is our people and nation's biggest sadness," an anchorwoman clad in black Korean traditional dress said in a voice choked with tears. She said the nation must "change our sadness to strength and overcome our difficulties."

How nice that he had an appetite for gourmet cuisine while his people starved. Kim had evidently scored well in Socialism/Communism 101. It's a shame he died...he would have found a nice post-dictatorial career as a government prof at one of our large state universities here in the country. But I digress.

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:07 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Monday, December 19 2011

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

 

Here's something I never thought I would type: Barack Obama gets it, and Glenn Beck doesn't seem to.

 

During his recent interview with 60 Minutes, Obama was asked by CBS reporter Steve Kroft how the president sized up the field of Republicans vying to be his opponent in 2012. Obama's answer was candid and refreshingly accurate: "It doesn't really matter who the nominee is gonna be," he said. "The core philosophy that they're expressing is the same. And the contrast in visions between where I want to take the country and what-- where they say they want to take the country is gonna be stark."

 

 

The president couldn't be more right in that assessment - a reality that I think is lost on many of us who are political junkies. Those for whom the world of politics is either our livelihood or at least an obsessive hobby, we tend to view issues through a different lens and apply a level of detailed inspection to them that average citizens simply do not.

 

For instance, my wife and I watched the recent Republican presidential debate in Iowa together. She cares about her country and the direction it's going, but she's not the least bit interested in following the day to day drama of the presidential horse race. In fact, this was the first primary debate she has seen this year.

 

As the debate was unfolding, I noticed a remarkable difference in the way we perceived it. I was being hypercritical of certain responses or question dodging, yet she was constantly saying things like, "That was a good point," or "I like him," or "He knows his stuff." When the debate was over, her comment was, "This is going to be hard, isn't it?" But contrary to the media template that has emerged about the "epically weak Republican field," she didn't mean it was going to be hard trying to figure out which one of those jokers could possibly compete with Obama. No, when I asked her to clarify she said, "It's going to be hard to figure out which one of them to support when they all are so much better than what we've got." Bingo.

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:06 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Sunday, December 18 2011

A new study finds that with the presidential election less than a year away, the media is treating President Obama's potential opponents a lot differently than they treated him in 2007 and 2008. The Culture and Media Institute has looked at news reports covering religion and found that while ABC, CBS and NBC had virtually no interest in the connection between Barack Obama and controversial Reverend Jeremiah Wright, they have suddenly gotten religion when it comes to the GOP field of candidates.

CMI concludes that the mainstream media has used religion in primarily two ways, as a means of painting the republican field of candidates as some sort of "God squad' of scary religious zealots, or as a means of scrutinizing differences in the candidate's faith.

The media has spent an inordinate amount of news coverage looking at whether Mormonism is a cult or observing that Congresswoman Michele Bachman believes God told her to run for President. In general CMI found that the television networks discussed the Republican candidate's religion 143 times in the first ten months of this year. By contrast, stories of Democratic candidates' faith were brought up only in 19 times in the same time period of the 2008 election cycle.

KEEP READING

Posted by: Micah Clark AT 06:12 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Saturday, December 17 2011

When it comes to real religious bias, it can be found in the numbers from the Federal Bureau of Investigation's 2010 crime statistics. This info may differ quite a bit from the perception often reported in the mainstream media. For example, one of the more sensational crime stories often elevated to the front page or lead story status is a "hate crime" against a homosexual victim.

No one deserves to be the victim of a crime and a person's [legal] sexual behavior does not make a crime any more or less tragic. Yet, what many do not realize is that more people are the victims of a hate crime due to their religion or an anti-religious motivation than there are for anti-homosexual motivation.

Hate crimes for all reasons are still a small slice of the big crime picture in America today. There were 8,208 hate crime incidents recorded by the FBI last year. However, 1,580 had multiple bias or unclear motivations and 2,861 involved property vandalism. Of the 4,824 "single-bias" incidents against people, nearly half (46.2%) were classified as "intimidation" which could include perception, harsh words or harassing language. Only 18.4% involved aggravated assault. Indiana had a total of 94 hate crime incidents last year with just 17 involving sexual orientation in 2012.

KEEP READING

Posted by: Micah Clark AT 07:15 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Saturday, December 17 2011

In a widely published column, Ken Paulson lamented that December 15 is not held up as a national day of celebration for the Bill of Rights. When I saw the column's headline in my own local paper, I never suspected that this would be the source of a weekly lib-quote. And, to be quite honest, I have no idea if Mr. Paulson is a liberal ideologue or not.

 

Yet, nevertheless, this column slaps us in the face with a typical and well-worn lib-quote:

The irony is that most of us honor the Fourth of July because we believe it's a day on which Americans secured their freedom. But the truth is that the Declaration of Independence really only secured freedom for white and wealthy men. It took freedom of speech, press, religion, petition and assembly ? the five freedoms of the First Amendment ? to lead to suffrage for women, the emancipation of slaves and equality for all. 


This is the president of the American Society of News Editors writing here. Apparently, American news editors don't have to burden themselves with historical accuracy.

 

I just reviewed once again that great document - our Declaration of Independence. I find no reference or inference to a freedom reserved only for "white and wealthy men." Amazing how Mr. Paulson sees it so clearly.

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 06:20 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Saturday, December 17 2011

At last Saturday's Republican Presidential debate, the moderator asked the candidates if they thought voters should "consider marital fidelity in making their choices for president." The question was a clear reference to former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich's three marriages.

Although each candidate answered the question fairly well, including Newt, they all kind of missed the elephant in the room. (No pun intended.) To explain, here's the question I would have asked instead;   "Which is worse for the nation, a president who has been married three times, or one only married once with a good family life who at every turn tries to destroy the institution of marriage and undermine traditional family values?"

Posted by: Micah Clark AT 05:09 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, December 16 2011

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

 

Something big has just happened in the Republican race.

 

I've talked about, a number of times actually, the "deal breakers" in supporting candidates for office. For me, the major deal breaker is whether or not the candidate in question believes in the Declaration of Independence or not - meaning, do they believe in an unalienable right to life, or do they share the slave owners' ideology that certain human beings can choose to deprive other human beings of those unalienable rights (thus, making them quite alienable).

 

 

The problem I, and several other real pro-lifers, run into is that several candidates will stake out positions that they call pro-life, and will say that they support an unalienable right to life, but then will turn around and support legislation, author legislation or give speeches that list off a bunch of cases where they feel it's okay to alienate a person from their right to life: "What? The baby's dad was a rapist? Okay, you can kill her." That kind of thing.

 

Either the right to life is unalienable or it is not. And for too long, politicians who don't believe it is have gotten away with portraying themselves as pro-life. And that's what makes it really difficult to discern in the Republican primary who really passes the "deal-breaker" and who doesn't. Until now.

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:09 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, December 16 2011

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

 

This whole controversy about Tim Tebow is so revealing that I hope people don't miss it. This isn't just about sports media being embarrassed that they were wrong about Tebow's ability to win games since he wasn't as good of a passer as other quarterbacks. This story has morphed into something that is so critically instructive. The left's blatant religious bigotry is on full display and it's ugly.

 

 

Seriously, these folks on the left that have always acted as the bigot police are being exposed by this humble, nice, gentle and easy going guy Tim Tebow. The guy closes his press conferences by saying things like "God bless you all" and ends interviews saying "you have a good day, sir" and it drives the left nuts. There's something to this that is ugly but its true: the hard left despises faith, and they despise people of faith. They think they're idiots, morons, backwards hayseeds that don't deserve success. And it eats them alive when one of them prospers and gets attention - whether in the political world, the business world, or the world of sports.

 

Let me show you what I mean. After playing a clip of Tebow thanking his Lord and Savior Jesus Christ for the opportunity to play a great sport and live a dream in the NFL, here's what liberal radio host Bill Press said:

Oh yeah, all right all right yeah first of all I just have to thank my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and you know what I want to say, S.T.F.U. [shut the f*** up]

I'm tired of hearing Tim Tebow and all this Jesus talk.

Press wasn't done. He later called Tebow and embarrassment and a disgrace. Can I ask a simple question? WHY? What has Tim Tebow done that is embarrassing or is a disgrace? What is it that Tebow has done that makes Bill Press say STFU? I mean, there are a lot of talkers in the NFL that brag about themselves, their skills and their performance. Press hasn't said that to them. So what has Tebow said?

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:08 pm   |  Permalink   |  5 Comments  |  Email
Friday, December 16 2011

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

 

If only those persecuted and abused Christians in foreign countries could be practicing homosexuality, maybe the U.S. State Department under Hillary Clinton would speak up on their behalf. Why, you ask, would I say such a thing? Because despite the myriad of human rights abuses taking place against faithful Christians around the globe - people who are merely seeking to exercise the rights of conscience that were the backbone of Western Civilization - that appears to be a topic that Hillary and her cronies are too timid to touch.

 

 

But they sure get a lot bolder when it comes to the LGBT agenda:

Support for human rights has a place in foreign policy, albeit a subordinate one. Among those rights, certainly, is the right of homosexuals to be free from violent attacks and other draconian punishments. As Clinton rightly notes, if there are fundamental rights at all (and the foundational premise of this republic is that there are) then they "are not conferred by the government," but ours "because we are human."

Of course, Hillary and the left make exceptions on these fundamental rights when we're talking about inconvenient humans in the womb. More on that later. The editors of National Review go on in their editorial to expose a critical flaw in the left's "rights crusade" that conservatives must recognize:

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:07 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, December 16 2011

Peter had his bi-weekly conversation with Republican Congressional candidate and rising conservative star Jackie Walorski on the radio show today.

 

 

This week's topics included the Payroll Tax extension debate and why Republicans are always blamed for "not compromising" when Democrats are just as guilty. Also, Peter asked Jackie to weigh in with her thoughts about the third party option for tea partiers and disgruntled Republicans.

 

Hear their full conversation here.

Posted by: Anna Anderson AT 05:07 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, December 15 2011

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

 

I have noticed a common theme emerging among the various establishment types on the right - whether that is the Republican establishment or the conservative establishment (meaning the leading thinkers and opinion makers) - and that is this: how do we stop Newt?

 

 

For reasons that vary, they all seem to be after that same goal, as though Newt is going to ruin everything. Obviously David Frum or David Brooks would have different reasons to oppose Gingrich than the editors at National Review or Glenn Beck, but they all are doing so. They all want to know what the formula is for stopping this guy from attaining the nomination, and potentially the presidency.

 

Might I make the daring suggestion that if your question is, "How do we stop Newt," you aren't going to like the answer: you can't. Please don't misunderstand, I can see many scenarios by which Gingrich is not the nominee. I can see his lack of organization in Iowa costing him in the upcoming caucuses, or Perry's financial advantage putting him over the top in that state. That would greatly diminish Newt's momentum going into Iowa where he probably is going to lose to Romney anyway. At that point, it becomes a real uphill climb to reignite belief in the base that he's the guy. I can see Bachmann surging again. Or what if Paul pulls the victory in Iowa? There are so many things that could happen at this point that I am certainly not suggesting Gingrich is obviously going to be the nominee.

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:09 pm   |  Permalink   |  1 Comment  |  Email
Thursday, December 15 2011

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

 

I am constantly amused at how the same liberals who spark a war on Christmas every year get all indignant and dismissive when it's pointed out by conservatives. They pick the fight, but then try to pretend that the fight doesn't exist and that conservatives are making a deal about nothing. "Oh, here we go again with the silly War on Christmas stuff...don't you guys know that you Christians make up almost 80% of the population? I don't think your holiday's gonna go anywhere" these liberals mock as they seek more and more politically correct cultural bans that strangle any public reference or recognition of the holiday.

 

 

When I pointed out a couple examples of the liberals stupid war on something as generally inoffensive as a Christmas tree, I received a few of the standard emails suggesting that I was the silly one for bringing it up. Um, no, the fools who thought that officially renaming a Christmas tree a Holiday tree was a good idea brought it up.

 

And now more news on the "War on Christmas is just a figment of your silly Christian conservative imagination" front:

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:08 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, December 15 2011

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

 

I look forward to the comments and emails that will come in from this commentary. Last night I watched the interview Greta van Susteren did with Rush Limbaugh. I understand he is a lightning rod and I know the derangement that the mere mention of his name induces to those on the left who are either committed socialists or who have never actually listened to his program for any significant amount of time.

 

 

But I thought the clarity and the insight that he brought to the Obama presidency, its failures and dangers, as well as the wisdom he was giving for Republicans heading into 2012 was simply brilliant. He runs counter to the conventional wisdom and yet when he explains his position you come away thinking, "how can the conventional wisdom be so conventional when it's so stupid?"

 

Rush gave his typical (and accurate) assessment of the continual obsession amongst Republican establishment types to nominate a "moderate" who will appeal to the great center of the political spectrum. He put it this way:

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:07 pm   |  Permalink   |  1 Comment  |  Email
Thursday, December 15 2011

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

 

Look, I know that Time Magazine is a liberal rag. That's no surprise. And so I probably should not have even paid this a second glance when they recently named their "Person of the Year" for 2011, but I can't help but say something because it's just so transparently galling. Here's how they announced the winner:

"'Massive and effective street protest' was a global oxymoron until - suddenly, shockingly - starting exactly a year ago, it became the defining trope of our times. And the protester once again became a maker of history."

 

Yes, that's right, two years after the Tea Party changed the face of American politics, they made their "Person of the Year" the generic identity of "The Protester" in tribute to the anti-capitalist street dwellers of the Occupy Movement that changed...um, well...uh...ah I know...they changed the way we look at public urination and defecation! Well done, oh grand protester! Protest, er poop on fearlessly!

 

Now, maybe I'm short-changing the folks at Time. It wasn't just the Occupiers that clearly moved their little leftist hearts. No, the rape-happy Arab uprisings of the Middle East also inspired them:

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:06 pm   |  Permalink   |  1 Comment  |  Email
Wednesday, December 14 2011

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

Over the weekend I was doing some driving and heard at least four newscasts that mentioned Rick Perry's gaffe where he referenced the 8 Supreme Court justices. There are, of course, 9 justices on the highest court in the land. It wasn't difficult to distinguish the smile that had crept over the oh-so-pleased-with-themselves faces of the various news reporters that were sharing the story. But it
wasn't just on the radio:

ABC's Good Morning America and CBS's the The Early Show on Saturday, as well as Friday's World News on ABC, seized on GOP presidential candidate Rick Perry forgetting the name of Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor as the Texas governor criticized President Obama's tendency to appoint activist judges. As he teased Saturday's The Early Show, CBS anchor Russ Mitchell even asked, "How long can his presidential candidacy survive?"

 

Under this type of media spotlight, it's clear that they hope not long. What is, of course, ridiculous about this is the unwillingness of these same media types to extend the exact same scrutiny the apply to the "stupidity" of Rick Perry to the "brilliance" of Barack Obama. You know, the smartest president we've ever had? Which is worse, do you suppose...thinking there are 8 Supreme Court Justices or thinking there are 57 U.S. states? If you asked the general population, which one do you think a higher percentage of citizens would know? I'm guessing more know the number of states than know the number of justices. Thus, given the media's standard for IQ measurement, Barack Obama is dumber than Rick Perry.

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:09 pm   |  Permalink   |  1 Comment  |  Email
Wednesday, December 14 2011

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

To be honest, I never thought I would suggest that I think Barack Obama gets something that Glenn Beck doesn't. In fact, just saying it kind of makes me feel dirty. But after listening to Obama's interview on CBS' 60 Minutes and then listening to some of Beck's remarks recently about Newt Gingrich and his willingness to consider branching off to a third party, I have to say it.

 

 

So what is it that Obama seems to grasp that Beck doesn't? It's illustrated in these comments the President made to reporter Steve Kroft in the CBS interview:

"It doesn't really matter who the nominee is gonna be," the president said on CBS' "60 Minutes," in an interview that aired Sunday evening. "The core philosophy that they're expressing is the same. And the contrast in visions between where I want to take the country and what-- where they say they want to take the country is gonna be stark."

 

He added that "the American people are gonna have a good choice and it's gonna be a good debate."

I agree completely with this sentiment. When I watch the Republican Party presidential debates I see 6 folks up there on the stage who are all representing a fundamental shift in philosophy from that of Barack Obama. I see six people who are committed to undoing and repealing much of the disastrous policy that Obama has infected the country with and who are going to work diligently to chart a new path.

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:08 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, December 14 2011

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

 

A few years ago, I had a delightful interview with the President of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, Annie Laurie Gaylor. It ended with her hanging up on me after I tricked her to expose her outrageous position. For those that might not have been listening to the show at that time, I ran through a list of actions that blended the line between religion and government to the point of downright government endorsement of Christianity and attributed those actions to Sarah Palin. Ms. Gaylor was indignant. I asked her whether she thought Palin's actions were unconstitutional. She said that they were. I then pointed out to her that I had deceived her - it was George Washington who had done those things, not Ms. Palin. She hung up on me. You can watch the exchange here.

 

Well anyway, Gaylor's husband, Dan Barker, is a spokesman for that same organization. Not sure if that's an office romance or if they started this little anti-Christian operation after they got hitched. Doesn't really matter - they are certainly two peas in a pod.

 

 

This is the busy time of year for the evangelistic atheists like those at FFRF. Plenty of Christians are practicing their religion around Christmas time and nothing gets these atheists' blood boiling quite like public displays of religiosity. So they make it their point to go around and do their best Grinch impersonation - scouring the country for any Nativity Scene that might be on public property or any Candy Cane that might be distributed in schools. When they find one, they're on it like stink on garbage.

 

And speaking of garbage, Barker shared his thoughts on their most recent target - a Nativity scene in Texas - on the news the other day. It went about as well as my interview with his wife a few years ago. Here's the scoop:

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:07 pm   |  Permalink   |  2 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, December 14 2011

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

I am convinced that there are some folks who aren't fully living up to their potential over at MSNBC. No, I don't mean any of their hosts. I think they've reached their potential and begun that slow, steady decline into oblivion. No, I'm talking about the writers that are working for the Hardball program. These are some of the most unique, gifted, talented and creative writers I've ever seen.

 

 

Seriously, I can't even begin to tell you how tough it must already be to come up with new, creative ways to insult and demean Newt Gingrich. If he were to win the nomination and they would be faced with having to do this for another year, I honestly don't know if they could make it. They are just exhausting derogatory descriptors faster than anything I've ever seen. But man is it entertaining.

 

I don't give Matthews credit for this not because I have anything against him. There's something endearing about a guy who can be as hypocritical as he can on a nightly basis, get so worked up and melodramatic while thinking that he's being taken seriously when he's really not. It's just precious, really. But I don't give him credit because it's pretty obvious he's reading this stuff off his teleprompter. Much of it comes in his "Keith Olbermann Special Comment" wannabe segment called "Let Me Finish." Matthews is usually running out of time and so he's cramming to get all the words in, and he sounds like he's doing his best speed reading attempt.

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:06 pm   |  Permalink   |  1 Comment  |  Email
Tuesday, December 13 2011

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

 

I don't want this to seem like I'm piling on Glenn Beck. I'm not. But Glenn Beck is amazingly influential and what he says matters. Now, like I said, I think the comment made about the tea partiers supporting Newt was made out of frustration and without giving much thought to the implications. Beck is savvy enough when it comes to the world of the media to understand if he thought about it what that kind of a comment (that tea partiers who support Newt must be racist since Newt and Obama are the same person) would subject those very same tea partiers who have supported him for years...what his comment would subject them to.

 

 

I can't imagine that Beck would have known that, thought about that, and then intentionally gone out and stuck it to them in that way. That's not the way you treat your friends, and I don't think that's something Beck would do. It was an unfortunate comment.

 

But while most folks in the media have been focused on that remark, some are ignoring something else the conservative radio host said that I think is a much bigger deal, and one that is going to be much more lasting and have far greater impact on this race than that silly race remark.

 

Talking to a caller from Orlando, FL, Beck stated his position on Newt being the nominee:

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:09 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, December 13 2011

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

 

Well it seems that the liberal media who so willingly ignore the brazen stupidity of the liberal atheist/humanist crowd this time of year as they seek to neuter the meaning of Christmas, slapping X's wherever they can, destroying Nativity Scenes and vanquishing the indoctrination brought on by Candy Canes from the hallways of our public schools, have gotten a little exercised about the censorship this year.

 

 

Yep, they've finally had enough of changing the words to traditional Christmas songs and they're letting everybody know about it. Now, before you get too excited, I should tell you what prompted their agitation. It was not the account described by 16 year old New Jersey high school student Colin Curran which detailed:

[A] story about a high school assignment which involved creating a music playlist for a young children's holiday breakfast. There was one catch - none of the songs could contain a certain set of offending words, such as Christmas, Hanukah, Jesus, God, or Santa Clause. The reason, Colin explains, is that the "principal does not want to offend anyone with belief-specific music".

No, that wasn't too big of a deal to the mainstreamers. What got them ticked wasn't the censorship of the name of Jesus. It was the censorship of the word "gay." No, I'm not kidding. Here's the unbelievable story:

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:08 pm   |  Permalink   |  2 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, December 13 2011

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

 

The recent Republican debate was certainly a good one. The candidates appeared poised, competent and each of them appeared more ready than ever to take on a fatally weak president in the general election. In short, the debate should have been reassuring to Republicans and also sent a clear message to Democrats that they are going to be up against it in 2012.

 

 

In the early debates, it was tough to suggest that anyone was performing well or impressing consistently beyond Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich. There were good moments for the other candidates, but Romney in particular continued to look like the eventual nominee. The others were role-players while he was the man in the middle. That was not the case in the most recent debate. In fact, by all accounts, it was probably Mitt's worst debate.

 

He was on the defensive, he was agitated, he was clearly annoyed a couple times, and he made the "bet heard 'round the world" that will fit nicely into the "Republicans are friends of the wealthy and totally out of touch" meme that the Democrats will use in the general. So how could anyone suggest that Mitt ended up the winner of such a hotly contested, and evenly matched debate despite making a few missteps?

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:07 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, December 13 2011

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

 

So Glenn Beck has made quite a little stink, hasn't he? The popular radio host recently appeared on the Fox News show "Freedom Watch" with Andrew Napolitano and talked about his disdain for Newt Gingrich, which by now has become very well known.

 

 

Beck said that Gingrich might be the only candidate on the Republican side that he didn't think he could vote for, and that was primarily because he was a progressive. The evidence Beck cited for such a conclusion was that Gingrich had said Teddy Roosevelt was his favorite president. I'm sure there's more evidence than that, but it's what he cited in the conversation.

 

Let me be the first to say I agree with Beck's point. I'm always annoyed when conservative Republicans cite Teddy as a great president. He was a progressive. He left the Republican Party and started the Progressive Party (that took on the nickname Bull Moose) for crying out loud. Teddy believed in a very active and energetic federal government that was snatching up land, involving itself in business and social welfare. He was a liberal progressive if there's ever been one. He doesn't make my list of top presidents, to be sure.

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:06 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Monday, December 12 2011

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

 

My wife and I watched much of the ABC Republican Presidential debate last weekend. We weren't alone. Statistics say it was the most watched debate of the year, and I think that bodes well for Republicans. Because contrary to the line of garbage that has been pervasive in the media that this is an "epically weak" Republican field, those watching the debate saw something completely different. They saw a number of candidates who have the chops to take on and defeat the failed presidency of Barack Obama in 2012.

 

 

I'm hopeful that if nothing else, the recent debate shores up some of the wobbly conservatives and Republicans who have fallen for the media's nonsense about how none of these candidates can stand up to Obama. There's no question that Newt would demolish him one-on-one, and viewers got the impression that Mitt to Michele, Rick to Rick to Ron would do so as well.

Syndicated columnist Cal Thomas gave his similar impressions:

On the Middle East, Gingrich refused to back down from his recent contention that the Palestinians are a modern invention who didn't have that name until 1977. He is right and it was instructive to many to hear him speak of Palestinian textbooks that contain hatred for Jews. Michele Bachmann added her own evidence to support what Newt said.

This was one of the most telling parts of the debate. There is a profound difference in the way this country would treat its great friend Israel under a Republican administration as opposed to the way we treat Israel under Barack Obama. The boldness of Newt's statement opened him up for a great deal of criticism in our politically correct country. Indeed, during the lead up to the debate, virtually every news report was talking about the negative attention this had generated.

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:09 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Monday, December 12 2011

The coming legislative session in Indiana may be the "short session," but it's sure to be an explosive one as lawmakers will tackle the contentious issue of making Indiana a "Right to Work" state.

 

 

Republican leaders have vowed that this will be their top legislative priority in 2012: to make sure that a worker not be forced to pay union dues as a condition of employment. By ensuring as much, the state is likely to be more attractive to businesses looking to find a state to set up shop (or move to, as in the case of the Boeing ordeal in South Carolina).

 

This was one of the reasons that Democrats packed up and walked off their jobs last year. It's possible that will happen again this year as unions are already making preparation to hold their versions of Custer's Last Stand at the Statehouse come January 4.

 

On Monday's show, Peter talked with Republican State Senator Jim Buck about the legislation, why he favors it, and how he responds to some of the myths and criticisms that surround the debate.


Hear the first segment here (Buck explains the logic behind the legislation)
.

Hear the second segment here (Buck discusses the opposition to the legislation).

Posted by: Anna Anderson AT 05:07 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Monday, December 12 2011

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

 

Veteran White House correspondent Lester Kingsolving had the temerity to ask the question: "Does the Commander-in-Chief approve or disapprove of bestiality in our armed forces?" I could be mistaken, but I am guessing this is the first time the subject of human sex with animals ever came up at the daily White House press briefing. Obama Press Secretary Jay Carney made it clear he was sincerely unimpressed with the question, condescendingly brushing it off by scolding, "I don't have any comment on that...let's get to something more serious."

 

 

Shock value aside, it's a reasonable question given that the liberal Democrats in the United States Senate managed to tuck an amendment into the recent defense appropriations bill that would repeal Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice which states, "Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy." If Jay Carney finds the issue to be unserious, he should have taken the opportunity to harpoon members of the president's own party who authored the repeal rather than the reporter who merely asked about it.

 

It's fair to assume that the intended purpose of those seeking the repeal of Article 125 was far more about legalizing human sodomy than it was about giving the green light to bestiality. Repealing the ban on intimate sexual contact between practicing homosexuals is merely the next logical step after having opened the military door to them. The President made repealing the ban on open homosexuality his major order of business regarding the American armed forces. His rationale was that it was discriminatory to prohibit those with different sexual preferences, inclinations and attractions from serving their country with pride. But if that's the case, then what is the logical distinction that can be drawn by those same "civil rights champions" to deny such an opportunity to those who are sexually attracted to animals? Why make them "lie about who they are?"

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:06 pm   |  Permalink   |  1 Comment  |  Email
Sunday, December 11 2011

"Your hands made me and formed me; give me understanding to learn your commands. May those who fear you rejoice when they see me, for I have put my hope in your word. I know, O Lord, that your laws are righteous, and in faithfulness you have afflicted me. May your unfailing love be my comfort, according to your promise to your servant." - Psalm 119:73-76 (NIV)

Galileo. Blaise Pascal. Louis Pasteur. Isaac Newton. George Washington Carver. Each of these men made significant contributions to the progress of human science and knowledge. Each of these men were also faithful and devoted Christians. There are many more who can be added to this list, including many astronauts who have publicly pondered and praised the wonder of God's creation as they witnessed it from the perspective of space.

 

 

As has become their tradition, atheist organizations are using their resources to publicly denounce the Christian faith during the Christmas season. Some of their billboards and ads state that science and the Christian faith are incompatible and that human truth is found only in science.

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 06:28 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Saturday, December 10 2011

Every time President Obama speaks, he provides us with lib-quotes galore. This week's nugget is from his speech delivered in Osawatomie, Kansas:

These values gave rise to the largest middle class and the strongest economy the world has ever known. It was here, in America, that the most productive workers and innovative companies turned out the best products on Earth, and every American shared in that pride and success -- from those in executive suites to middle management to those on the factory floor. If you gave it your all, you'd take enough home to raise your family, send your kids to school, have your health care covered, and put a little away for retirement.

 

Today, we are still home to the world's most productive workers and innovative companies. But for most Americans, the basic bargain that made this country great has eroded. Long before the recession hit, hard work stopped paying off for too many people. Fewer and fewer of the folks who contributed to the success of our economy actually benefitted from that success. Those at the very top grew wealthier from their incomes and investments than ever before. But everyone else struggled with costs that were growing and paychecks that weren't - and too many families found themselves racking up more and more debt just to keep up.

The values to which he referred are those of the post-World War II era, a period of time to which liberals frequently refer as the rise of the modern American middle class. That part has a large amount of truth, but the reasons for the rise always escape them. And the differences between the American values then and now that brought about significant changes are purposely ignored.

 

Like other liberals I have heard making similar comments, President Obama leaves out an enormous number of inconvenient truths.

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 09:05 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Saturday, December 10 2011

The American Family Association of Indiana now has a free I-Phone application that you can load on your I-phone. It allows you to easily check our web site on your phone, hear any audio files and interviews and read other AFAIN resources and service.

One of the most exciting things about this new pro-family app is that you can now hear our daily radio news minutes at any time, anywhere, regardless of whether you are near one of the 23 radio stations airing them. This means that you will be able to hear Bob Ditmer, the longtime voice of Focus on the Family's radio news department, as the news of the day is happening, not long after these professional minutes are sent to radio station programers.

You can also send us feedback and follow us on Twitter through this free app.

KEEP READING

Posted by: Micah Clark AT 07:13 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Saturday, December 10 2011

The chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Luke Kenley, is calling for the application of Indiana's 7% sales tax on all Internet purchases.

Such a call for taxation may not have come at the best of times for Hoosier consumers entering the Christmas season when purchases of gifts through online sellers like Amazon are on the rise. In these difficult economic times finding the best price possible has made the Internet a valuable tool for thrifty shoppers.

From Senator Kenley's perspective, Internet sales, which are not taxed, place "brick and mortar" stores at a competitive disadvantage in the marketplace. Consumers may counter this claim with the point that shipping costs on the Internet often bring the price point much closer to the local Target or Wal-mart than the Senator implies. Merchant groups are already airing radio ads calling upon the 2012 legislature to fix this "inequity" through taxing the Internet with our state sales tax.

KEEP READING

Posted by: Micah Clark AT 06:01 am   |  Permalink   |  1 Comment  |  Email
Friday, December 09 2011

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

 

This is just too good to not take time to point out. It seems the child-killing lobby got all worked into a tizzy because they felt like they were being slighted by Apple's new iPhone. In short, they thought there was some giant pro-life cabal that was conspiring against them, and they were blowing the whistle on the mad scheme.

 

 

Apparently there's a new feature on the iPhone called Siri that allows the user to ask questions, and then Siri will answer. For example, I could ask Siri, "Where is the closest public bathroom?" and it would respond and tell me, "There are seven public restrooms in your vicinity, here are the closest." And then it would list them out for me.

 

Well, demonstrating that there's just something bizarre and twisted about their minds, the abortion gaggle picked up their iPhones and the first thing they apparently thought to ask Siri was, "Where can I get an abortion?" Seriously, who thinks to pick up their phone and say something like that? Well, the big scandal came in that Siri was not finding abortion clinics, even when there were some in close proximity.

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:09 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, December 09 2011

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

 

One of the questions the pundits were asking a few months ago was whether there would be some new challenger enter the Republican primary race that would contend with Mitt Romney for the nomination, given that none of the other competitors seemed to be doing it. That was before the rise and fall of Herman Cain and now the rise of Newt Gingrich.

 

 

Now the conventional wisdom is that the race has entered a new phase: one that pits Mitt Romney against Newt Gingrich. Conservatives who are leery about them both are going to have to choose, we're being told. Maybe not.

 

According to some very interesting polling data that's coming out of Iowa, there could be another Republican candidate who surges just in time for the primary battles - something that would be more appropriately called a "re-surge:" Rick Perry.

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:08 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, December 09 2011

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

 

The media is all a'twitter with news of another Bachmann ambush by a youngster. I think we've got a case of a desperate copycat here if you ask me. Remember it wasn't that long ago that Bachmann had a townhall where here position on the issue of gay marriage was challenged by a wet-behind-the-ears, let-my-emotions-pretend-to-be-logic high schooler. Well, it looks like a politically motivated lesbian decided to garner some media time herself, and coached her 8 year old to challenge Bachmann on the subject of homosexuality at her recent book signing in South Carolina.

 

 

Here's the story as reported at The Blaze:

"My mommy - Miss Bachmann, my mommy's gay but she doesn't need fixing," the young boy, identified only as Elijah, said to Bachmann.

Yes, I'm sure that an 8 year old is that astute in the ways of America's political and social scene that he understands the complexities of the issue enough to come up with something like that on his own, aren't you? Never mind the prodding and coaxing that the mother engages in to get the boy to make the comment.

 

The real issue here should be the using of your children as political weapons. That's the morally questionable position that's taken in this exchange, not Michele Bachmann's stance on the issue of homosexuality. Further, it demonstrates the ignorance of so many who pay attention only to their own talking points or the echo chamber of their own ideology. When has Bachmann ever uttered the phrase that gay people need to be "fixed?" This is a reference to the media-generated hysteria that surrounded the "revelation" that Bachmann's husband runs a Christian counseling clinic that believes what two thousand years of Christian doctrine has taught: that homosexuality is a sin that needs redeeming.

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:08 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, December 09 2011

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

 

Pride. It's really amazing what human pride can do. A stubborn unwillingness to acknowledge one's mistakes can really screw things up for a lot of people. And that's exactly what a way too large portion of the population is willing to let happen to all of us in the coming election cycle.

 

 

Look, I don't know how to say this any other way. I've listened to two different speeches of President Obama this last week and I'm incredulous. I'm frustrated. I'm beside myself because listening to him, I just can't understand it anymore. I can't understand how any person - no matter how wise or ignorant they may be in the ways of economics, it doesn't matter - I don't understand how anyone could come away after listening to him and be convinced that this man in the Oval Office has even the slightest idea of how this economy works, how it's supposed to work, or how to get it working again.

 

The man is just utterly clueless. In this first speech he once again - what is this now, 58 times - stated the fundamentally idiotic view that extending unemployment checks to unemployed people stimulated job growth. Yes, he said it. Again. Actually this time he dialed up the stupidity a notch by saying that sending out government checks to the unemployed would create more jobs than the Keystone pipeline project.

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:06 pm   |  Permalink   |  4 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, December 08 2011

Congressman Mike Pence joined Peter Heck on his radio show today to talk about a host of issues including the interesting developments within the Republican primary presidential contest: is there an effective, electable conservative in the race?

 

 

As the front-runner for the Governor's seat in Indiana, Pence also weighed in on the contentious issue of making Indiana a "Right-to-Work" state, as well as sharing his thoughts on whether he has any regrets choosing to run for Governor over President.

 

Hear the entire conversation here.

Posted by: Anna Anderson AT 05:09 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, December 08 2011

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

 

Liberal radio host Thom Hartmann was livid...I mean livid...full of indignation that the American Family Association would dare to create a "Naughty and Nice" list of businesses that seem to have a hard time saying the name of Jesus Christ around the Christmas season. He invited one of the AFA's radio hosts, Bryan Fischer on to talk about the subject. Okay, I guess that's not exactly true. He invited Fischer on to be lectured to and yelled at.

 

 

Hartmann kicked it off this way:

HARTMANN: The AFA and you, Bryan, believe that when Jesus said you have to choose between God or Mammon, which is money and the things -- and commerce, that he was what, lying or was he mistaken? Jesus made it very clear that you could choose between getting rich and choose between [sic] being virtuous and holy... A company that uses Jesus Christ to hustle goods is profaning His name and the work that He did.

That's spectacular right there. You follow this logic, don't you? Here's the left trying to completely reverse the "War on Christmas" issue by suggesting, hilariously, that if you DO say Merry Christmas at your store, or honor the religious meaning of the holiday that you are blaspheming. In other words, in Hartmann's liberal world, you are a better Christian to never mention the name of Jesus at your business or in your personal interactions lest you be seen as using "Jesus Christ to hustle goods." Kind of explains why liberals in Washington who claim to be Christians act the way they do.

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:08 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, December 08 2011

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

 

Every group has its nuts, I suppose. And depending on the groups you're talking about, the nuts are a little nuttier some places than others. One of the humorous responses I've gotten from liberals about this whole Occupy Wall Street nonsense has been their outright indignation when I start rattling off the procession of disgusting, immoral, anti-American, illegal activities that have gone on at these events.

 

 

I don't know why they get so defensive. Murders, rapes, public intox, public urination, public defecation, rioting, vandalism, threatening, intimidation, assaulting police, bestiality, holding a moment of silence for the insane guy who shot at the White House - it's all in a day's protest for the left. But the response has been the same from these folks: "Oh, those are just the fringe nuts." Fair enough. Let's assume these are just the folks who stumbled into the gathering, but aren't in it for it's true meaning. They aren't true believers.

 

So who are the true believers? Let me draw a comparison to the Tea Party movement. Many tea partiers have gone back to work and aren't out in front any more. A veteran of speaking to these rallies, I can attest that right now their rallies are attended by only the most ardent supporters.the ones who truly get the message, believe the message and who are committed to preaching the message. So let's suppose that's true of the Occupiers. As most of the riff-raff have gone on home, the true believers remain.

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:07 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, December 08 2011

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

 

The collapse of Herman Cain's campaign has set the polling world abuzz with reshuffled loyalties. And it's going to take a number of days and even weeks to see where the former Cain backers end up settling for good. But in Iowa, there was an interesting realignment of the favorite three. Check this out:

 

With the dizzying fall of Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich has stepped into the breach and now stands alone as the most popular GOP presidential candidate in The Des Moines Register's new Iowa Poll.

 

Gingrich, with support of 25 percent of likely Republican caucusgoers, is seven points ahead of the rising Ron Paul, who's at 18 percent. Mitt Romney drops to third, at 16 percent, denting his previously armor-plated Iowa polling average. Romney's support stood at 22 percent last month.

The Newt thing doesn't surprise me. Nor does the Romney descent. But Ron Paul now coming in at number two? What's this all about? There's more:

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:06 pm   |  Permalink   |  3 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, December 07 2011

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

 

Newt Gingrich is more than the flavor of the day. Leftist media types can pretend all they want (as can Mitt Romney's campaign) that Newt's surge is nothing but a temporary flare of interest in a candidate that will quickly turn people off once they discover the negatives about him, but that is not what's going on with Gingrich. After all, unlike Bachmann, Cain and Perry (the others who have had their own bursts of support), people know Newt. They know his baggage. They know his background. They know his mistakes. And yet his numbers climb.

 

 

What that reflects is that conservatives are serious about finding an alternative to Mitt. And they want one who is smart, articulate, and who can effect change in Washington, D.C. They have shifted towards Newt not because he is flashy, sexy, full of charisma or is spending boatloads of advertising money. They are going his direction because he is a polished, articulate idea man who could demolish Obama in a debate. That isn't going to change tomorrow, much as Mitt or the media may want it to.

 

So if this does become a two person race, can the case be legitimately made for conservatives to rally behind the former speaker? Bruce Walker thinks so, and articulates why in a compelling American Thinker piece. He begins by acknowledging the obvious:

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:09 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, December 07 2011

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

 

In a few recent Republican debates, a couple of the contenders suggested that as President they would reestablish the evaluation for using tax dollars for foreign aid by starting at $0 for every country. That generated a great deal of controversy in several quarters. Barack Obama's administration announced yesterday a slightly different approach to foreign aid that should generate even more controversy:

The Obama administration announced on Tuesday that the United States would use all the tools of American diplomacy, including the potent enticement of foreign aid, to promote gay rights around the world.

 

Simply amazing. In a country that is on the precipice of economic calamity, tottering perilously close to the pit of a double dip recession, with sky high unemployment and underemployment, Barack Obama finds it appropriate to call for more tax dollars to be poured into foreign countries in order to facilitate an expanse of the homosexual agenda.

 

But lest you believe that this is a political calculation to use your tax money in an election year to shore up support for Obama amongst what he views as an important demographic (the LGBT lobby), Secretary of State Hillary Clinton explained what the real motivation was:

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:08 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, December 07 2011

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

 

A couple weeks ago I learned my lesson when I was watching Sunday afternoon football on CBS. I didn't have the remote near me so when the game ended, CBS went straight into their Sunday evening staple 60 Minutes. So this week, as soon as the FOX afternoon game ended, I switched immediately to watch Sunday Night Football on NBC. I figured going from football to football would save me from the leftwing media reports on the political world - something I try to avoid on Sundays. I was wrong.

 

 

I actually made it through to halftime. But there, during a brief commentary, Bob Costas announced the always overhyped, always underwhelming Superbowl halftime show. By now perhaps you've heard: it's going to be Madonna.

 

Okay, so this isn't exactly bombarding me with an unexpected political commentary, but it does provoke my political side's ire. Why, you ask? Kate Pavlich over at Townhall explains:

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:07 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, December 07 2011

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

 

Today is Pearl Harbor Day...the day that will live in infamy. We should make every effort to see the images, to hear the stories, to find ways to make the horror of that day real to a new generation of Americans that struggle to understand the significance of an event that changed the world 70 years ago. Pearl Harbor is a story of survival, a story of treachery, a story of shock, a story of heroism, a story that adds an integral piece to the puzzle that is the story of this great nation.

 

 

Professor Jim Lacey wrote an excellent summary of the events here, including this excerpt:

Just before 8:00 a.m. on Dec. 7, 1941, the first of two waves of attacking aircraft swept over Pearl Harbor. Barely 15 minutes later the most powerful battleships of the mighty U.S. Pacific Fleet were either sunk or burning wrecks. The California was half submerged, with her keel lying in the harbor's mud. Nearby, the West Virginia had her port side torn open. Her twisted metal was burning, but for now she was still afloat. Two other ships, the Tennessee and the Maryland, were battered, but in better shape than their sisters. Beside them, the Oklahoma had been struck by a barrage of torpedoes and capsized. The U.S.S. Nevada was the only battleship to get underway that morning, but she was damaged and had run up onto the beach. The worst fate was suffered by the U.S.S. Arizona,which blew up and sank, taking over 1,000 of her crew with her.

It's an important point to remember: the Japanese never thought they would conquer the United States. That's not what the purpose of the attack was. Japan wanted the oil fields of Southeast Asia and the islands of the South Pacific, largely because of the loss of trade with the United States - the result of their decision to ally with Hitler. Japan knew that the American Navy would never stand idly by while they overran the Pacific, and so they decided a crippling blow would buy them enough time to get firmly entrenched in those islands and territories they would conquer. The hope was that by the time our Navy was reassembled we would lack the resolve or dedication to prying the Japanese loose of their gains. They clearly calculated wrong:

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:06 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, December 06 2011

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

 

A few years ago I wrote a column that blasted FOX Sports writer Jason Whitlock for race-baiting the NFL Superbowl. I thought his arguments were silly, baseless and a real distraction from anything of relevance. So imagine my pleasant surprise when I saw a commentary from the same author that seemed to express an important social point - one in line with conservative politics - in relation to the sports saga surrounding Denver Broncos quarterback Tim Tebow. This is an excellent column and one that deserves praise for its boldness in speaking politically incorrect truth to an increasingly clueless country.

 

 

Whitlock wrote:

If this works, if Tim Tebow keeps winning games, keeps getting better, keeps forcing John Elway and John Fox to consider an alternative quarterback route to the Super Bowl, it won't be some impossible-to-believe miracle, an act of a higher power.

 

Tim Tebow is not a religious symbol. He's a shrine to the power of a strong, committed, passionate two-parent upbringing. Tebow's birth ? a product of his mother's faith and refusal to listen to doctors advising her to abort ? might very well have been a religious miracle. Tebow's performance on the football field is testament to Bob and Pam Tebow and what they instilled in their youngest child.

To some it may seem like Whitlock is discounting God's blessing on Tebow. I don't think that's his point at all. I think he is saying that Tebow is succeeding because he is working hard, concentrating, overcoming obstacles, and maintaining a positive attitude in the midst of extraordinary drama. Certainly the ability to do so is in part his faith. But Whitlock's point is not to shortchange the values of hard work that Tebow has embraced by suggesting that he's just a random kid that God for some reason has decided to bless for no reason. He continues:

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:09 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, December 06 2011

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

 

I just have one question here: if you're going to sponsor legislation and policy changes, should you not be held accountable and forced to answer for those policy changes as they're being implemented? I'm being serious here based on what happened yesterday at the White House press briefing. This goes back to that shock story we had yesterday on the program about the liberal Democrats in the Senate pushing through an amendment to the defense appropriations bill that repealed the ban on sodomy and bestiality in the military. Let's review what we know.

 

 

The President of the United States, the Commander-in-Chief of our armed forces, saw fit to make his primary objective regarding the military the enactment of a social experiment on troop readiness, morale and cohesion. He cares so much about national defense that he felt like it was time to start running sexual experiments on our military. Good call.

 

So he - without being forced or coerced by anyone - chose to make the repeal of the military ban on open homosexuality one of his top legislative priorities. He accomplished it. The problem for the Democrats became the fact that even after repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell and allowing for a person to openly declare their homosexuality preference in the military, Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice still prohibited sodomy - one of the preferred forms of male on male homosexual activity. So the gay rights lobby naturally had a problem with that: how can you say it's "okay to be gay" in the military, but still prohibit the expression of intimate homosexual sex?

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:08 pm   |  Permalink   |  1 Comment  |  Email
Tuesday, December 06 2011

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

 

This one may be a little bit uncomfortable to deal with, but I think it's important that we deal with it. Jerry Sandusky, the Penn State football coach who allegedly sexually abused and molested a number of young boys entrusted to his care recently granted a bombshell interview that has outraged a lot of people.

 

 

This isn't the interview he conducted with Bob Costas on Brian Williams' new show Rock Center. This is one he granted exclusively to the New York Times. There was a video camera and so the video clip is out there. In it, Sandusky references the interview he did with Costas and seems to complain that he really didn't know how to answer some of the questions.

 

Specifically he mentions when Costas asked him if he was attracted to young boys. Sandusky told the New York Times reporter he felt trapped by the question and didn't know how to answer. "If I say, 'No, I'm not attracted to boys,'" he said, "that's not the truth because I'm attracted to young people: boys, girls." Sitting off camera, his attorney quickly interjected to say that he doesn't mean that he's sexually attracted to young boys and girls. All evidence to the contrary.

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:07 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, December 06 2011

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

 

It wasn't that long ago that I wrote about the ridiculous double standard that the media was engaging when it came to the faith of presidential candidates. While Jeremiah Wright was off limits to talk about (even though Obama claimed him as a spiritual mentor, named one of his books after him, was married by the man, had Wright baptize his own children, and sat in a church pew listening to him for over 20 years) according to the mainstream press, that same media couldn't get enough talk about Romney's Mormonism or Michele Bachmann and her family-owned faith-based counseling service.

 

 

Well now there's a bit of empirical data to back up my anecdotal observations. The Media Research Center has put together a study they call "Baptism by Fire" that evaluates the media coverage of faith issues among the candidates. Here's some of what they found:

Networks Get Religion 7 times more for GOP: ABC, CBS and NBC mentioned GOP candidates' religion 143 times in the first 10 months of 2011. By contrast, Democratic candidates' faith was brought up only 19 times in the same period of the 2008 election cycle.

 

Journalists Confront, Criticize and Question Conservatives on Faith: In 2007, reporters accepted at face value liberal candidates' statements about religion. Not so for 2011's conservatives. The networks were nearly 13 times more likely to be critical or challenging of conservative candidates' faith than liberals'. And more than half the religion mentions in 2011 sought to create and exploit controversy over how many Christian denominations regard Mormonism.

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:06 pm   |  Permalink   |  1 Comment  |  Email
Monday, December 05 2011

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

 

I'm not surprised that Herman Cain is no longer in the race for President, and I am disappointed to say the least at the way things devolved for him, but I do think he made the right choice. One of the things that attracted so many of us to Herman Cain was the fact that he was unconventional, full of charisma and just different from the routine politician we've become accustomed to. Of course, most politicians are the way they are for a reason - and one of the large benefits they have over outsiders was demonstrated in the Cain debacle.

 

 

Cain underestimated the power of an accusation and the power of the media. He skated through the early days of the primary race unscathed because A.) no liberal media type gave him a chance at winning the nomination and B.) they didn't want to have to hit a black man if they didn't have to.it weakens their credibility when they criticize a black man after telling the country for 3 years that any criticism of Obama is race-driven. But once Cain became the front-runner and seriously threatened the leftist establishment's grasp on their most important debate tool - the race card (as I wrote about here) - they got to work destroying him.

 

Cain was utterly unprepared to deal with it. It wasn't long before the man was consumed by the scandal. He didn't have a clear response, a clear message or clear defense (something any seasoned politician would be sure to have down pat before walking out the front door) prepared, which only strengthened the credibility of the accusations and made the media more frenzied.

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:24 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Monday, December 05 2011

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

 

For all of my Republican friends who continue to worry and stew about the fact that Jesus decided not to hop on the Republican ballot this time around and consequently there is no perfect candidate for them to choose to face off against Obama in 2012, please, please, please try to keep it in perspective and realize what the eventual nominee will be facing.

 

 

It's just remarkable to me that we have double the gas prices since Obama took office, almost double the unemployment from what it was the majority of Bush's term, double the debt, double the deficit, four times as many foreign countries under the thumb of the Muslim brotherhood, fewer staunch allies who trust us, one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, more Americans than ever on food stamps, jobs being shed due to the president's own signature "accomplishment" from his first term, and Republicans honestly think the election is going to be about their candidate...whoever it is. I'm in disbelief at that.

 

I understand fearing a second term of such incompetence. But the negativity that so many of them are dabbling in simply because the media keeps telling them how weak their candidates are is just unbelievable to me. Let me give you yet another example of what this election is really going to be about. It happened in the daily White House briefing at the end of last week.

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:09 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Monday, December 05 2011

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

 

Back during the debate over repealing the military's ban on homosexuality in the military (and that's what it was, despite all the emotionally driven drivel about it being a ban discriminating against people who wanted to serve their country - otherwise any person who likes to engage in behavior the military bans could claim the same), I asked the question whether anyone actually believed it was going to stop here. For years, liberals have been pursuing their sexual revolution that is intent on breaking down any barriers of traditional morality that have been historically placed on human sexuality. They have preached that such barriers are discriminatory and wrong.

 

 

The end result of that, of course, would be and will be sexual anarchy. It's maddening to watch liberals say things like, "Oh, that's a slippery slope argument" or a "floodgates argument" and attempt to dismiss it as such. How far down the slope do we have to be before we acknowledge what we're on?

 

I've asked the question of homosexuality advocates repeatedly, and not a single one can give me a coherent answer: if you are going to accept the argument that we have to learn to love people for "who they are," and "let people love who they want to love," how do you deny that same principle when the polygamists argue it? Or if you accept the belief that what a person does sexually is their own private decision and the government has no business interfering or prohibiting it, how do you reverse course when someone who engages in bestiality makes the same case? The reason I get no answer from these activists is because you can't. If you accept the logic, you are bound by it.

 

And as our slide down the slope continues, we have this story emerge, right on cue:

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:08 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Monday, December 05 2011

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

 

In the first Thanksgiving address given by an American President, George Washington encouraged his fellow citizens in 1789 to join him in, "acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness." Clearly demonstrating an equal grasp on the gravity and meaning of such an occasion, current U.S. President Barack Obama followed in Washington's footsteps by calling this generation of Americans to a day of, "eating great food, watching a little football, and reflecting on how truly lucky we are." Quick, grab a tablet of stone and chisel in that pellet of eternal insight before it escapes our mortal consciences.

 

 

Perhaps the comparison is unfair given that Obama did issue a written statement that thanked God for, "the many kindnesses and comforts that grace our lives." Nonetheless, conservative critics pounced, observing that the same President who never misses the opportunity to host an Iftar dinner and extemporaneously proclaim the great benevolence of the God of Islam, just totally blanks on the magnanimity of the Judeo-Christian God amidst the very holiday our people have historically set aside to honor Him for His blessings.

 

Fox News columnist Todd Starnes fired the first volley, noting that the president's, "remarks were void of any religious references although Thanksgiving is a holiday traditionally steeped in giving thanks and praise to God." From there a bevy of right leaning commentators attacked the president for his sin of omission. Might I humbly suggest that a more meaningful critique of the President's speech should focus less on what he didn't say, and more on what he did?

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:06 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Sunday, December 04 2011

In 2005 Canada became the fourth country to unravel the logical time-tested boundary of one man and one woman marriage in acquiescence to homosexual activists and secularists. It didn't take long before those waiting in the wings made their move. As polygamy.com a Maine based US entity notes in their motto, "polygamy: the next civil rights battle," there are many groups cheering on the homosexual activists because of their odd desire to twist marriage like it is mere Silly Putty.

(By the way, calling one's sexual desire or behavior a "civil right" is essentially an illogical claim that our founders pledged their "lives, fortunes, and sacred honor" for a sweeping right to do what is wrong, or back in their day, was also a crime.)

Last week a Supreme Court Judge in British Columbia surprised many when he handed down a 350-page ruling against polygamy. Chief Justice Robert Bauman found that the law prohibiting polygamy was justified because "(w)omen in polygamous relationships are at an elevated risk of physical and psychological harm," and children "suffer more emotional, behavioral and physical problems, as well as lower educational achievement than children in monogamous families."

KEEP READING

Posted by: Micah Clark AT 06:01 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Saturday, December 03 2011
This week's lib-quote is chilling. From a 10-year study on expanding euthanasia for the elderly in the Netherlands, the Dutch Medical Association reports:

Many older people have various afflictions that are not actually life-threatening but do make them vulnerable...Vulnerability stems not only from health problems and the ensuing limitations, but also the measure in which people have social skills, financial resources and a social network. Vulnerability has an impact on quality of life and on prospects for recovery, and can lead to unbearable and lasting suffering.

 

The direction of this "study" is clear, isn't it? No Liberty Tree reader has any trouble comprehending the implications of this "scientific study," do you?

 

This used to be the plots of macabre science fiction stories. Not anymore. This is real life.

These medical folks seem to like using the word "vulnerable." Know what makes these senior citizens the most "vulnerable?" People - like doctors - who want to kill them off because they are too expensive to keep around or are a pain in the rear for someone to care for. I guess this will help junior out when he thinks he has waited around long enough for his inheritance.

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 02:09 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Saturday, December 03 2011

In what some are calling "Climategate 2" another review of thousands of emails from various scientists at the very center of the global warming computer models should have everyone concerned. The email dump comes two years to the day of a similar release stemming from Freedom of Information Act requests.

Regardless of your view on the issue of global warming, the apparent intentional cooking of the data by scientists in order to promote a political agenda, (fueled in large part by government funding to scientists and schools in expectation of certain results), is very troubling. Science should be transparent, fact based and impartial in order for the public to have confidence in its claims.

The emails make it pretty clear that many scientists at the center of climate change research understand that this is foremost a political issue. It also is clear that the scientists pushing a global warming model believe that their case is weak and very dependent upon doctoring the numbers and the data.

KEEP READING

Posted by: Micah Clark AT 07:34 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Saturday, December 03 2011

You probably will not be surprised to learn that when politicians in New York forced through a law to redefine marriage over the will of the people this summer, they violated their own rules, and possibly the state constitution along the way. (A poll taken a week before the law was passed found that a majority of New Yorkers did not want same-sex marriage and even more preferred to allow the people to vote on the matter, rather than the state legislature.)

What is surprising is that a New York Judge has sided with the Liberty Counsel agreeing that rules were violated and thus further legal review of the law is appropriate. Judge Robert Wiggens ruling yesterday is a blow to Governor Andrew Cuomo and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. The judge specifically called Governor Cuomo's excuse for violating state open door laws "disingenuous." Yet, he didn't stop there. The Judge also disapproved of the "clear arm-twisting by the Executive on the Legislative [that] permeates this entire process."

Whether this case ultimately leads to a redo of the law in the proper manner, or an actual vote of the people on this issue as a remedy is probably a long shot, but it is an interesting case to watch. It would be nice to see a judge slap the hands of elected politicians who so intentionally rule over the will of the people. This would be particularly rewarding when politicians went so far as to discard laws and their own rules adopted to protect the public and the integrity of the legislative process.

Posted by: Micah Clark AT 06:51 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, December 02 2011

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

 

In a fluid race for the Republican presidential nomination, it's amazing how fast the conversation shifts. Seems like we were just discussing Michele Bachmann's surprising win in Iowa, or the Perry path to the nomination. Now, Newt Gingrich is positioning to capture the nomination. But just like Bachmann, just like Perry, just like Cain, there are a number of things that will be obstacles for Gingrich to overcome.

 

 

It's a well-documented fact that Newt has, "baggage." Anyone who has been involved in politics as long as Newt has is going to have some, but Newt has...well, a lot. I don't know how much the tag of "Washington Insider" is going to hurt him, as no one questions Newt's ability to shake up the status quo (something he has done throughout his political career). If the issue is "change" in the Washington culture, Newt will beat Obama.

 

Perhaps Newt's biggest problem in capturing the nomination may well be his sordid past of three marriages and well documented (and admitted) cases of infidelity. It's not going to be easy for traditional conservative Christians to think about supporting a man with a checkered past regarding his marital morality. And it's not an easy sell to the general population when the Party that stands for family values boasts such a man while the Party that wars against those values boasts a man in Obama, who - say what you will about him - seems to be a devoted husband and father.

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:09 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, December 02 2011

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

 

While Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin was shoving political correctness in his state down the sewer where it belongs and re-establishing the name "Christmas Tree" for the previously re-named "Holiday Tree" in the State Capitol, the liberal Governor of Rhode Island Lincoln Chafee was doing the exact opposite:

 

A Rhode Island lawmaker is calling Gov. Lincoln Chafee "Governor Grinch" after he defied lawmakers and decided that the state would have a "holiday tree" instead of a "Christmas tree."

 

The governor defended his decision by arguing that it is in keeping with the state's founding in 1636 by religious dissident Roger Williams as a haven for tolerance - where government and religion were kept separate.

One must wonder whether Captain PC Chafee even realizes that Roger Williams was a Baptist minister. This is the quality of the liberal intellect today. Of course, Chafee had his ready-made defense prepared for the conservative backlash:

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:08 pm   |  Permalink   |  2 Comments  |  Email
Friday, December 02 2011

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

 

While his campaign manager and several key supporters are saying he will not be withdrawing from the presidential race, Herman Cain has acknowledged he is reassessing his participation in the contest after a slew of allegations of sexual impropriety have hammered him relentlessly. The most recent accusation - one that details a 13 year alleged affair - is clearly the most damaging. Whether true or not, it demonstrates why so few good people ever enter the world of politics. Why would anyone want to put the people they love most - their wives, children and grandchildren - through something like that?

 

 

And it's those reasons why I think there's a good chance, Cain will pull out of the race. If not immediately, sometime in the near future. I could be wrong, and if the allegations prove to be false, I truly hope I am as it would be outrageous to let such slander destroy such a promising candidacy. But I think Cain is a good man, and any good man has to think of his family first. And they have clearly weathered a lot.

 

So let's suppose Cain does withdraw. What does that do to the race? I've gotten a few emails asking who I thought would benefit the most. It's a good question, and one that has a few different variables. But right now, if I was guessing, I would say that Gingrich would benefit the most.

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:07 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, December 02 2011

Congressional candidate Jackie Walorski joined Peter Heck on his radio show for their bi-monthly conversation.

 

 

This week, Walorski shared her thoughts on what appears to be America's unraveling foreign policy: what caused it, what are the potential consequences, and what can be done to correct it.

 

Hear the full conversation here.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:06 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, December 01 2011

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

 

You may have heard that the great liberal champion of Oregon, Governor John Kitzhaber, has finally had enough. Attempting to make his mark in the hall of great rights champions like William Wilberforce, Abraham Lincoln, Susan B. Anthony and Martin Luther King, Jr., Governor Kitzhaber has decided to defend the right to life for capital offenders. He will simply not stand for any more executions of convicted mass murderers. He will be a voice for those who have taken the voice from others. What a guy.

 

 

His reasoning is based on the strongest stuff the left can muster - something closely akin to Jello. Columnist Dennis Prager took each of his arguments and dismantled them in a recent article. Here were Kitzhaber's pathetic arguments, in turn:

1. "I refuse to be part of this compromised and inequitable system any longer."

This sounds very similar to the arguments the left typically cites in his attack on the death penalty when they say, "You're executing black people far more frequently than you are white people." Okay, if you're saying the system is inequitable towards blacks, that's a great argument for fixing the inequality. It doesn't say anything, however, about the validity or the acceptability of capital punishment. It's a distraction and emotional appeal. I know, who would have thought the left would try tactics of diversion in making their case. It's so unlike them.

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:08 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, December 01 2011

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

 

I've commented a number of times that ABC's Jake Tapper may be the closest thing to an objective, investigative journalist that the mainstream media has to offer. By that I mean that it would be tough to pinpoint the ideology of Tapper simply by gauging or evaluating the stories that he reports or the way he reports them. I'm sure Tapper has a worldview and a political philosophy. Everyone does. But Tapper seems to understand the difference between journalism and opinion journalism.

 

 

Remember, there's nothing wrong with opinion making or giving. There's nothing wrong with opinion journalism. It's what I do for crying out loud. We need opinion journalists, and they exist on both sides. What is unacceptable is the attempt of so many left-wing opinion journalists to masquerade as objective reporters. They don't report the news and ask penetrating questions of both sides. They lob softballs at their friends and attempt to filet their opponents.

 

Tapper seems to be in the fileting mood regardless of which party's candidates he is reporting on. Former Time Magazine fake-journalist-turned-Obama-spokesman Jay Carney was on the receiving end of one of Tapper's recent queries. Watch the video to get the full effect:

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:07 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, December 01 2011

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

 

Former Disney star Miley Cyrus has taken yet another step down the pitiful and sorry Lindsay Lohan Wrecked Existence Path, and sadly, I can't say I'm surprised. The love of money is the root of all kinds of evil. And throw fame right in there alongside fortune. It's bad enough for adults - even those who come from meager beginnings and therefore can apply a little perspective to the real worth of material possessions. But for a young kid, stardom and a billion dollars (yes, that is what Cyrus' franchise is reportedly worth) is way too much to handle.

 

 

And without strong parental guidance, which admittedly would be remarkably difficult in those circumstances, it doesn't take long before the child who had everything turns into a walking nightmare. If she's not already there, Miley has certainly inched a little closer to it recently:

Another teen "role model" down the drain - Miley Cyrus, aka, Disney's "HannahMontana" recently admitted at her 19th birthday party that she smokes pot - a lot of pot.

 

...

 

In a video released by The Daily, Cyrus took the microphone at her birthday party last week in Los Angeles and said, "You know you're a stoner when your friends make you a Bob Marley cake . You know you smoke way too much f***ing weed." This comes as no surprise to those who remember the video released last year of Cyrus smoking a bong claiming it was not weed and in fact the legal hallucinogen, salvia.

From what I understand, Miley's publicist is now claiming that the whole weed thing was just a joke. How many times can you play that card and not be embarrassed? Is there anyone who buys it?

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:06 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
*
*
*
click between 3-5 pm ET
*
*