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

a service of Attaboy Productions, Inc.

Wednesday, June 29 2011

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


Establishment Republicans are scared to death about this 2012 presidential primary.  Oh sure, they've got their choices in the race: Romney, Huntsman (and even Gingrich to some degree).  But they are panicked that it won't be one of theirs who emerges from the pack.  They shake their heads in terror that it might be Perry or Bachmann or...God forbid, Sarah Palin.



The truth is that as candidates continue to emerge, surge, and recede within the Republican primary field, there remains something about Sarah.  The mere mention of her name evokes a response that no other candidate can evoke.  And yes, it scares the establishment to death.


And as counterintuitive as this may seem, their fear is not limited to concern that she or one of those other conservative candidates might win the nomination.  They are even more frightened that they might beat Barack Obama and become president.  I know, it doesn't make sense.  But you have to understand the way the establishment thinks.  They think - all too often - like liberals.  They are concerned with appearances, the status quo, and media respect.  None of that is associated with staunch conservative candidates.


It's a question of priorities.  Establishment Republicans are not focused on making conservative improvements to the country.  It's why they are leery about some of the party's greatest and most brilliant thinkers and leaders (remember, they never liked Reagan even after he handed the party three landslide elections - George H.W. Bush was elected on Reagan's coattails, not his own ideas).


Suffice it to say that the establishment would rather lose with Romney than win with Palin.  Which is why you see the sickening display of establishment Republicans undermining their party's own more conservative candidates (all while lecturing conservatives in elections like '08 to show loyalty even if they don't like that the candidate isn't conservative).


The latest example of the establishment Republican inanity comes from Jeff Kuhner of the Washington Times, who thoughtfully explains why Sarah Palin should never be nominated since she just can't be elected:

Mrs. Palin (should she run) may be able to win the GOP nomination. The presidency, however, is a bridge too far. The media will eviscerate her. Outside of her intense base, she is despised and distrusted. She personifies the cheap politics of celebrity.

The truth is that there are many Republicans (even conservatives) who buy into this nonsense.  You'll hear them saying things like, "Oh I really like Sarah, but I just don't think she can get it done."  Well, if that's the support she has from her supporters, they're probably right.


I simply implore you to think about Mr. Kuhner's statement a little deeper and hold it up in a slightly different light.  As yourself what more the media could do to this woman?  M Catherine Evans explains what I mean:

Really, Jeff? "The media will eviscerate her?" Where have you been for the past 3 years? She is probably the most vetted politician in U.S. history. Palin has withstood accusations of murder, a barrage of bogus charges as Governor (after her 2008 election loss -- how scared are the Dems?), vicious attacks on her children, public death threats by various entertainers, a guerilla media obsessed with destroying her, and basement Obama zombies posting graphic pornographic messages about a mother of five on leftist sites. Is the governor's integrity still intact? You betcha.

Honestly, if Republicans want the candidate who can best stand up to the left's assault, they've already got her.  No Republican in my memory has ever been put through the media's ringer like Sarah Palin and emerged as strong as she is.  There will be no more surprises with Sarah.  She is who she is, and perhaps that's what scares the establishment types more than anything else.


They can't shape her, they can't mold her.  She is a leader, not Gumby.  Sorta like another conservative Republican from a few years back that Republican establishment types like Kuhner warned everybody he couldn't be elected.


If Sarah is to follow his path, it will include defeating not just the Democrats, but the sourpuss old Republican guard that seeks to undermine her at every turn.  Pathetic.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:09 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, June 29 2011

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


Demonstrating yet again the extent to which liberals are content with free speech when that speech disagrees with their ideas, former Democrat Senator Tim Wirth (now working for a loony left-wing operation put together by uber-leftist Ted Turner called the UN Foundation) has some just lovely ideas about global warming:

Former Democratic Sen. Tim Wirth of Colorado, now the president of the UN Foundation, said the flooding and forest fires in the United States this year are evidence of "the kind of dramatic climate impact" climate change models have predicted and that those in the know on climate change must "undertake an aggressive program to go after those who are among the deniers."

First of all, Tim, the reason the flooding and forest fires in the U.S. match up with what the "climate change models have predicted," is because the climate changers predict every possible weather outcome as a consequence of climate change.  They say that climate change will cause floods, but that it will also cause droughts.  Either way it goes, they claim they were right.  They say that climate change will cause extreme heat, but that it will also cause cold.  Either way it goes, they claim they were right.  They claim that it will cause aggressive hurricane outbreaks, but that it will also cause virtually no hurricanes.  Either way it goes, they claim they were right.


So how surprised should we be that forest fires and flooding were on the list? 


But how lovely is it to see what's coming from the minds of the left.  There was a proposal by a left wing columnist a few weeks ago about tatooing global warming deniers.branding us, if you will.  Now we see the Goreian prophets speaking about "aggressive program[s] to go after those who are among the deniers."  How long until someone proposes a "final solution" I wonder?  As long as they're choosing to use the Holocaust imagery themselves, we might as well put the shoe on where it fits.

In a UN Foundation conference call about climate change, from Svalbard, Norway on Thursday, Wirth said, "[W]e have to--I think, again as I've suggested before--undertake an aggressive program to go after those who are among the deniers, who are putting out these mistruths, and really call them for what they're doing and make a battle out of it. They've had pretty much of a free ride so far, and that time has got to stop."

In case you're wondering, no, I do not know on what planet Mr. Wirth has taken up residence.  If Mr. Wirth is serious about going after those who are spreading mistruths about climate change, perhaps he should begin with fellow Warmers at the University of East Anglia who were just making up data to support their global warming hysterics.  Then he could move on to the Warmers we recently nailed on the show for manipulating data about sea level rises.  Then he could move on to Al Gore himself, who has admitted exaggerating claims and potential consequences just to try to get people's attention.


And what is this about a free ride?  Free ride to where?  Scientific obscurity?  Only until recent years have more and more climate scientists begun to feel comfortable speaking out against the sham that is this Gore-led political movement to steal money, wreck industrial economies, and concentrate power in the state.  Until now, scientists who did so were threatened with the loss of funding, research grants, publication in serious peer-reviewed journals - basically their livelihood.  Kinda like the way Creationists are treated.



If anything has to stop, Mr. Wirth, it's the abuse of science perpetrated by your neo-Marxist cronies who have preyed upon people's fears to get rich. 

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:08 pm   |  Permalink   |  1 Comment  |  Email
Wednesday, June 29 2011

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


I'll just be honest: I don't care for soccer.  I've never liked it.  Maybe it stems from the fact that my parents drug me to my brother's soccer games when we were in elementary school.  I have never been so bored.  When he had to come watch me play flag-football, at least he had an entertaining game to watch.  You know, one where the score ended up something like 42-35 rather than 1-0. 


Anyway, I married someone who loves soccer.  Thankfully she just loves playing it, not watching it on TV.  That significant point, I believe, has kept us from needing counseling.  Anyway, all that to say, if I ever had to watch soccer - or care about it - or pretend that it even existed, I've found my favorite player (Does Pele still play?  I like him too, I think...wasn't he kind of like the Michael Jordan, or Wayne Gretzky of soccer?  Maybe not.  Plus, I think he would be something like 86 now, so he probably isn't still I'll just stick with the guy I'm writing about - sorry for the sidetrack).


His name is Tim Howard, the U.S. team goalie. 



And in the politically correct world of sports (if you want to meet the most liberal reporters in the country, check out the vast majority of sports media) where athletes get a slap on the wrist for punching, but are nearly evicted from the league for using something perceived as "anti-gay slang," this Howard guy spoke it like it is after the Americans lost the Gold Cup (whatever that is - I thought it was the World Cup?) to Mexico.


Keep in mind as you read this that the game was playing in the United States - Los Angeles, to be precise.

Goalkeeper Tim Howard was still upset after the U.S. lost the Gold Cup final, but his strongest reaction had nothing to do with the four goals Mexico slotted in his net.

After El Tri's 4-2 victory at the Rose Bowl in Pasadena, Calif., Howard blasted CONCACAF officials for conducting the title ceremony in Spanish.

"CONCACAF should be ashamed of themselves," Howard said. "I think it was a [expletive] disgrace that the entire postmatch ceremony was in Spanish. You can bet your ass that if we were in Mexico City, it wouldn't be all in English.

The story went on to note how even though the game was played in California, the crowd was heavily weighted towards Mexico.  And while that could be interpreted as a depiction of the concerning lack of assimilation of Mexican immigrants into the United States (and I'm not even talking illegal immigrants here), as well as the lack of love and loyalty towards their adopted country, I'm even willing to ignore that in this account.


After all, it is soccer.  Mexicans love soccer.  Americans don't.  So, it's distinctly possible that the largely Mexican crowd was truly made up of Mexican citizens who bought tickets and made the trek to watch the game.  Who knows?


What I'm focusing on in Howard's completely legitimate complaint.  This was an American sponsored and hosted event.  And right there in one of our largest cities, our own players had to look around at each other clueless, because the ceremony was held in a foreign language.  Howard's right.  If it was in Mexico City, they wouldn't have held the ceremony in English.  And no one would expect them to.  No one expects such a bizarre "courtesy" anywhere but the United States, where our politically correct task masters have made us feel like there's something racist to acknowledge that our language is English.


Howard's frustration is something that should extend far from the playing field.  It should be felt by every taxpayer in America who is ponying up cash so that major cities (like L.A.) can print ballots, petitions, textbooks, tests, and government forms in whatever "native tongue" a person requests.  To fail to do so, we're told, would be nativist and insensitive.  Bull.


I'm with Howard.  It's a disgrace.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:06 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, June 28 2011

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


Demonstrating the dignity of their movement, it has become fashionable in the "gay rights" crowd to show up to public events of those who don't believe as they do, and shower the dignitary with glitter.  Other than proving you're a jerk, I'm not really sure what that's supposed to accomplish.  Nonetheless, I think it's time for a little consistency.  It's time for President Obama to have a glitter shower.



As New York was in the process of passing it's law allowing people of the same-sex to "marry" one another, Barack Obama was trying to reach into the pockets of those practicing homosexuality.  The duplicity of this president on the issue of homosexuality is honestly a spectacle to behold.  My views on the subject are very well known.  I've made no secret of my beliefs or what I think appropriate government policy towards sexual depravity should be.  I don't expect those who prefer total sexual license to agree with me.  But they know where I stand, as I know where they stand.

Can someone tell either of us where this president stands?  If you listen to him, he can't (or at least his TeleprompTer hasn't told him yet).  By now, the President's flip-flop-flip-half flop on "gay marriage" is well documented, and there's no reason to sail charted waters again.  But merely from a standpoint of logic and rationale, see if you can follow this:

The president has said his views are "evolving," but for now he supports civil unions, not same-sex marriage.


Obama said progress will be slower than some people want, but he added that he was confident that there will be a day "when every single American, gay or straight or lesbian or bisexual or transgender, is free to live and love as they see fit."

Wait a second.  I read the first line there and I see that the president believes that same-sex marriage should not be legal.  That's what you see too, right?  That's why he doesn't support it.  But then in the very next statement, he goes all Martin Luther King on us and tells "gay supporters" that he has a dream of bisexual, transgender wedded bliss.


If he has that vision...if that is his dream...if that's what he believes we are coming to and should come to (which, one would think is why he directed his Justice Department to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act), then why is he opposed to it?!


Honestly, this can't be nearly as frustrating to me as it is to those who believe in sexual anarchy.  I don't expect coherence from this president or consistency.  I think he is clueless and hopelessly backwards when it comes to any notion of Biblical morality.  I don't think Mr. Obama could articulate the foundation points of the Biblical Christian worldview if someone read them to him.


But think about the sexual anarchists for a second.  Obama was their hero.  He was the one who promised them the sun, moon, and stars.  They gave to his campaign.  And now here he is, speaking out of both sides of his mouth as he asks for more of their money.  They have to be pretty turned off by that, wouldn't you think?


Get a load of this appeal:

In a direct appeal for votes, Obama said: "With your help, if you keep up the fight, if you will devote your time and your energies to this campaign one more time, I promise you we will write another chapter in that story. ... I'll be standing there, right there with you."

The homosexual left loves to use the imagery of the civil rights movement to describe its cause.  As wrong as that is, it's helpful to understand Mr. Obama's duplicity here.  Does anyone remember Dr. King holding the fire hoses on his fellow civil rights marchers, and as their skin was being torn off shouting over the top of the screams, "Don't worry...just stick with me a little longer and I'll have your back...I'll be there with you at the end when we both realize our dream of equality...but for now, turn up the water over there, my position hasn't quite evolved fully yet."



Mr. Obama, if you believe that "homosexual marriage" is the next great chapter of our civil rights struggle, why don't you be honest about it?  Disagree with them as vehemently as I do, the sexual anarchists you're asking to support you (as well as all Americans) deserve to know what you really believe.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:09 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, June 28 2011

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


Well, New York has joined the circus.  After the state assembly passed a law allowing those practicing homosexuality to wed one another, there was a public display of decadence, replete with topless women, homosexual smooches, city mayors, governors and assemblymen, and even a police chief to boot.  It was a scene that would have made the Mayor of Sodom and the assemblyman from Gomorrah quite proud.


Even the AP writer couldn't contain her bias:

New York's parade turned into a carnival-like celebration of same-sex marriage Sunday as hundreds of thousands of revelers rejoiced at the state's new law giving gay couples the same marital rights as everyone else.


Perfect depiction of the pathetic state of journalistic integrity right there.  "Gay couples" have always had the same right as everyone else.  Those practicing homosexuality have always had the right to legally wed someone that the law allows them to wed.  There has not been a law that prevents someone who practices homosexuality from marrying someone of the opposite sex.  Equal rights have always been extended.  Now, if you want to say that the law limiting who or what a person can marry should be changed, that's one thing.  But saying "equal rights" have not been granted is a misnomer and misrepresentation...the very thing the AP has made famous.

But who am I to rain on a parade?  On with the gayness:

"Thank you, Governor Cuomo" and "Promise kept" read signs lining both sides of Fifth Avenue. Throngs of cheering supporters all but mobbed Cuomo as he led off the parade just after noon.


"New York has sent a message to the nation," the governor said before the march. "It is time for marriage equality."


He called his state "a beacon," adding, "If New York can do it, it's all right for everyone else in the country to do it."

Actually, Governor, if New York does it, it's probably a pretty good sign to everyone else they want to go in the opposite direction.

Same-sex marriage licenses also are granted by Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont, plus Washington, D.C., and the Coquille Indian Tribe in Oregon.

Indians?  Who knew?!  I can't imagine that Sitting Bull or Crazy Horse is very happy about this.  But forget about that for a second and get a load of this mind-bending storyline from the parade:

"We've been waiting to get married in Central Park for years, and now we got here just in time for history to be made," said Bryce Croft of Kettering, Ohio, who attended the festivities with her partner, Stephanie Croft.


The two women are not yet legally married although they share the same name, and they are in the process of moving to New York and getting married. They were in a Manhattan restaurant late Friday when they learned that the bill had passed.


"We cried over dinner, right into the mozzarella sticks," Stephanie Croft said, adding that they had already selected a spot in Central Park -- the boulder she had marked with Bryce's name two years ago.

Okay, just your usual decadence and depravity, right?  Just another sensationalized media sob story of suffering - two people, indulging their own temptations , rejecting natural law, violating God's expectation of sexual morality, and seeking state approval for doing so, right?  No, no.just wait.  Check out the very next line of the story:

After the two get settled in their new home, Bryce planned to seek a sex-change operation to become a man.

WHAT?!?!  They have been waiting for years to get married in Central Park as lesbians.  They have suffered immense discrimination in not being allowed to do so all this time.  But yet, as soon as they do, one of them is going to become a man - which would have allowed them to get married before the law went into effect! 


If this doesn't convince you that these "gay marriage" laws are not about equality, they're not about civil rights or justice, but rather about a radical sexual revolution that seeks to demolish moral standards and undefined the institution of marriage, nothing will.  What a mess we're making of our society.



And with all due respect, you tell me how long the judgment of God will be withheld when our elected leaders are proudly championing this depravity by marching and celebrating it:

Police Commissioner Ray Kelly marched at the head of a group of gay NYPD officers, right behind the official police band. At the end of the parade, a female officer proposed publicly to her fiancee, also an officer, who accepted. They quickly vanished into the crowd.


All along the parade route, freedom of expression seemed to know no bounds. In Greenwich Village, a uniformed officer stood quietly next to a woman who had unbuttoned her blouse and cheered the parade topless.


"This year's gay parade is different -- it's electric!" said Mayor Michael Bloomberg's longtime companion, Diana Taylor. "You can really feel it, it's so exciting."


Parade organizers said a half-million people participated.


Cuomo marched with his girlfriend, Food Network personality Sandra Lee, Bloomberg and openly gay elected officials, including New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn and state Assemblyman Daniel O'Donnell -- Rosie O'Donnell's gay brother -- who introduced the bill last month.


"You couldn't hear yourself think, it was so loud," Quinn said. "People were crying, jumping up and down and screaming. Everyone was smiling. It was unbelievable."

Prayer meetings on public grounds are considered offensive and unconstitutional.  This debauchery runs rampant on those same grounds with the blessing of our elected officials.  Unbelievable indeed.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:08 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, June 28 2011

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


This is what they have to offer.  It truly boggles the mind that the Democratic Party can continue to muster support from any quarter of the electorate when they put Nancy Pelosi out in front to lead them.  Get a load of this nonsense, couched in base partisan rhetoric:


House Majority Leader Eric Cantor "can't handle the truth when it comes to these tax subsidies for big oil, for corporations sending jobs overseas, for giving tax breaks to the wealthiest people in our country ? while they're asking seniors to pay more for less, as they abolish Medicare," the California Democrat said today on CNN's "State of the Union."

Have you ever watched the post-game show of pretty much any nationally televised sporting event?  It doesn't matter if it's basketball or football, track or hockey.  After the game ends, some sideline reporter will make their way over to the game's star and ask them to give their take on how things went. 


If you've seen at least 5 of these interviews in your life, you can recite them and never need to watch another one again.  They're all the same: "I thought the guys really stepped up today.  We got down, but there's no quit in us.  You know, you gotta dig deep and find a way to pull it out.  I think when we face adversity it makes us stronger as a team.  We've shown we've got heart, and we did that again today."


Same lines for every interview - though sometimes they will mix up the order to make us think that they're coming up with new material.  They actually teach these little speeches in training camp.


That's exactly what politics has become.  God forbid any politician drift from the approve talking points and actually reveal their own heart, mind, and beliefs.  God forbid any of them speak extemporaneously and explain what they really think about a bill or law...what they like about it and what they don't.  No, everything has to be poll-tested jargon that makes them about as original as Hollywood's fifteenth remake of Batman. 


And for the Democrats, this is the language when it comes to talking about Republican ideas: "big oil, sending jobs overseas, tax breaks for the wealthy, attack seniors, end Medicare."  Use, then repeat.  If you wonder why the problems the government has created for us aren't getting fixed as the clock counts down, this is why.  Everyone is living is poll-tested jargon land, and the people who speak honestly are chewed up and made to look like monsters.


But a special honor goes to Nancy Pelosi, the chosen leader of the Democrats (that should tell you a lot about the status of that party), who not only sounds like an NBA star after a game, but also demonstrates impeccable credentials for either being utterly clueless or inexcusably deceptive.

Republican resolve to fix the deficit with tax cuts is unacceptable, Pelosi said.

"In the Bush years, the Republicans said that tax cuts will produce jobs," she said. "They didn't ? they produced a deficit."

Obviously, if Nancy was interested in honesty, she would acknowledge that the Republicans believe tax cuts will stimulate economic growth (which they did during the Bush years), and when that happens, it will do what it's always done: increase revenues to the government as more taxpayers find work and begin paying taxes again.  She would also acknowledge that Republican plans also call for massive spending cuts in Washington.



Nancy is right about the deficit of the Bush years: it was outrageous (though falling far, far short of what she and Barack managed to rack up when they were giving a turn at the wheel).  But what Nancy hasn't told you (and won't) is that such a deficit was the direct result of profligate spending during the Bush years.  Congress has never learned to live within its means, and Nancy is making clear that she doesn't have any desire to any time soon.


I guess she's too busy rehearsing her lines for her next interview.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:07 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, June 28 2011

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


Hey, just for the record, the next time you are tempted to believe all that cockamamie manure about how "all belief systems are equally important, valid, and true," and that "radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam," remember this story and ask yourself when the last time was that you heard about this shoe being on the other foot:

Hundreds of Muslim extremists surrounded a church in central Egypt and threatened to kill the local priest, the Assyrian International News Agency reported. The extremists began targeting the church in a village 7 kilometres south of the city of Minya in March after renovation work began, threatening to demolish the church.



AINA Friday cited eyewitnesses as saying that the Muslim mob, dressed in white robes and long beards, chanted: "We will kill the priest, we will kill him and no one will prevent us."


One of their leaders was cited as saying they would "...cut him to pieces," AINA reported.


The priest Father George Thabet, who was holding morning mass and was locked in the church with several parishioners. Security forces arrived five hours later and escorted the priest away in a police car to the Coptic Diocese in Minya.


Coptic youths who were attending mass remained inside St George's church to defend it from Muslim attacks.


No police or security of any kind was present during the standoff, according to reports.

The time where we can just assume that everyone realizes this is not behavior modeled by any other belief system in the world has left us.  People have been so bombarded with the stupidity of the cultural left that loathes Christianity - they've heard all about the "theocrats" on the Christian right who are trying to make everyone believe like them, or they've heard from clueless extremists like Rosie O'Donnell or CNN's Christiane Amanpour who say that we should be scared of radical Christianity every bit as much as radical Islam - that people lose sight of the real threat that looms.


Radical Islam is real.  Radical Islam is a global threat.  It does not teach tolerance.  It does not value free expression or free debate.  It abhors liberty.  It's name means "submission," and it's followers demand it, or death.  If given the opportunity, they will exact violence on women and children, or even holy men of other faiths, because they see it as the will of their false god.  There is no other belief system like this that is simultaneously a religious faith and a political order. 


These are the folks to fear.  These are the folks to resist.  These are the folks we should be running specials on every night on CNN, FOX, and the networks.  These are the folks that books should be written about, movies made about, magazines investigating, and newspaper articles covering daily.  This is the real threat to our way of life.  It is time we stop pretending otherwise, lest our ministers need to be locked inside our churches awaiting a police escort, as our youth groups prepare to do battle to defend our sanctuaries.


The war between radical Islam and the West is real.  It has been declared by Islamists, and they have been waging it for decades.  They will continue to do so.  All that remains to be seen is whether we will recognize it and confront it, or refuse to believe it as we open our front door to welcome them in.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:06 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Monday, June 27 2011

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


Here's the best way to put it: Michele Bachmann was dynamite on the Sunday morning talk shows.  And by that I don't mean the way she clearly contrasted her worldview and approach to government from that of Barack Obama.  No one would have ever confused the two to begin with.  She mastered the art of confronting Obama's dangerous and deadly policies back when she became a star within the then-blooming Tea Party movement.  Referencing how Obama was turning us into a "third-world, socialist nation," she showed on Sunday that she still has that energy-stoking, populist tenor down pat:

Asked what if anything government could do to increase job creation, Bachmann said corporate tax rates must be cut.

"We have one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world; we need to drop that significantly, so that we have a pro-business, pro-job creation environment," she said. "So if we cut back the corporate tax rate, if we would zero out the capital gains rates, allow for 100 percent expensing when a job creator buys equipment for their business, that would go a long way toward job creators recognizing that this is a pro-business environment."

"But right now businesses are looking at the uncertainty," Bachmann said. "They know that 'Obamacare' is coming down the pike. The Congressional Budget Office estimated 'Obamacare' will cost the economy 800,000 jobs."

"That is data that other people would question," said Schieffer.

"That's the Congressional Budget Office. That's not Michele Bachmann. That's Congressional Budget Office figures saying that we have the potential of losing 800,000 jobs. Why in this economy would you put this very expensive, unwieldy program that's going to cost jobs when job creation is our real problem right now?"

There's no worries in my book about Bachmann's understanding of the failure of the big government approach and the need to reverse the disastrous Obama policies.  What has been a question is whether Bachmann has the ability to forcefully and convincingly articulate that message in a way that translates to the American people.  Demonstrating competence, while not talking over people's heads is not an easy thing.  I'm becoming quite convinced after Sunday Bachmann can do it:

In an appearance on CBS' "Face the Nation," Bachmann said she has "no intention" of voting for a hike to the limit, and argued that lawmakers should be focused on cutting spending rather than incurring more debt.

"It isn't true that the government would default on its debt," Bachmann told CBS' Bob Schieffer. "Because, very simply, the Treasury Secretary can pay the interest on the debt first, and then, from there, we have to just prioritize our spending."

"I have no intention of voting to raise the debt ceiling," she emphasized.

The Obama administration has urged Congress to raise the debt limit by Aug. 2 to avoid economic catastrophe. The Treasury Department has taken accounting steps to keep the government from defaulting since hitting the ceiling on May 16, but has said the "extraordinary measures" currently underway will only get the country through the August date.

Bachmann argued that raising the debt limit was not necessary, and that the urgency attached to the August 2 deadline was an example of "scare tactics" being employed by the Obama administration to manipulate Congress.

"Experts inside and outside the government say that, if we don't raise the debt ceiling, we face the United States having to default on its financial obligations," said Schieffer. "Are you saying these are scare tactics? Or are you saying that's not true? How can you say that?"

"It is scare tactics," Bachmann said. "Because, Bob, the interest on the debt isn't any more than ten percent of what we're taking in. In fact, it's less than that. And so the Treasury Secretary can very simply pay the interest on the debt first, then we're not in default.

"What it means is we have to seriously prioritize," she continued. "It would be very tough love. But, I have been here long enough in Washington D.C. that I've seen smoke and mirrors time and time again."

If there's one thing people will be tired of following four years of Barack Obama, it's smoke and mirrors.  Bachmann has the tenacity and the chops to expose them and talk tough all at the same time.  This realization is apparently dawning on more folks than just me:

Tea Party leader Michele Bachmann is surging in the GOP presidential polls and is now virtually tied with former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney in Iowa, the crucial early-voting state.

Despite joining the primary race in earnest only two weeks ago, when she shone in a debate, Bachmann only narrowly trailed Romney by one percent this weekend in a poll by the Des Moines Register.

Romney, who has been building a campaign for two years, led with just 23 percent while Bachmann had 22 percent.

I have said for some time now that I don't think Mitt Romney can and will get this nomination.  There are political factors that could bring it about (Romney carries the establishment vote, while the conservatives split their allegiances), but I still don't think it's going to happen.  If it doesn't, all of a sudden, Michele Bachmann is now sitting atop the field.  Much more to come, no doubt (Perry, Palin?), but Bachmann is rising.  And she's earning it.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:08 pm   |  Permalink   |  2 Comments  |  Email
Monday, June 27 2011

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


Don't slight them, Michelle.  They've done far more than protect your children.


In a recent interview with CNN, Michelle Obama expressed a little gratitude for some of her husband's biggest supporters:

First lady Michelle Obama says she's grateful for the media's support as her family braces for her husband's quest for re-election.

Asked during an interview with CNN whether the Obamas, including daughters Malia and Sasha, are ready for what could be a vicious campaign, Michelle responds, in part: "Our children, you know, could care less about what we're doing. We work hard to do that. Fortunately, we have help from the media. I have to say this: I'm very grateful for the support and kindness that we've gotten."

I think it's pretty clear that Michelle was referring to the media respecting the privacy of the Obama children (funny how that hasn't extended to the Palin children...even the one with Downs Syndrome).  But the truth is that Michelle should be grateful to the media for far more than that.


Had the media not been so supportive of her husband, she wouldn't be taking elaborate vacations on the taxpayer dime with 40 of her closest friends.  She wouldn't be having quarter of a million dollar date nights in Paris, or living like royalty with more dinner parties and music galas than the White House has ever seen.  Had the media not been so supportive of her husband, he would still be voting present on every controversial bill to come before Congress, being cautious not to demonstrate to anyone anything that remotely resembles leadership.


But thanks the a fawning press the likes of which had never been seen in American history (so much so it even made the media's previous love interest, Bill Clinton, sick), Michelle and Barack are living it up as the country goes down the proverbial toilet.


So don't stop with just their respect for your children, Michelle.  Thank them for all they've done.  Don't expect any of us to.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:07 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Monday, June 27 2011

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


Ouch.  This is about as compelling a case against trusting Mitt Romney with the Republican nomination in 2012 that I have seen compiled.  Columnist Deroy Murdock does the "damage."  I put the word damage in quotes because while it damages Romney's credibility, it protects the principles of conservatism that the country desperately needs the Republicans to offer in the coming election. 


I don't believe in tearing someone to shreds on a personal level, or undercutting fellow conservatives - if they are conservative.  But the point of the primary process is to choose the best candidate, with the best ideas, the most consistent and logical way of presenting those ideas to the country, and the reliability to stand by those ideas when the polls turn against them.  It's about finding someone who believes in something.



Mr. Murdock depicts that Mitt's problem is that he seems to believe in everything:

Republicans recently have watched multiple Romneys at war with each other over abortion, ethanol, global warming, and more. Alas, this is nothing new. Various Romneys have battled themselves on issues as old as the Vietnam War.


"I longed in many respects to actually be in Vietnam and be representing our country there and in some ways it was frustrating not to feel like I was there as part of the troops that were fighting in Vietnam," Hawkish Romney said in the June 24, 2007 Boston Globe while running as a conservative for 2008's GOP nomination.


But Romney sang a softer song years before while campaigning for Senate in liberal Massachusetts. "I was not planning on signing up for the military," Dovish Romney said in the May 2, 1994 Boston Herald. "It was not my desire to go off and serve in Vietnam."


"I believe that abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother," Pro-Life Romney wrote in the July 26, 2005 Boston Globe.


But less than three years earlier, in October 2002, Pro-Choice Romney disagreed: "Let me make this very clear. I will preserve and protect a woman's right to choose."


"Government under President Obama has grown to consume almost 40 percent of our economy," Pro-Enterprise Romney said June 2. "We are only inches away from ceasing to be a free-market economy."


"I support the subsidy of ethanol," Rent-Seeking Romney said May 27 in Iowa, however.

The article includes Romney's infamous global warming betrayal:

"I believe the world is getting warmer, and I believe that humans have contributed to that," CO2-Fighting Romney said June 3. "I think it's important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants, of greenhouse gases, that may well be significant contributors to the climate change and global warming that you're seeing."


"Good for Mitt Romney," former Vice President Albert Gore, Jr. wrote June 15. "While other Republicans are running from the truth, he is sticking to his guns in the face of the anti-science wing of the Republican Party."

It's interesting to hear Republican Romney-supporters blast potential challenger Rick Perry for having once served as Al Gore's campaign manager in Texas for his 1988 presidential run.  That, of course, was the pre-eco-weird-out Al Gore.  The one who was pro-life and conservative on a number of key issues.  It was also before Perry's Reagan-like conversion to the Republican Party.  But yet many of those who attack him for that are supporting Mitt Romney who earns the eco-wacko Al Gore's endorsement and adds fuel to the stupid-fire of calling Republicans who don't support Gore's money making scam "anti-science."  Thanks, Mitt.


"Governor Romney," CNN's John King asked at a June 13 GOP debate in New Hampshire, "constitutional amendment or state decision?" to ban gay marriage.


"Constitutional," replied Traditional-Values Romney.


Conversely, Modern-Values Romney, said in an August 25, 1994 interview with Boston's gay newspaper Bay Windows: "The authorization of marriage on a same-sex basis falls under state jurisdiction."


Gun-Toting Romney called himself a lifetime member of the National Rifle Association in April 2007. (Actually that "lifetime" began in August 2006.)


Gun-Controlling Romney declared in 1994: "I don't line up with the NRA."


Outdoorsman Romney also said in 2007: "I've been a hunter pretty much all my life." A spokesman clarified that Romney actually had hunted precisely twice: At age 15 and in 2006.


"Ronald Reagan hero," Reagan-Loving Romney said in 2005.


"I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush," Reagan-Bashing Romney said in 1994, while running for the Massachusetts Senate seat against the late Edward M. Kennedy. "I'm not trying to return to Reagan-Bush."

For all the Romney-ites in the Republican Party who keep telling me that Sarah Palin won't be taken seriously if she is nominated, I simply ask this question: how seriously do you think a man with John Kerry flip-flop syndrome will be taken?

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:06 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Sunday, June 26 2011

As Peter wrote, the Kokomo Tribune Public Eye excerpted Sarah Palin's "Paul Revere" comment:

He who warned the British that they weren't gonna be takin' away our arms by ringing those bells, and makin' sure as he's riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be sure and we were going to be free, and we were going to be armed.

Staff writers Ken de la Bastide and Scott Smith then asked, "True or false: Revere was riding to warn the British at Lexington and Concord?"



I recently watched the first episode in "The Revolution" produced by the History Channel. The historical description of the night of the march of British soldiers to Concord: (1) As the riders - of which Revere was one - passed through the Massachusetts villages, bells were rung and shots fired to alert the colonial militias to assemble. (2) The formation of the armed militia at Lexington served as a message to the British that the colonials were going to oppose the confiscation of their property; specifically, the weapons caches they had stored in their villages. (3) Throughout the conduct of the march to Concord, small units from the main body of British soldiers were detached to individual houses along their path to search for and confiscate arms.


Mr. de la Bastide and Mr. Smith declared the answer to their question to be false. Hmmm.


Should anyone want to watch "The Revolution," it is available instantly on Netflix.

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 07:09 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Sunday, June 26 2011

All right! Party time! Break out the funny hats and noisemakers! The International Energy Agency (IEA) is releasing 60 million barrels of oil from its emergency reserves!


Emergency reserves? What's the emergency?


The stated emergency is the determination to hold off - notice carefully: hold off - a spike in oil prices that will strain the global economic recovery.



Friends, I hate to always be telling you... there ain't no recovery. What is passing as a recovery are the chewing gum and bailing wire fixes begun by the last administration and accelerated under the current administration. The shell game is not hard to figure out: run up trillions of dollars in debt, increase the money supply, and eventually tap honest hard-working Americans with higher taxes in order to shuffle money already in the economy - and IOUs already in the economy - to corporations too big to fail and a few strategic vote-getting businesses. In turn, these businesses get to throw big money around for a bit until it runs out. A few Americans get to return to work and keep up their mortgages for a bit, and this passes as a "recovery."


So what is the emergency? Liberals losing credibility and votes... and running out of money to buy more. So why not toss out a few emergency supply barrels of oil. Look what it has already done to the price of oil: an overnight drop from about $96 per barrel to about $91 per barrel of West Texas Intermediate crude. On the international market, Brent crude decreased 6.1% to settle at about $107 per barrel.


I can't help but wonder, though, how much liberals must hate seeing markets work. Their backs are against the wall, votes are getting pricey, and they have run out of ideas to fix the economy (ideas that actually work, that is). Gasoline prices, a piece of the economy immediately noticeable to American consumers, are getting unsettlingly high (even though liberals always champion higher gas taxes).


What to do? What to do? Increase supply to ease the price pressures of demand. Simple, classical supply-demand economics. The kind of economics lessons that conservatives explain to liberals every day. The kind of economics that all those smart folks living in the land of left-believe keep telling us don't work. Until they need to buy some more votes, that is. Then they actually do things like lower taxes, cut a little spending, and allow supply to grow to meet demand.


Why, it's almost as if allowing more domestic oil exploration and extraction would have a positive effect on our energy prices. Who'd-a-thunk-it!


Unfortunately, the party won't be lasting long. 60 million barrels are being released internationally and the U.S. alone uses about 20 million barrels per day for just gasoline use.


Poor liberals. Reality rears its ugly head in the land of left-believe yet again.

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 06:27 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Sunday, June 26 2011

Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you as sons. For what son is not disciplined by his father? If you are not disciplined (and everyone undergoes discipline), then you are illegitimate children and not true sons... Therefore, strengthen your feeble arms and weak knees. ?Make level paths for your feet,' so that the lame may not be disabled, but rather healed. - Hebrews 12:2, 7, 12-13 (NIV)

It is not many times that I agree with the weekly religious page in my local newspaper. Over the years, their choices of coverage have expanded to some extremely unorthodox viewpoints. They can certainly take that path, but I do not have to agree with the religious leaders they use.


So it was with a bit of surprise that I found reason to appreciate the answers offered by not just one, but both, of the leaders responding to the question, "Does God heal instantly or work through doctors?"


In response, Rabbi Mark Levin writes:

Healing is not the same as curing. Curing involves making the malady disappear. I have been healed of my asthma as it no longer seriously impacts my life, but I have not been cured. I may still suffer an attack under the right conditions. Healing must be spiritual as well as physical. A person who continues to suffer by worrying that a disease will recur has not been healed, even though that person may well be cured.

The Rev. Betty Hanna-Witherspoon likewise comments:

In the midst of difficult health situations, I pray that my parishioners will take advantage of all the gifts God has made available for healing. Faith is not the only determinant of healing, however, for we know that the Apostle Paul asked for healing at least three times and this powerful man of faith was not healed of his malady. God assured Paul that "his grace was sufficient" (2 Corinthians 12:9). I interpret this to mean that God provides the strength through faith to live with grace while experiencing illness. Grace, in this case, means displaying the fruit of the Spirit as listed in Galatians 5:22 while in the midst of pain.

Questions about human suffering will always be with us, and complete comprehension about suffering will always elude us. In order to begin to accept it as a part of personal spiritual growth, the observations made by this Rabbi and pastor are significant: "Healing must be spiritual as well as physical," and, "God provides the strength through faith to live with grace while experiencing illness."



A large reason that America's Founders were so successful was that they had an unusually firm grasp of issues both human and divine. Even though he would have over 60 more years to live, James Madison wrote to a close college friend at age 21:

A watchful eye must be kept on ourselves lest while we are building ideal monuments of Renown and Bliss here we neglect to have our names enrolled I the Annals of Heaven. [Bad health has] intimated to me not to expect a long or healthy life, yet it may be better with me after some time tho I hardly dare expect it and therefore have little spirit and alacrity to set about any thing that is difficult in acquiring and useless in possessing after one has exchanged Time for Eternity.

In spite of whatever condition caused Madison this much alarm concerning his health, he persevered through it with a strength derived from faith in Jesus Christ as Lord to become the "Chief Architect of the Constitution" as well as the President of the United States who successfully defended the nation against the British in the War of 1812. James Madison certainly allowed God to strengthen his "feeble arms and weak knees."


Dear Lord, please help us in troubled times - whether personal or national distress - to rely upon Your goodness and mercy to such an extent that we never forget to "fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith." Amen. 

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 06:03 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Saturday, June 25 2011

Last Thursday, the above-the-fold headline in the state's largest newspaper concerned a very disturbing new report. The article was titled, "More Dads Live Apart from Kids." According to a Pew Research Center report, 46% of fathers up through middle age have at least one child fathered outside of marriage. An astonishing 24 million children now grow up in homes in which their biological fathers do not live.

Fifteen years ago, David Blankenhorn in his landmark book, Fatherless America, warned the nation that more than half of the nation's children would spend some part of their childhood growing up without a dad.

Historically, fatherlessness in America was caused by paternal death.   For example, by the time they had reach fifteen, about 15 percent of all American children born in 1870 had experienced the death of their fathers. (Incidentally, the death of mothers was more common then. Divorce was far, far less common. In 1900 middle-aged, widowed men outnumbered middle-aged divorced men twenty to one.)

Today, the principle cause of fatherless is paternal choice.    In 1900 only 8.5 percent of children were born outside of marriage in America. Sixty years later, that number had only barely changed to 9% of children born out of wedlock. Today, according to the Heritage Foundation, 41% of all births occur outside of marriage. In 1960, 23% of births to blacks were outside of marriage. Today that number is a staggering 72.8%. It is 53.2% among Hispanics and 29% among whites. (By the way, in Japan, the out of wedlock birth rate from 1970 through 1995 remained at a low rate of less than 2%. In Italy, the rate is 7%)

The numbers and trends are interesting, but what does it all mean?  Answer: Quite a lot, particularly for the most vulnerable among us - children.

Out of wedlock birth and fatherless households have a huge impact upon society that is far more significant than most realize.  Here is a brief collection of items and research findings upon which entire articles, lengthy policy papers and books have been written.

For the child, the result of being born outside of marriage is that they learn that love is a thing of failure both between adults and between adults and children. As Maggie Gallagher notes, in The Abolition of Marriage, one of the best books ever written on marriage, "In sharp contrast to children in intact families, children of divorce or non-marriage repeatedly undergo the experience of seeing family-like members enter and drop out of the picture. The initial experience of love's failure and the abandonment most children experience in the immediate aftermath of divorce is confirmed again and again and again in the years ahead . . . Adults in these post divorce, [and non-marital] romances seldom accurately assess the effects these relationships may have on their children."

For the first year or so, many unwed fathers tend to make a special effort to see their children. As life goes on, they may move, or they may acquire new emotional obligations to new girlfriends. Overall only one-third of children living apart from their fathers see their dad as often as once a week. For the children of a failed marriage, the numbers are hardly better. Ten years down the road, two thirds of all children of divorce have virtually no contact with their fathers.

On average, a child born outside of marriage spends just six months of his childhood living with his father. Three-fifths of unwed fathers whose children are aged two or younger see their children regularly. But by the time the children reach the age of seven and a half, less than one quarter of all unwed fathers still see their children frequently.

When a father is not in the, home the paternal relationship deteriorates rapidly. Sixty-nine percent of children who live with their fathers report a good relationship with them, but only 36% of children with an absent father say they have a good relationship with their dads. In fact, only half of absent fathers were even viewed as "family" by their children.

There is more to this absence than just "father hunger," damaged relationships or lost hopes and ideals. Although society often portrays men, male gender roles and masculinity as unnecessary, a danger to society, or even evil itself, the role of husbands and fathers as the family protector is significant.  Women and children are much safer from crime when there is a married father in the home.  Various studies have found that children born outside of marriage are far more at risk of child abuse.  Married men also protect their wives. The most often cited relationship between the batterer and the female victim of domestic violence is a boyfriend.  The least cited is a husband.  (Married women also have the lowest rates of mental illness, depression or suicide compared to women in any other relationship category.)

A comprehensive study of child abuse reported by Robert Whalen of the Heritage Foundation found that children living with their biological married parents are much safer than in other family configurations. More specifically, the rate of child abuse is 14 times higher than a traditional married two-parent family if the child lives alone with his biological mother. Child abuse is 33 times higher if a single mother is cohabiting with a boyfriend.

Historically, poverty has stemmed primarily from fathers being unemployed or underpaid. Today, fatherlessness has become the single largest determinant of child poverty. Today, 92% of children on welfare are from either single parent or divorced homes, whereas the vast majority of children raised in a married home will never be poor. Children born out of wedlock are 700% more likely to be poor than children from their married counterparts. In fact, welfare dependency is 1700 percent more likely for children born out of wedlock than for those born to their married parents.

The increase in fatherlessness has coincided with the massive growth in government. By 2000, America was spending ten and a half times the amount on total welfare spending than when the Great Society, "war on poverty" programs of LBJ began in 1965.  The federal government has increased spending on welfare nearly every year since 1965. Last year, we spent $890 Billion on welfare, compared to $400 Billion as recently as 1990.

Fatherlessness and the breakdown of marriage and the family have an enormous impact upon the size of government. In June 2008, the National Fatherhood Initiative released "The One Hundred Billion Dollar Man," a ground-breaking study that showed that the federal government now spends at least $100 billion each year supporting father-absent homes. This is a very conservative estimate. The NFI study did not include related costs for the criminal justice system, which is flooded with men who grew up in father-absent homes.

Fatherlessness is also a major contributor to crime. A state-by-state analysis in 1995 found that in general an increase of 10% in the percentage of children living in single-parent homes accounted for a 17% increase in juvenile crime. A study by Indiana Policy Review found that 80% of the boys sent to the Indiana Boy's School came from divorced or single-parent homes.

Fatherlessness also has a drain on our educational system. The National Fatherhood Initiative reports that fatherless children are twice as likely to drop out of high school. Students who don't live with their fathers are twice as likely to repeat a grade in school. The National Association for Elementary School Principals found that children from single parent or divorced homes are more likely to be expelled, drop out of school or have disciplinary action taken against them.

Contrary to what TV might suggest, dads are not bumbling buffoons who are optional to a strong family unit. They are not mere income providers as the court system seems to imply. Neither are they humorous couch potatoes who drink lots of beer and hog the remote as searching through the rack, attempting to buy dad a Fathers Day card often implies. Fathers, present and active in the homes and lives of their children and when possible lovingly committed and married to their moms, are the backbone of a healthy society.

Obviously, there are many dads out there who are not living in their child's home against their own wishes. (Two-thirds of divorces are filed by women. Under no-fault divorce, a marriage can be ended without recourse by the unilateral decision of one spouse, unlike virtually all other legal agreements or contracts.)   Yet, fatherhood should still be far more important, valued and expected than it is today in America.

I do not agree with President Barack Obama on most matters. I am pretty certain that that he does not understand the vital role that marriage plays in our social structure. He seems to think that two women are the equivilent of a married mom and dad. Whatever else they might be, two moms are not a dad. I am also certain that he does not understand how mothers and fathers together, bound by marriage, play an enormous role in educational and cultural stability and in limited government.  Apparently, he also does not understand how his worldview has destroyed the family over the last fifty years. (Many liberals have a problem effectively transferring liberal public policies to their daily private lives, because of conflicts with reality. It is often seen most shockingly when you hear of a Hollywood actor who makes millions off of R-rated movies admit that he does not allow his children to watch his movies or any TV. Or when a critic of the 2nd Amendment defends his home and property with a handgun. Or when a big government type goes to extremes to shelter his income from U.S. tax law. Or when a politician praises public education, yet sends their children to private schools.) However, President Obama does seem to understand the vital role a dad plays on the individual level between father and his children. Here is what he observed on June 19, 2009:

"In many ways, I came to understand the importance of fatherhood through its absence-both in my life and in the lives of others. I came to understand that the hole a man leaves when he abandons his responsibility to his children is one that no government can fill. We can do everything possible to provide good jobs and good schools and safe streets for our kids, but it will never be enough to fully make up the difference. That is why we need fathers to step up, to realize that their job does not end at conception; that what makes you a man is not the ability to have a child but the courage to raise one."

Our nation is in very deep, grave trouble by almost every measure available.   Many, perhaps most, people now realize this fact.   Yet, few see how the breakdown of the traditional family is such a major root cause of our national crisis.

Posted by: Micah Clark AT 10:12 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Saturday, June 25 2011

Recall that Wisconsin was one of the states besieged earlier this year by special interest groups seeking to oppose reforms and perpetuate out of control spending. One of those "champions" for working families is state Rep. Gordon Hintz (D-Oshkosh).



In the midst of their critical, stressful legislative session, Rep. Hintz decided to carve out a little "me-time." After all, a guy needs to take care of himself. Unfortunately for him, it turned out to be in an establishment, the Heavenly Touch Massage Parlor, which was caught up in an ongoing investigation of prostitution that resulted in six arrests. Rep. Hintz was issued a municipal citation. In his terse response to the situation, he commented:

I am willing to take responsibility for my actions, but my concern right now is not to be distracted from the much more important issue of standing up for Wisconsin's working families.

Yep, he didn't want to be distracted, which is no doubt why he thought it necessary to pay a visit to the Heavenly Touch Massage Parlor, where he no doubt was conducting business vital to his state.


It also turns out that Rep. Hintz was not through demonstrating what a thorough gentleman he is. Following the vote on the Wisconsin Budget Repair Bill that curtailed union powers in the state, he blurted out to Republican State Rep. Michelle Litjens that she was "****ing dead." Nice.


Always good to know that working families are so well represented by those compassionate members of the party of peace and love. (No targets drawn on anyone here - just move one, thank you).

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 07:00 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Saturday, June 25 2011

In spite of President Obama's stated concerns about the American economy and slow job creation (recall that his immediate solution is to chastise American businesses for not stepping up and going on a hiring binge), it is being reported that the briefings from his economic team have not been held since April 26th.

A review of the president's daily schedule finds the last formal economic briefing was scheduled for April 26. Even that briefing came after a hiatus, following back-to-back briefings on March 8 and 9.

The scheduled economic briefings appeared to become less frequent after January. In total, he's had 15 economic briefings since last November, according to the schedule provided by the White House.


Given the significant concerns about the American economy today, it is natural for the typical citizen to think that their president is making it a top priority. Even though he gets a thrill out of flying to "red" states and giving cheerleading speeches in a few well-vetted manufacturing sites, the president does not give the appearance of one who is taking the gravity of our precarious economy seriously.


Now I well know that a person in such a position of authority can and should delegate frequently and well. I well know that not holding meetings does not necessarily mean that action is not being taken.


But this is a man who, first, as a presidential candidate and then as President makes us very aware of his personal importance. He makes it clear that our way out of our present economic debacle is derived from central planning by the government that he leads. He makes it clear that Americans can no longer solve our problems outside of step-by-step government planning.


Subsequently, it is only fair to expect that our economist-in-chief be intimately involved in this affair.


To learn that he is not may mean one of two things:


(1) President Obama does not comprehend the gravity of the situation. As he said with regard to another topic raised during his campaign, it may be "above his pay grade."


(2) Rush is right:

Again, this tells me that there's nothing to brief him on. He knows what's going on. Everything is happening according to plan. What's the point of wasting time in a meeting? In other words, Obama, says, "Why do I need you to come in the White House and tell me what I already know? The private sector is being successfully destroyed here. I don't need you to tell me; I can see it. Mission accomplished!"

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 06:30 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Saturday, June 25 2011

Just when I thought I was escaping the Anthony Weiner factor.

And of course I want to express my gratitude to my family; to my mother and father who instilled in me the values that carried me this far.


This is from the former Congressman's resignation speech.


Yep, I would certainly want my son who got caught tweeting lewd pictures of himself telling the world that he received his high moral values from his Mother and me.


How clueless can he be? Oh, wait; he's a liberal.


Bonus Lib-quote:

It's not as cool to be an Obama supporter as it was in 2008, with the posters and all that stuff.


President Obama speaking at an exclusive fundraiser in Miami, Florida, on June 13, 2011.


?Nuff said. If you have any comments, go for it.

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 06:00 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, June 24 2011

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


In a sign of just how seriously the left fears the entrance of Texas Governor Rick Perry into the Republican presidential primary, liberal columnists like the LA Times' Timothy Rutten have already started launching pre-emptive attacks.  As I discussed a couple weeks ago, the great difficulty the left will have in doing so is picking out things to pick on Perry about that seriously diminish his attractiveness to Republican voters.  They can try to tie him to Bush, or point out that he used to be a conservative Democrat.  Neither of those accusations will stick, so perhaps they've actually settled on another attack that I jokingly mentioned as a potential approach: he's just too darn religious.



In a recent column, Rutten did what any liberal does when referring to religion in politics: he ignores the Founding Fathers and leaps straight to a JFK speech on religion as the ultimate standard of the appropriate balance between the two realms.  Take off your sandals because what you are about to read is holy ground to the left:

"I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute; where no Catholic prelate would tell the president ? should he be Catholic ? how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference, and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him, or the people who might elect him.... I believe in a president whose views on religion are his own private affair, neither imposed upon him by the nation, nor imposed by the nation upon him as a condition to holding that office."

Now, of course, it never dawns on leftists like Rutten that JFK might have been wrong.  That JFK, speaking to a group of ministers who were concerned about electing a Catholic as president, was making a politically powerful, if logically weak or inconsistent, appeal.  No,  no...JFK spoke it, so it simply must be true.  And since Rick Perry seems to run afoul of JFK's "let's remove religion from the public realm entirely" standard, he's just not qualified.  Rutten exposes Perry's alleged sins:

Perry has summoned the country's governors to join him on Aug. 6 in a national day of prayer and fasting sponsored by a fundamentalist, evangelical Protestant ministry. Perry, who urges participants to bring a Bible, acknowledges that the event, which is called The Response, is an overtly Christian occasion, and on its website, he writes that America's hope "lies in heaven, and we will find it on our knees."

Oh my gosh!  Perry has called for a national day of prayer, claiming that America's hope lies in the hands of heaven.  What a loon!  I mean, that doesn't sound anything like JFK.  No, this radical nut sounds WAY too much like another one of those rabid right-wing extremists:

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor-- and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by 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.


Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be-- That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks--for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation--for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his Providence which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war--for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed--for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted--for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.



and also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions-- to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually--to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed--to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shewn kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord--To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease of science among them and us--and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.


Given under my hand at the City of New York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.


Go: Washington

If only George Washington could have stuck around a few years, JFK could have given him an appropriate lecture on the relationship of church and state, and Tim Rutten could have schooled him on the unacceptability of national days of prayer.


Rutten also hits Perry for being so silly as to suggest that national calamities might be the result of God turning His back on us:

In a written statement, Perry argues: "Given the trials that beset our nation and world, from the global economic downturn to natural disasters, the lingering danger of terrorism and continued debasement of our culture, I believe it is time to convene the leaders from each of our United States in a day of prayer and fasting, like that described in the book of Joel."

Again, how preposterous.  I mean, Rick Perry is simply out on a limb here.  There's never been any leading and well-respected Americans that have made similar claims:

"If we abide by the principles taught in the Bible our country will go on prospering, but if we and our posterity neglect its instruction and authority, no man can tell how sudden a catastrophe may overwhelm us and bury us and our glory in profound obscurity."


Daniel Webster

Hmmm.  Well Daniel, commonly regarded as one of the greatest orators and Senators of all time, clearly is a wacko.  Just ask Tim Rutten.  In fact, he probably wouldn't have even had a problem associating with all those "hate groups" that Rutten points out Perry is connected to:

When it comes to allies, Perry isn't a bit shy about cultivating some of the more sinister right-wing culture warriors. His event's website formally endorses the statement of faith of the Rev. Don Wildmon's American Family Assn., which has been listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center because of its strident anti-gay bigotry.


Remember, to the left, if you don't agree with their political views you are a bigot.  Christians who understand the consequences (physical as well as spiritual) of homosexuality and seek to turn people from that sin are not doing so out of hate, Tim.  It's interesting though that by its own stridently anti-Christian posturing and politicking, the Southern Poverty Law Center actually fails its own test of tolerance and falls into the category of bigotry itself.  They are the very essence of a "hate group" themselves.  Those who live by the label, die by the label.


In a nutshell, Rutten's piece is nothing but the latest submission in the left's parade of misinformation on religion and politics.  They are so self-contradictory, inconsistent, and unwilling to even address the words and actions of the Founders in this regard that they simply can't be taken seriously.  This piece, in the final analysis, was nothing but a futile attempt to attack Rick Perry for expressing similar views on religion and the public square that the architects of our Republic held.  Good luck with that, Tim-bo.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:09 pm   |  Permalink   |  1 Comment  |  Email
Friday, June 24 2011

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


There's an absolutely fabulous piece by James Delingpole that appeared in the London Telegraph about the intellectual capacity of American liberals when it comes to the issue of "climate change" (formerly "global warming" until the sad bit of reality that the globe had stopped warming struck them).


In it, he provides a reality check to one of the more ridiculous claims made by the Warmers of late.  Talking about a recent episode of Hardball, take a peek at Delingpole's excoriation of the ignorance of the left:

It features Chris Matthews, one of America's most popular liberal talk show hosts, talking to a liberal journalist from liberal blogsite Salon called Joan Walsh and another liberal journalist from liberal Rolling Stone magazine on the liberal politics programme Hardball. And guess what these liberals believe the problem with Climate Change is? Go on: think of the most stupid, reality-denying, fact-ignoring, evidence-torturing tosh anyone involved in the media could possibly have to say on the subject. (H/T  Climate Depot)



Yes, that's right.


They think that the naughty yellow pixies who pull the special, magic Climat-O-Levers which control the weather have been paid by evil capitalists with fat cigars in their mouth and $ signs on their pinstripe suits to make the world's climate all horrid so that poor, underprivileged and disabled people and endangered creatures suffer - and that the reason we don't know about it is because the media is run by evil Conservatives who want to keep this truth a secret.


Well, almost. What these liberal opinion-formers actually think - and you've really got to hand it to them: not even a lobotomised amoeba could beat them in a competition for dumbest creature on the planet, these three are absolute champs, Matthews especially, make no mistake - is as follows.


They think the main reasons for the public's growing scepticism on Climate Change are 1. The media has been far too balanced on the subject and is not pushing the eco-message hard enough. 2. Big business is funding Climate Denialism. 3. Evil Conservatives - led by Evil Talk Show Hosts Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck - are deliberately telling lies about Climate Change. 4. The Republican party is "anti-science".


My favourite bit is the one where Chris Matthews, who I believe takes himself seriously as a journalist, declares: "I hate that even-handed, so-called objective journalism. You know, you can't say something isn't true if it's true...."

When I saw this clip of Hardball myself, I initially blew it off as typical left-wing bluster.  But Delingpole does an excellent job of showing just how stupid these claims truly are.  We are constantly bombarded by the media with the template: liberals are smart, conservatives are stupid.  Given that the media is liberal, no one should be surprised by that.  But what are the facts?  If we really analyzed each of those claims, stop and think about how ludicrous and intellectually vapid they are.  Delingpole takes each of the four "reasons" apart, beginning with the hilarious idea that the media is too balanced:

The media under-reports climate change. Oh yes. That will explain, for example, the recent widely reported story Decline Of Oceans Worse Than Previously Thought - given unquestioning coverage everywhere from the Sydney Morning Herald, the New York Times and Time magazine to the BBC. Yet as research from Ben Pile at Climate Resistance shows, most of these experts offering their supposed expert views on the imminence of pelagic climate doom were in fact just an ad hoc group of activists from heavily politicised organisations like Greenpeace and Pew Environment Group. Such is the state of Environmental reporting around the world these days: it consists of little more than lovingly transcribed press releases from hardcore ecoloon pressure groups.

As for the claim that big business is using all its money to push denialism, it appears the left are the ones in denial of reality:

Jo Nova has estimated that the amount spent by government agencies, left-leaning charitable foundations and big business promoting "global warming" is approximately 3,500 times more than the amount spent funding climate change scepticism.

In terms of Limbaugh and Beck, there is really nothing to respond to until and unless Matthews or someone on the left can issue some sort of concrete example of their "lies" regarding climate change.  Not surprisingly, they have not done so.  Thus, this remains nothing but a specious attack on personality, rather than anything substantive.  I know...the left making personal attacks instead of offering substance?!  Who would have thunk it?! 



Having recently addressed the idea of conservatives being "anti-science" recently myself, I enjoyed Delingpole's obliteration of such nonsense:

Would that be "science" in the sense used by Al Gore, as in the received wisdom of a self-selecting cabal of post-normal activist scientists who dominate organisations like the IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Society. If so, then the Republican party is indeed "anti-science" because - with notable exceptions such as Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, of whom more in a subsequent post, very likely to be entitled "Mitt Romney prefers dog poop yogurt" - bases its scientific views on old fashioned virtues like rationalism, empiricism and open-minded, honest research rather than junk science dogma.


If we're talking about science in the more old fashioned sense of the word as it might have been understood by, say Newton or Popper, rather than James Hansen or Al Gore, then no, the Republicans are not "anti-science."

All of this led Delingpole to proclaim the science settled that liberals are "the dumbest creatures on the planet."  Perhaps that's being overly hostile.  Deceptive or dishonest might be more appropriate than dumb.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:08 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, June 24 2011

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


There is no question that the Tea Party movement was successful in sweeping out a lot of riff-raff in the 2010 Congressional and statewide election cycle.  The reality is that there is a lot of riff-raff remaining.  It was the reality about our national dilemma that observant politicos continued making to the tea party patriots who worked hard to make important changes happen: this cannot be a one-and-done election.  The problem is large and expansive.  The problem has been bred by years of inaction and complacency on the part of the citizenry.  The problem has taken hold in entrenched areas, and won't be alleviated or soothed by one or two elections.



The complexity of the American constitutional order and system was an intentional design by the Founders to prevent unscrupulous men from being able to harness the power of the system and use it to their advantage.  Unfortunately, through years of passivity, those of us who were the recipients of the blessings of liberty allowed a systematic takeover of our institutions, and now that same system is brimming with the very kind of men and women who should not be there.  Consequently, the intricacies of our Constitutional government will make it difficult for us to do the proper expunging.  What it will take is a generational struggle to put us back on the right path.


The great question is whether we have the patience and resolve as a people to fight for a reclaiming of what has been lost.  There are depressing signs everywhere: take, for instance, the entrenched establishment types of both parties who are content with the status quo and who play us all for fools.  But there are positive signs that in the quagmire of statist mentality that pervades Washington, there are still statesmen who get it.


Take Jim DeMint's courageous stand, warning his own party:

Conservative firebrand Sen. Jim DeMint has a message to fellow Republicans in Congress: If you support increasing the debt ceiling without first passing a balanced budget amendment and massive across-the-board spending cuts, you're gone -- destined to be swept out of Congress by a wave of voter anger.


"Based on what I can see around the country," DeMint, R-S.C., said in an interview for the ABC News Subway Series, "not only are those individuals gone, but I would suspect the Republican Party would be set back many years.


"It would be the most toxic vote," DeMint said. "I can tell you if you look at the polls, Democrats, Republicans, Independents, they do not think we should increase the debt limit."


DeMint is not just talking political analysis here. He has a significant fundraising base and has shown a willingness to use his campaign money to support or oppose fellow Republicans.

That's what it's going to take: men of honor who are willing to raise funds and combat their own party if necessary.  It's what George Washington talked about when he warned how an overriding sense of loyalty to the general interest must overcome loyalty to special interest.  The "baneful" effects of faction, he wrote, can poison the well of concern for our national interest.that is certainly what we're seeing today as politicians on both sides use the debate over everything from debt ceilings to taxes in an effort to win votes rather than preserve our way of life.


DeMint is right in saying that there are political consequences to the failure of those sent to Washington to get our financial state in order.  But the real consequence is what would befall our civilization if our political leadership fails us.  That's why the Tea Party movement cannot weaken or lose focus.  This is a generational struggle.  It is worth it.  Men like DeMint need reinforcements.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:07 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, June 24 2011

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


Well this is just too funny to get worked up about.  In a city that has been a bastion of liberalism - controlled by the left for pretty much an entire century, with some of the most aggressive anti-gun laws in the country, the newly minted liberal police chief tries to blame Sarah Palin and the NRA for the out-of-control race-driven crime riots and violence in the city.


Check out the video to fully appreciate it.


NBC Chicago reports the content of this ridiculousness:

The pervasion of illegal guns in America's black and Latino communities is a result of "government-sponsored racism," akin to "slavery, segregation, black codes [and] Jim Crow," Rahm Emanuel's new police chief, Garry McCarthy, told parishioners at St. Sabina's Church earlier this month.


"This is sensitive. You know, because everybody's afraid of race. Have you noticed that? Everybody's afraid of race. I'm not afraid of race," said McCarthy, who told of growing up in the Bronx with guns, gangs and drugs plentiful.



"Let's see if we can make a connection here. Slavery. Segregation. Black codes. Jim Crow. What, what did they all have in common? Anybody getting scared? Government sponsored racism."

It is difficult to say this while being respectful, but reading this kind of gobbledygook that is increasingly present on the left, one has to wonder how liberals can ever question the intelligence of their political counterparts.  Where does a movement that touts people like Garry McCarthy come off criticizing the logic or intellectual prowess of anyone?  This is not even apples and oranges.  It's apples and dominoes.  Not to mention the logical leaps it requires to even follow this nonsense are more than Evel Knievel could pull off.

"Now I want you to connect one more dot on that chain of the African American history in this country, and tell me if I'm crazy: Federal gun laws that facilitate the flow of illegal firearms, into our urban centers across this country, that are killing our black and brown children," he said.


McCarthy blasted the NRA, telling parishioners that their communities have paid the price while the gun manufacturers are getting "rich and living in gated communities."


And he told an anecdote of just one night with the New York Police Department. After returning home from investigating a pair of shootings, he said he flipped on the television to relax, only to find "Sarah Palin's Alaska" being broadcast.


"She was caribou hunting, and talking about the right to bear arms," he said. "Why wasn't she at the crime scene with me?"

I'm sorry, but this is just dumb.  It doesn't even begin to make sense, but it shows where the left is today.  Unable to cope or explain how a city that has been under their control for nearly 100 years can be mired in such a mess, they trot out clueless buffoonery like this: " Palin...guns...caribou...the NRA did it!"



Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:06 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, June 24 2011

During the campaign in 2008, then-candidate Barack H. Obama told Pastor Rick Warren:

I believe that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. For me as a Christian, it is a sacred union. God's in the mix.

In December 2010, President Barack H. Obama publicly commented:

My feelings about this are constantly evolving. I struggle with this," he said. "My baseline is a strong civil union that provides them the protections and the legal rights that married couples have. And I think that's the right thing to do. But I recognize that from their perspective it is not enough, and I think (it) is something that we're going to continue to debate, and I personally am going to continue to wrestle with going forward.

In the midst of the same-sex marriage debate in New York, David Mixner, a longtime homosexual advocate, declared:

It's embarrassing to watch almost all of the absurd rhetoric around this issue that's coming out of the White House. You're either for it or you're against it. You've got all the facts. Everybody's given you time to evolve. ... Enough already.

We are on opposite sides of the fence on this issue - big time - but I agree with Mr. Mixner. You're either for it, or you're against it.


In another stellar example of presidential certainty - not - the president of the world's most powerful nation cannot figure it out.

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 09:15 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, June 23 2011

The United Nations recently made a resolution (do they ever do anything else?) on human rights, including the human rights of those with different sexual orientation or "gender identity."  This is interesting given that the UN is pretty much run by Islamic theocracies that stone those practicing homosexuality and corruptocratic tyrants who wouldn't recognize human rights if it bit them on the butt.


Most likely the member states that agreed to the resolution figured no one takes the UN seriously anyway, so why not?  But more entertaining than the UN resolution was the statement from the White House that Obama issued in response:

"(T)his marks a significant milestone in the long struggle for equality, and the beginning of a universal recognition that LGBT persons are endowed with the same inalienable rights -- and entitled to the same protections -- as all human beings..."

No time for church, but plenty-o-time to issue a statement applauding sexual depravity.  Nice.


What is interesting about this little statement is that once again, in referencing the inalienable rights of man, Barack Obama intentionally avoided citing the foundation point of those claims to rights: the Creator.  Remember, non-Western cultures that lack the Judeo-Christian heritage of the West believe rights to be the product of the whims of whoever is in charge.


As Chairman Mao said in China, justice is determined by the person standing on the right side of the gun.  The U.S., built upon the back of Judeo-Christian truth, recognized there had to be some concrete basis for rights, and they found it in the Biblical God.  That's what made the rights inalienable, after all.  If they come from man, then man can take them away.  If they come from God, they are inviolable.  One wonders if Mr. Obama even understands this, and if he does, whether he agrees with it given his propensity for omitting the source of our rights.


But perhaps at least in this case, there was another reason Mr. Obama decided to drop the reference to the Creator as he talked about people who flagrantly abuse the sexual identity given to them by that Creator, or who live proudly in rebellion to that Creator's intended order.  Remember what we learn from Scripture:

So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

The transgendered movement flouts and denies this very truth.  The homosexual movement disobeys the sexual order that God created mankind to embrace.  They find His moral expectations and guidelines "offensive and unenlightened." 


Perhaps, by leaving out the Creator from his statement this time, Mr. Obama was merely signaling to us all with which side his loyalties reside.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:09 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, June 23 2011

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


Last week, disgraced former New York Governor-turned-CNN commentator Eliot Spitzer had Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards on his show and gave her about as soft an interview as anyone in the child-killing industry could ask for (in other words, the reality that they kill children for profit at her organization didn't come up).



This is obviously par for the course in the mainstream media, and while it's aggravating, it is so predictable that I wasn't even going to spend time commenting on it.  That is until Spitzer decided to have Family Research Council president Tony Perkins to discuss the same topics.  Needless to say, there was a bit of a difference in CNN's "coverage" of the battle over taxpayer funding of PP.


Matt Hadro explains:

Consider the statements Richards made last Wednesday night that Spitzer was content not to scrutinize: Planned Parenthood has received "enormous support" from both Democrats and Republicans, the organization is "very transparent" about its services, Planned Parenthood reduces need for abortions through family planning, and the recent efforts by Congress and state legislatures to cut its funding "were to eliminate access for women to get access to life-saving breast cancer screenings, pap smears, and birth control."

I'm no genius, but I could have eaten her alive on each of those outrageous statements.  That's not bragging, mind you, as I'm pretty sure that even an informed junior high kid could have done the same.  Here's the way it's done with each of those four assertions by Richards:


Cecile, tell me a list of Republicans who have given you support.  Let's see how enormous it is.


If you are very transparent, why have you engaged in multi-million dollar efforts to cover up the work done by LiveAction in exposing the fraud in your organization?


If your work reduces the need for abortions, why have we not seen a significant decrease in the abortion rate since you began?  And since a decrease in abortions hurts your bottom line, why do you expect people to believe you have a sincere interest in lowering that rate?


Cecile, won't those funds still flow from Congress and state legislatures to organizations that provide cancer screenings, pap smears, and birth control, so long as they don't participate in the heinous act of child killing?  In fact, wouldn't Planned Parenthood receive those funds if they simply stopped killing kids?


But amazingly, a man as accomplished as Spitzer (not including the whole cheating on your wife with numerous prostitutes thing) who has a television program on CNN wasn't able to come up with any such questions to challenge his guest.  Even more amazingly (I hope you're picking up on the sarcasm), he didn't have any such problem when the conservative Perkins came on the show:

In the Perkins interview, Spitzer grilled the FRC head over his assumption that Planned Parenthood has been implicated in multiple scandals involving covering for child prostitution and improper funding. Spitzer outright told Perkins that he was guilty of slandering Planned Parenthood.

Perkins was steadfast in his accusations. "Let me tell your listeners, your viewers, to go to and they can see for themselves the undercover video that was filmed in Planned Parenthood clinics that shows them covering and facilitating sex trafficking. And then let your viewers make that decision for themselves," he told the news host. Spitzer wouldn't buy that, conveniently ignoring the accusations made by Live Action.

Hadro's write-up on this exchange also nails Spitzer taking talking points from Richards to use against Perkins.  He unquestionably lifts one of Richards' standard lines about PP and confronts Perkins with it.  It's shameless.


Then again, isn't that the motto at CNN?

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:08 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, June 23 2011

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


Barack Obama's cronyism knows no bounds.  The same guy who campaigned as one opposed to the backroom deals, and cushy relationships with lobbyists has turned into one of the most notorious corruptocratic executives the country has known.  From his sweetheart deals with CEOs at GE, to owning and staffing the leadership of GM, to giving ObamaCare waivers to his very buddies who campaigned for it vociferously, Obama is the King of backroom cronyism.


And now we see another example.  Fresh off their defeat over the un-American card-check scam, Obama's labor union friends have come calling on him to help.  And true to form, Obama knows on which side his bread is buttered.  Never mind decency and the law, it's time to screw American business again on behalf of his friends:

Now the NLRB (National Labor Relations Board) plans to rewrite the rules for union elections in a way that further strengthens the hand of the unions and undermines the freedom of employers to keep from having collective-bargaining contracts imposed on them against their will.


Obama's NLRB is contemplating new union-election rules that would give employers less time to organize a countercampaign. There is absolutely no reason for doing so other than to weaken the employers' position. Most union elections are conducted within a month or six weeks after union organizers file their petition for a vote; during the interim, employers have the chance to make their case against unionization, if they so choose. Under the fast-track votes contemplated by the new NLRB guidelines, that time would be reduced to less than three weeks, possibly as little as ten days. You'll notice that it is only the employers who face a time limitation: The unions may spend as much time as they choose organizing their campaign before filing the petition for a vote. In some cases, employers have no idea that their workforces are being organized for unionization until that petition is filed, placing them at a distinct disadvantage. And even if they know that union organizers are approaching their workers, employers already face significant restrictions on how they respond.


As usual, employers' property would be commandeered, and businesses would be required to share records, electronic files, contact databases, etc., with their antagonists. (Of course there is no reciprocal obligation on the unions.) In addition, employers' right to use legal and procedural channels to resist unionization of their workforces would be reduced.

As the editors at National Review go on to point out, this move is just as crucial and important to the labor union bosses as was their effort to destroy secret ballot elections for American workers.  It is designed, much like card-check was, to increase the strength of labor unions by increasing the amount of dues dollars that flow into their pockets. 


Barack Obama realizes the more dollars from workers unions collect, the more they send into his own coffers.  That's what this is about - who cares if it is detrimental to business.  One need only look at the status of the Obamaconomy to realize that has never been a high priority for this administration.

None of this should be surprising. When President Obama installed labor radical Craig Becker, formerly the top lawyer for the Service Employees International Union (a key Obama ally), at the NLRB, it was obvious that the administration intended to fundamentally reshape our labor laws ? without ever holding a vote in Congress. Taken alongside such abuses as targeting Boeing for having the audacity to expand its operations in a right-to-work state, the NLRB is the very picture of a runaway agency pursing a narrow, partisan political policy rather than any legitimate public mandate. The increasing radicalization of the NLRB invites a proportional response ? a national right-to-work law would be an appropriate remedy. In any case, the Republicans' 2012 nominee and congressional candidates should remind Americans daily what the Obama administration has attempted to foist upon American employers and the means he has used.

Amen.  As I've said a number of times, and will continue saying, Americans need a bright contrast from Obama in that is unashamed and unabashed when it comes to pointing out the differences.

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

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


Sarah Palin coined the classic phrase, "How's that hope ?n change workin' out for ya?"  It seems an increasing amount of Americans are answering that question the same way: not so great.


Two years after the official start of the recovery, the American people remain pessimistic about their current economic circumstances and longer-term prospects.


Fewer than a quarter of people see signs of improvement in the economy, and two-thirds say they believe the country is on the wrong track overall, according to a Bloomberg National Poll conducted June 17-20.


"Gas prices are higher, grocery prices are higher, transportation prices are higher," says poll respondent Ronda Brockway, 54, an insurance company manager and political independent who lives in a suburb of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. "The jobs situation nationwide is very poor."

And that's being generous.  Not only is what we're seeing a colossal failure of the left's Keynesian economic ideas, but it also is a monumental collapse of an extensive propaganda campaign unlike anything we have seen in modern American politics.


By that I don't mean that Team Obama is working harder to sell themselves and their ideas than previous administrations.  But rather, Obama has had the full use of the American media as his press wing.  They have provided little if any accountability, have made excuses and carried the template like bold little foot soldiers, even as the economic casualties continue to amass around them.


Yet despite all their bias, their flagrant dereliction of duty in holding this president and his team accountable for their failures, and their relentless efforts to make Barack Obama all that they promised he would be, the American people aren't buying it.  Less than a quarter of the people see signs of improvement in the economy.


This is after all the "Summer of Recovery" nonsense, the ecstatic reports about anything that could be remotely considered good economic news, and the insulting insinuations that the very programs that were making things worse were needed in higher magnitude and potency. 



It appears that the worst thing that could happen to Obama's re-election chances is happening: people aren't judging the status of the economy based on what they're being told through media hype (you know, kinda like they judged the qualifications of Obama in 2008).  Rather, they are judging the status of the economy based on what they're living.

By a 44 percent to 34 percent margin, Americans say they believe they are worse off than when President Barack Obama took office in early 2009, when the U.S. was in the depths of a recession compounded by the September 2008 financial crisis and the economy was losing as many as 820,000 jobs a month.

You can almost hear the Rick Perry, Sarah Palin, Herman Cain, Mitt Romney, Michele Bachmann or Chris Christie ad now, can't you: "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?"
Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:06 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, June 22 2011

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


How do I put this nicely, yet honestly?  How about this: heading into the beginning of the 2012 presidential cycle, the president is tanking.  Forget all the nonsense espoused by the sickeningly sycophantic media types who say there is no need to have an election because Obama has it sewn up.  In truth, the numbers out there demonstrate that a generic Republican is closer to having 2012 sewn up than Obama is.


The truth is there's a reason that a great number of Republicans are entering this presidential race.  And it might have something to do with this:

Americans are growing more dissatisfied with President Barack Obama's handling of the economy and say it will be hard to vote to re-elect him without seeing significant progress over the next year and a half.



By a margin of 61 percent to 37 percent, a Bloomberg National Poll conducted June 17-20 shows Americans say they believe that Obama will have had his chance to make the economy "substantially better" by the end of 2012.


Only 30 percent of respondents said they are certain to vote for the president and 36 percent said they definitely won't.

That 30% number is one to pay attention to.  In the business, it is known as a candidate's "hard re-elect" numbers.  In other words, it's the actual percentage of people who are convinced they are going to vote for the person come what may.  A 50% rating is cause for concern.  30% is disastrous for an incumbent president.


The numbers actually get worse for President Obama, as only 23% of independents - the very group that was won over by all the over-the-top hope and change nonsense of 2008 - plan on supporting Obama with certainty.  36% of them are "hard re-elect" for whoever his opponent is.


Obama is also struggling to excite his base, as we've discussed on the show.  That doesn't mean that liberals will field a third party candidate or that they will flip-out and vote Republican.  But it does mean that they are less likely to get involved, work phone banks, fund-raise, go door-to-door and volunteer to help Obama get out the vote.  It also means that they might stay home on election day.  Like I said: trouble.


Team Obama is wisely spinning this by pointing out that Reagan's numbers were very similar at this point of his first term.  While true, that ignores a pretty significant point.  Reagan had enacted pro-growth policies of tax reduction, less regulation, and private sector incentives.  As a result, the economy was growing at a mind-boggling 7.5% at this point in his term.  That's what would turn his fortunes in 1984 into a landslide victory.



For Obama, he has kept the dark specter of tax increases hanging over job creators, increased government regulations in nearly every sector, and has exploded the size of government while shrinking the private sector.  As a result, the economy is growing only around 1% and is stagnating at a time when it should be going like gangbusters.


Reagan was on the right track.  Obama is on the wrong one.  And he's running out of time to make the changes necessary to switch tracks.

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

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


The petals are off the rose on the left.  Mounting frustration with the clueless nature of the Obama Administration is not sole intellectual property of the right.  No, not by a long shot.


First, the business community feels it:

White House Chief of Staff Bill Daley heard heated complaints from business leaders about burdensome government regulations at a meeting of the National Association of Manufacturers in Washington. As Mr. Daley listened to tales of the administration's unnecessary interference in industry, he replied, "Sometimes you can't defend the indefensible."

But with his demonstrably anti-business, pro-government regulation policies, perhaps that was to be expected.  Obama probably isn't banking on getting re-elected as a courtesy of the folks who make the engine of our economy run - just look at the anemic nature of our economy right now and you can figure that out.



No, Mr. Obama undoubtedly expects the labor union radical left to work their fannies off (with plenty of support from the mainstream media) to sell his snake oil for him like they did in 2008.  But that may not exactly take shape the way he's hoping either:

White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer was heckled and booed Friday at the annual Netroots Nation conference in Minnesota, a gathering of liberal activists from the online political community. When Mr. Pfeiffer reminded the audience that the president championed an equal-pay law, the moderator replied, "Frankly we're a little sick of hearing about that one."

No, don't expect the Netroots to come out in force for any Republican candidate.  But it's not necessary.  The reality is that the coalition of hope-filled voters that swept Obama to power two and a half years ago has already fractured.  He's hoping to rekindle the magic this time around, but it's looking rough right now.  If the Netroots base can't get excited about re-electing the man they thought was a god just a couple years ago, does Obama expect average Americans to get that way?


Perhaps he's beginning to realize the handwriting on the wall:

But as the president has tried to energize supporters, implicit in his remarks is the danger that fewer people from his 2008 army of volunteers will feel motivated to work for him in 2012.


"You're going to have to knock on doors," Mr. Obama told a rally in a more-than-half-empty concert hall in Miami. "You're going to have to talk to all your friends and neighbors, and you're going to have to talk to the naysayers."

It's not "naysayers" who doubt Obama's inability to solve their problems that he is going to have to contend with in 2012.  It's the entire population of a country who heard the promises, believed the hype, and have now figured out the truth about this epically unqualified and unprepared man who is being dwarfed by the responsibilities of a job he is incapable of handling.


Obama is in big trouble.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:08 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, June 22 2011

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


Columnist Mark Shields said something on PBS over the weekend that absolutely floored me.  And it would floor every single American who understood the history of our republic, and the views of the Founders of that republic.


Here's what he said:

But this is the reality, and Evan is absolutely right. You have to have everything on the table. And it has to be, you cannot, Charles says 25 percent spending. That's in large part because we have two wars and, and in fact the stimulus package. But we got 14 and a half percent in revenues, Charles. That is unsustainable and it's unacceptable and it's fundamentally un-American.

Make sure that you understand by "revenues" he means taxes.  Columnist Shields is lamenting that our tax rate is too low in this country.  It's so low, it's un-American.



Perhaps it's time we start demanding of these liberals who say this nonsense to define "American."  Because obviously it has nothing to do with our history or heritage.  How do I know?  I am a student and teacher of history.


Go back to the writings and words of the men who formed this republic as an experiment in self-government, carefully contructed a Constittuion to limit the powers and influence the government could have over its citizens, and went to great pains to make it virtually impossible for the government to take or coerce from citizens directly, and tell me that those men would agree with the proposition that Americans today are paying too little in taxes to their government masters.


It boggles the mind.  Not just that someone like Shields can be so backwards.  There have always been socialists in the country and those who have opposed the concept of individual liberty.  What boggles the mind is how Americans don't react in indignation at such a proposition.


Here's the truth: what our Founders would have seen as un-American is a federal government that redistributes wealth by allowing half of the country's population to pay no taxes, and still vote to elect lawmakers who pick and choose who gets taxed and how much.  They would have found it un-American that the government would play favorites and would punish prosperity.  They would have found it un-American that we have a dog and pony show whereby large factions of people with lesser means can vote themselves goodies from the pockets of smaller factions of people with greater wealth.


And they would have found it un-American that the majority of citizens would be blissfully unaware of these flagrant violations of personal autonomy and individual independence being perpetrated by the state.

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

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


I heard from some listeners after my Huntsman comments the day he announced that thought I was too dismissive of him.  It was the typical criticism: "You know, Heck, you don't always have to agree with Limbaugh."  And while that's very true, I contend that it stands to reason that I will agree with Rush Limbaugh quite often given our similar views on politics.


I haven't gotten a chance to hear Rush's remarks on Jon Huntsman, but based on what I know of the former Utah Governor, I would guess that most true conservatives are going to feel about him the way I do: he's a RINO without conservative convictions, and the last thing the Republican Party needs to field in 2012 as the country desperately craves real change.



As an example, take this line from Huntsman's announcement:

For the first time in our history, we are passing down to the next generation a country that is less powerful, less compassionate, less competitive and less confident than the one we got," Huntsman said. "This, ladies and gentlemen, is totally unacceptable and totally un-American," he said.

Did you notice a key word in that litany of "less?"  Less powerful?  Yep.  Less competitive?  You got it, Jon.  Less confident?  Preach it brother Huntsman.  Less compassionate?




With verbiage that harkens back to the Bush mantra of "compassionate conservatism," Huntsman reveals the man behind the curtain.  The word "compassion," when articulated by a politician is the code word they drop right before they make some spectacular proposal to spend a ton more of your money that we just don't have to spend right now.


If we are a less compassionate people - and I'll let you take that up with the folks in Japan, Haiti, and other places where the goodness of Americans has once again been on display for the world to see - it's only because our government has grown so large, and has begun taking so much from people, that they just don't have the means to exercise that personal charity anymore.


In my column this week, I lamented the sorry state of liberal compassion, noting how when compassion is turned over to the government rather than the individual, it becomes a tool for political purposes.  That Jon Huntsman is taking his talking points straight from the left's cue cards is a perfect indication of what kind of candidate he is - and a perfect explanation of why Rush Limbaugh and I agree that he isn't the man to take on Obama.

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

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


Ah the sanctity of science.  Time and again those of us on the right are accused of being anti-science.  I would willingly acknowledge I am "anti-science" if those who accuse me of being such would honestly admit that they are operating with a different definition of the word "science." 


In modern vernacular, "science" means "interpretation of data that leads one towards leftwing conclusions."  That's true whether we're talking about the question of goo-to-zoo-to-you Darwinism or look-out-the-earth-is-about-to-be-incinerated-if-you-don't-stop-driving-your-SUV Warmerism.



Whenever these movements are exposed to be frauds when it comes to the actual science in their respective fields, they huff and puff and point to their pieces of paper hanging on their walls that they received from prestigious universities which specialize in turning out folks who are proficient at groupthink and advancing liberal religious dogma.  "We're scientists!" they crow.  "How dare you question our credentials."


It's not your credentials we question, professors.  It's your methodology, your interpretation, and your conclusions.  When we see the bombshell Warmer scandal explode out of the University of East Anglia a few years ago - where the entire Warmer models were proven to be hoaxes and frauds based on falsified data to reach a political end - and then watch as it is covered up by a sympathetic media, we don't worry about offending "science" by blowing the whistle.


And when we see stories like this, we aren't impressed either:

Is climate change raising sea levels, as Al Gore has argued -- or are climate scientists doctoring the data?


The University of Colorado's Sea Level Research Group decided in May to add 0.3 millimeters -- or about the thickness of a fingernail -- every year to its actual measurements of sea levels, sparking criticism from experts who called it an attempt to exaggerate the effects of global warming.


"Gatekeepers of our sea level data are manufacturing a fictitious sea level rise that is not occurring," said James M. Taylor, a lawyer who focuses on environmental issues for the Heartland Institute.


Steve Nerem, the director of the widely relied-upon research center, told that his group added the 0.3 millimeters per year to the actual sea level measurements because land masses, still rebounding from the ice age, are rising and increasing the amount of water that oceans can hold.

Wait a masses are rising?  That increases the amount of water the oceans can hold?  But if land masses are rising, why does it matter if the oceans hold more water?  Even if that increases their depth, that doesn't bring on the catacylsmic concerns of drowning coastlines, engulfed cities, and receding oceanfronts that the Gore-ites prophecies entail. 


This was the exact point made by a "real" scientist (as in, one not driven by a political agenda):

Climate scientist John Christy, a professor at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, said that the amount of water in the ocean and sea level were two different things.


"To me... sea level rise is what's measured against the actual coast," he told "That's what tells us the impact of rising oceans."


So to our friends on the left, bluster all you want about the sanctity of science.  When you are consistently the most blatant violators of it, you aren't going to influence anyone.  When you tout those who use the label of science as a cloak to advance their agenda, people are going to see right through you.


This isn't about science to the left.  It's about control - what it's always about for the left.  Control over energy means control over people.  I stand with liberty...and science.
Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:09 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, June 21 2011

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


The Republican establishment is thrilled to have another one of their own enter the 2012 presidential race as Jon Huntsman has thrown his hat into the ring:

Republican Jon Huntsman, the former U.S. ambassador to China, entered his party's 2012 presidential race on Tuesday pledging to make "hard decisions" to prevent America sinking into a debt disaster.


Huntsman upset the White House in April by quitting his job in Beijing to take on his former boss, President Barack Obama who appointed him in 2009.


The former governor of Utah, Huntsman, 51, is lagging in polls of Republicans but has a high profile in the media and worries the Democratic Obama administration because of his possible cross-party appeal.


I'm impressed that Reuters actually mentioned how incredibly low Huntsman is polling given that mainstream media types have been hyping him for months.  That may seem counterintuitive: why would a mainstream media that is obviously heavily invested in the re-election of Barack Obama be touting such a serious challenger like Huntsman?  The answer isn't that difficult to figure out: he isn't a serious challenger. 


Huntsman is the prototypical RINO, a man who doesn't want to be known as conservative, who cherishes the concept of "centrism," and believes you build coalitions by being nice and never showing conviction.  Think Bob Dole, or even John McCain before he met Sarah Palin.


Here's why the media has been talking non-stop about this guy for weeks despite everyone in the Republican base looking at each other and saying, "Who?"  They know that establishment, moderate sounding Republicans don't win.  When voters get to choose between Democrat and Democrat-lite, they'll go with the real thing.  Huntsman would demoralize the base, probably prompt a third party candidate from the right to run, and virtually guarantee four more years of Obama.


That's why the media loves him.  That's why they tout him.  And that's why he can't win the Republican nomination.  Honestly, I call this guy the Wesley Clark of the Republican Party.  Remember Wesley?  Back when Democrats desperately needed someone credible to run against Bush in 2004, the media went ape over the former NATO commander and Clinton crony.  He was going to be the guy.  But despite their hysteria, the Democrat base never embraced him, and Wesley Clark went on his merry way.


Here's to hoping that the same is true for Mr. Huntsman, and that in six months or so, there will be even more folks saying, "Jon who?"

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

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


I was aghast when I heard the news:

Cigarette makers must add large, graphic warning labels depicting diseased lungs, a man exhaling smoke through a hole in his neck and other images to packaging and advertising in the U.S. by October 2012, government officials said Tuesday.

The government of the United States is now trying shock-graphics to get people to stop smoking?  But wait a this the same United States government that encourages high taxes on cigarettes to fund all sorts of magnificent government programs that help everyone from the needy to the children?



How many school lunches will be defunded as a result of the loss of revenue from people who decide Joe Camel isn't so cool with a big hole in his neck?  How many after school programs will be cut as this ingenious gross-them-off-tobacco plan goes into effect?  It's as if these people in government don't even care about the future generation anymore.


I also have another question.  If we can use shockingly graphic images to teach people what cigarettes can do to those who become victims of the tobacco companies, why can't the government enact a law to put graphic images on the doors of Planned Parenthood to teach people what abortion does to those who become its victims?


Remember, while cigarettes take an average of seven years off a person's life, abortion kills a person instantly.  Surely that's a more pressing "health risk" to take immediate and aggressive steps to combat, isn't it?


Ah, the tangled web of lies the left weaves.

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

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


She's undoubtedly Rosie O'Donnell's favorite Congresswoman.  And for my own part, I'll say that she's without doubt one of the most entertaining.  Whenever I hear folks on the left mock the "stupidity" of Republican women like Sarah Palin or Michele Bachmann, I just hold up a picture of Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas.  God love her, she's a doozy.



But beyond the classic entertainment that she brings to the halls of Congress, she is a walking example of how the left simply cannot be trusted with the security of our country - because they're not interested in it.  The left is far more interested in political correctness than in protecting your family and mine.


They don't want anyone's feelings hurt in airports, so they subject 80 year old black grandmas to full body cavity searches while allowing young Muslim men of Middle Eastern descent with questionable identification credentials to walk through the baggage check unmolested and undetained.  Sure, it doesn't make us safer, but it makes the left feel good about themselves as guardians of "our values" (I'm not sure when being ignorant officially became one of our most cherished American values).


Right on cue, Sheila Lee piped up at a recent Congressional hearing on the emerging problem of the Islamic radicalization of prisoners taking place in U.S. jails to make Rosie and all the clueless folks on the left proud:

In an exchange with witness Patrick Dunleavy, the former deputy inspector of the criminal intelligence unit, New York Department of Correctional Services, Rep. Jackson Lee mentioned the case of a man who blew up an abortion clinic and proposed that this perhaps was an attempt to undermine U.S. law that allows a woman to procure an abortion.


Rep. Lee then said, "As we look to be informational, we should include an analysis of how Christian militants or others might bring down the country. We have to look broadly, do we not?"

This is how fundamentally unserious the left is about our security.  Rather than simply acknowledge the obvious: that while every belief system has its random nuts, none come close to exhibiting the hostility towards Western Civilization as the millions of radical Muslims who have been warring against he west for centuries.  It insults the intellect to even have to address this.  Radical Christianity doesn't even exist.  But jokesters like Lee and O'Donnell coin the term to simply try to draw moral equivalence between two religions, and earn the applause of idiots.


Dunleavy's response was a respectful way of hinting at that:

Dunleavy answered:  "I don't know that Christian militants have foreign country backing or foreign country financing."

An excellent point, but one that it's ridiculous it even has to be made.  Christian leaders are not on television everyday calling for the overthrow of the Constitution.  Christian militants are not training in foreign countries.  Christians are not amassing in great number to do the will of Jehova by hijacking planes and knocking down skyscrapers.  Actions that kill innocent people - even if committed by someone who at one point was affiliated with the Christian belief system - is unquestionably at odds with Christian doctrine (the same cannot be said for radical Islamists perpetrating such acts).


And we could keep going.  But it won't matter.  The left has their fingers in their ears.

Lee then said, "I don't think that's the issue."

Of course it's not the issue to Lee.  Because she isn't interested in making us safer.  She's interested in political grandstanding.  Spending tax dollars to research the effects a non-existent problem is having on national security (Radical Christianity and it's potential to bring down the United States) is so ridiculous, this woman should be laughed out of Congress.


But she's not.  She's one of the left's spokespeople, proudly defended by liberals as a voice for tolerance and justice.  Malarkey.  She's a voice of insanity that is endangering your family and mine.  And the fact that liberals are incapable of realizing that and purging her from their ranks is indication that they are just as dangerous.

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

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


Last week, I commented on the Kokomo Tribune's Left Eye feature, which offered a tongue-in-cheek history quiz for readers.  Of course, the quiz was really a shot at conservative politicians for perceived "errors" in recalling historical facts (yes, Joe Biden was the token liberal they chose to include, primarily because Joe gets a total pass from the media despite having more gaffes in one campaign than Dan Quayle had in four years).



It's about carrying forth the template that conservatives are idiots while liberals are intelligent.  And so even in fun little quiz games, that template is carried forth.  Notice that you didn't see Barack Obama and his reference to military "corpse-men" or that he sees dead people, or his reference to 57 states, or his statement that we need to give kids with Asthma a breathalyzer.


Nonetheless, I commented about the bogus nature of many of the Left Eye's set-up questions here, as I laid forth a pre-emptive strike on their promised "answers" coming this week.


Apparently reeling from the blow, the Left Eye chose to tuck the answers to the quiz away at the bottom of this week's column without much additional comment.  They did ignore the college professors who have correctly pointed out that Sarah Palin wasn't technically wrong when she said what she did about Paul Revere.  Whatever.  Getting media writers, especially those who have a fairly obvious disdain for conservative politicians anyway, to ever give Sarah Palin the benefit of the doubt is more than we can hope for I suppose.


In addition, it was nice to see that my correction of Glenn Beck's name made it into this week's edition.  They left the response to his "question" a pretty benign statement: "Conservatives didn't start the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s."


But most interesting of all was the "answer" to their original misquoting of Michele Bachmann's statement regarding the Founding Fathers and slavery.  Remember, Bachmann had actually said that many of our Founding Fathers worked tirelessly to see slavery ended.  That statement, of course, is true.  Many of them did.  The Left Eye, in their anxiousness to mock a high profile woman for her ignorance (wonder what that's about?), actually misquoted her, alleging that she said the Founders ended slavery.  Probably time to expand the newsgathering beyond Hardball with Chris Matthews, guys.


Anyway, in their answer this week, the Left Eye writers actually wrote, "the slaves were freed when President Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation during the Civil War."  Uh...really?  I bet the southern slaves who were kept in bondage after that Proclamation would be interested to know that.


This is about as fitting an end to the Left Eye's little attempt to mock high profile conservatives for their ignorance of history as you could ask for.  The Emancipation Proclamation, with as eloquent and politically devastating to the south as it might have been, freed no slaves.  Slaves were freed with the ratification of the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that came at the conclusion of the Civil War.



Remember the opening of this "quiz" a week ago?  The Left Eye writers penned:

People who should know better have a way of rewriting history to reflect their point of view - or are simply ignorant of our nation's glorious past.

I think the operative word here..."backfire."

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

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


We've got a serious budget problem on our hands, in case you were unaware.  But there seems to be some confusion about the way the political parties in Washington are reacting to that problem.  I said a few weeks ago in a column that the left is totally out of ideas.  It's worth reiterating.


During the reign of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama, the Democrats controlled the entire machinery of the federal government.  They chose not to even pass a budget the last year - one of the single most irresponsible performances in the history of our republic.  Their inability to offer anything to the conversation has only intensified since losing the House.


Meanwhile, the Republicans in Congress have offered a plan to deal with the budget crisis.  But don't expect any acknowledgement of that reality from the folks on the left who are out of ideas.



Here was an exchange on last Friday's "Inside Washington" program between Newsweek's Evan Thomas (going to bat for the Dems) and conservative Charles Krauthammer, after Thomas had just finished saying how no one in Washington is taking the budget crisis seriously:

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: But look, Evan is saying the politicians are not offering anything, and that's not true. The Democrats aren't offering anything. The President has given us a $1.5 trillion deficit. He hasn't done anything on entitlements. The Republicans have stepped up and offered a plan. You can have a critique of it.


EVAN THOMAS, NEWSWEEK: Here's a critique...

Wait a minute.  How can no one be offering a plan to solve the problem, Evan, if you're holding a critique to a proposed plan to solve the problem in your hand?!  This exposes just how shameless these folks in the media are to protect the Democrats.  Remember it wasn't that long ago I commented about DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz being asked by Harry Smith on CBS, "The Republicans have a the Democrats have a plan?"  She started ripping up the Republican ideas but never answered whether the Dems had a plan of their own.  And Harry never called her on it.  It's time to call them on it.

KRAUTHAMMER: The Democrats have not offered...


THOMAS: Republicans are absolutely determined not to raise taxes.


KRAUTHAMMER: You said the politicians are not looking at the problem of debt. The Republicans have offered to cut $6.6 trillion. Now, in the end, it would obviously have to be a deal in which taxes are included, but the Democrats have done nothing except to demagogue the plan and to destroy it, leaving us with what? With the Bush, with the Obama administration budget which was defeated 97-0 in the Senate because it is so embarrassing.

It's fine for the Democrats to disagree with Republicans.  It's fine for them to criticize the Republican plan and talk about the problems they see in it.  But it's time we also had the intellectual honesty from the folks on the left to acknowledge that only the Republicans are putting forward any ideas.  They are the only ones taking this issue seriously enough to propose changing the way we do business in Washington.  They are the only ones who are suggesting ways we can start living within our means.


Simply put: the Democrats are offering no leadership.  None.

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

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


To say times have changed would be an epic understatement.  Speaking as one whose rear end experienced the lash (or at least my Dad's bare hand) a few times growing up, I was aghast at this story out of Corpus Christi, TX:

A judge in Corpus Christi, Texas had some harsh words for a mother charged with spanking her own child before sentencing her to probation.


"You don't spank children today," said Judge Jose Longoria. "In the old days, maybe we got spanked, but there was a different quarrel. You don't spank children."


Rosalina Gonzales had pleaded guilty to a felony charge of injury to a child for what prosecutors had described as a "pretty simple, straightforward spanking case." They noted she didn't use a belt or leave any bruises, just some red marks.

My gut reaction told me that there had to be more to this story.  There has to be some background of violence, some serious, debilitating injury that had been caused, or some sort of handicap of the child that provoked the case.  To this point, I have been unable to locate any extenuating circumstances to this story.  It appears to be a cut and dry case of a mother spanking her child for misbehavior.


Apparently, the parents are divorced, and Rosalina's ex mother-in-law noticed the red marks on the child's bottom.  She decided to stick it to the mom by taking the child to the hospital and sicking the police on Rosalina.


Her punishment:

As part of the plea deal, Gonzales will serve five years probation, during which time she'll have to take parenting classes, follow CPS guidelines, and make a $50 payment to the Children's Advocacy Center.

Oh, and in addition to that, the court has awarded custody of the child to the ex mother-in-law.  This case may originate in Texas, but it stinks all the way up here in Indiana.  Pay attention to these kinds of decisions because they represent something far more sinister than a rogue judge who himself deserves a spanking.


It represents the heavy-handed nature of a country run by its government rather than by its people.  It smacks of a loss of parental control and the replacement of individual and parental autonomy with the wisdom of central planners.


The inmates are coming to run the asylum in America, and a backwards world is emerging.  One where parents are reprimanded for reprimanding their children.  One where we lament the lack of discipline in our culture as we watch our judges sentence the very ones trying to instill that discipline to probation.  One where the government interjects itself as the parent, and takes the responsibility to train up our children in the way they should go.


All of this can be traced straight back to the loss of Biblical morality in our culture.  When Biblical morality disappears, so does civic virtue.  When that virtue disappears, in comes the government to keep the order and dictate right from wrong.  When the government takes on the role of nanny, say bye-bye to liberty.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:06 pm   |  Permalink   |  1 Comment  |  Email
Sunday, June 19 2011

It doesn't take a rocket scientist or brain surgeon to recognize that I am not particularly complimentary toward the ideology and resulting policies of President Barak H. Obama. Indeed, a couple of my blogs this weekend have been poignantly critical.



But, like all of my fellow mainstream conservatives, we pay compliments and respect where compliments and respect are due. In that vein, I invite you to use this link to surf over to Fox Business News Neil Cavuto's Friday "Capper." When a person deserves to be recognized, we promote the appropriate recognition.


It is my sincere hope that the importance of fatherhood modeled by our president be made known far and wide today.


Happy Father's Day!!!

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 12:00 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Sunday, June 19 2011

Peter's article concerning President Obama's regulations on coal plants and other fossil fuel energy sources raised the hackles of an observer who wrote:

This anti-intellectual mentality, where you take the word of some random conservative talk-show host with a fine arts degree over expert climatologists from renowned institutions like MIT, Oxford, Harvard, etc. demonstrates exactly why Peter Heck cannot be taken seriously.

The timing could not be better, then, concerning reports about "adjusted" data created by the University of Colorado's Sea Level Research Group.

The University of Colorado's Sea Level Research Group decided in May to add 0.3 millimeters -- or about the thickness of a fingernail -- every year to its actual measurements of sea levels, sparking criticism from experts who called it an attempt to exaggerate the effects of global warming.


"Gatekeepers of our sea level data are manufacturing a fictitious sea level rise that is not occurring," said James M. Taylor, a lawyer who focuses on environmental issues for the Heartland Institute.


Expert climatologists from renowned institutions?


The cited article includes climate scientists who consider the University of Colorado's rationale for their actions specious. Exactly which climatologists are we to believe?


Peter's critic is likely also unaware that Dr. Reid A. Bryson and Dr. John E. Ross, Director and Associate Director of the University of Wisconsin Institute for Environmental Studies, published studies in the 1970s that the "increase of field dust in the air" would result in lower mean annual temperatures? These were serious studies by recognized scientists and educators.

The increase of field dust in the air, much of it the result of our mechanization, could change the climate enough to affect the world's capacity to produce enough food. The world relies heavily on the grain production of temperate regions. A lower mean annual temperature, including summer frosts, could result if dust levels continue to rise.


Temperature and rainfall patterns might also shift... It would be a tragedy if we changed the temperature or rainfall patterns so much that we could not produce enough food, or if increased farming generated the dust that caused worldwide temperatures to decline. If we are to stem or reverse this process, we need to know more about what is involved in climatic change and how man can correct the effects of dust on the climate. Otherwise our dust may destroy us.

Dust? Lower mean annual temperatures?


This is the conclusion of the article writtend by Drs. Bryson and Ross published in "Is Man Changing His Climate?" Science Year: The World book Science Annual, 1972, p. 105. This was the thinking of "expert climatologists from renowned institutions."


What if governments had imposed draconian policies, regulations, and laws to combat that crisis then?


Now we replace "dust" with "carbon dioxide" and "lower mean annual temperatures" with "global warming."


My point: If we can clearly point to inaccuracies and errors made by devoted scientists in studies that were recognized and validated by the scientific community four decades ago, what suddenly makes today's climate scientists and their studies infallible?


What new conclusions will be made by climatologists in another four decades? Are we so certain of today's scientists that we want to impose the economy-killing types of government regulations being demanded by the liberal sector?


I look forward to your thoughtful comments.

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 09:55 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Sunday, June 19 2011

A lot of people mistakenly see the homosexual political agenda as some sort of natural extension of freedom and liberty that our founders would embrace were they here today.  Rather than rehash the moral limitations our founders believed were essential to prevent liberty from turning into anarchy and licentiousness, or how they feared that this was the trend of previous republics and democracies near the end of their histories (which was about 200 years by the way), let me simply add this historic note for their perspective.

Though he admitted that he didn't even like mentioning the behavior by name, the highly influential Sir William Blackstone made it clear that homosexuality was a great danger to societies and thus instructed it to be discouraged in law. Not too long after Blackstone's 1769 Commentaries on the Laws of England, which every one of our founders would have studied extensively as their primary law book, John David Michaelis, authored a four-volume legal work in 1814.

In it he also outlined why homosexuality must be more strenuously addressed and much less tolerated than virtually any other vice in society:

"If we reflect on the dreadful consequences of sodomy to a state, and on the extent to which this abominable vice may be secretly carried on and spread, we cannot, on the principles of sound policy, consider the punishment as too severe. For if it once begins to prevail, not only will boys be easily corrupted by adults, but also by other boys; nor will it ever cease; more especially as it must thus soon lose all its shamefulness and infamy and become fashionable and the national taste; and then . . . national weakness, for which all remedies are ineffectual, most inevitably follow; not perhaps in the very first generation, but certainly in the course of the third or fourth. . . To these evils may be added yet another, viz. [namely] that the constitutions of those men who submit to this degradation are, if not always, yet very often, totally destroyed, though in a different way from what is the result of whoredom.

Whoever, therefore, wishes to ruin a nation, has only to get this vice introduced; for it is extremely difficult to extirpate it where it has once taken root because it can be propagated with much more secrecy . . . and when we perceive that it has once got a footing in any country, however powerful and flourishing, we may venture as politicians to predict that the foundation of its future decline is laid and that after some hundred years it will no longer be the same . . . powerful country it is at present."

Posted by: Micah Clark AT 06:02 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Sunday, June 19 2011

For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship. And by him we cry, "Abba, Father." The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children.  - Romans 8:15-16 (NIV)

Happy Father's Day!


The role of fathers has fallen on hard times in recent decades. A lot of the disrespect comes from Big Entertainment. Over the years, men in general have become the objects of scorn in various forms of entertainment. They are portrayed as incompetent, brutish, and foolish. I enjoy comedies and other types of programs like anyone else, but the negative characterization of me has infected our culture to the point that when a man does stand up for his moral beliefs, he is viewed as a backward, Neanderthal tyrant.

Another source of disrespect comes from liberal-style compassion. Since they have established the environment in which family breakups and unmarried couples are the norm, there are more single parent - particularly single mother - families than ever. Consequently, support from social services is directed toward these families. That is compassionate. The sad and ironic consequence, though, is that it becomes more financially feasible for these single parent families to remain single parents. It has even become more "lucrative," relatively speaking, for some to seek to have more children out of wedlock. The result is more children being reared in families without a stable father figure, which in turn creates and perpetuates significant social problems.


It has not always been this way in our great nation. Fathers used to be held in high regard and given a great deal of respect. Of course, there was also a time when our heavenly Father was given even greater respect.


James Madison, one of our nation's Founding Fathers, is known as the "Chief Architect of the Constitution." In 1825, he wrote to Frederick Beasley:

The belief in a God All Powerful wise and good, is so essential to the moral order of the World and to the happiness of man, that arguments which enforce it cannot be drawn from too many sources nor adapted with too much solicitude to the different characters and capacities to be impressed with it.

Thank You, Lord, for being our heavenly Father and bestowing upon us the loving grace and mercy of Your salvation. May we strive to be found faithful as we honor You on this Father's Day. Amen.


Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 05:45 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Saturday, June 18 2011

Thanks to the internet, I located a cartoon I recall from years past. One of the two researchers points to a blackboard containing some math equations which has in the middle, "then a miracle occurs," and says, "I think you should be more explicit here in step two."


I actually remembered this cartoon as I read a letter to the editor in our Kokomo Tribune. The letter's author, Mr. Steve Matthews, engages the "antigod evolutionists" with thoughtful observation and inquiry - something the scientific community should understand and appreciate.

The sad news is that many believe these fairy-tale mechanisms of genetic mutation creating new biosystems to be true science. In fact, an evolutionary scientist, Richard Goldschmidt, proposed the idea of a "hopeful monster," exactly like the X-Men fairy-tale scenario.


Goldschmidt's "hopeful monster" is based on the belief that evolution sometimes happens rapidly with macromutations occurring overnight. It provides a nice fairy tale of how one type of animal suddenly becomes a completely different kind of animal, such as a reptile laying an egg that turns out to be a mammal.


This idea has never been observed nor can it be explained by any natural mechanism. This is due to the limits of mutations, which only change existing gene information. The "hopeful monster" idea is required by evolutionists who believe in the anticreator religion of naturalism to explain the rapid appearance of hundreds of species in the fossil record with no transitional forms found in the same rock layers.

Truthfully, I was not aware of a "hopeful monster" theory, so I thank Mr. Matthews for bringing this to the attention of the newspaper's audience. Such a theory should not surprise me, though, since the entire foundation of evolution is predicated upon a "hopeful monster" solution of one type or another as gaps in the tale of evolution are consistently filled in with "miracles occurring" along the way.


Admittedly, all concepts of our origin stretches, boggles, and overwhelms human imagination. It is something we cannot completely grasp. Even our understanding of creationism gives us pause to legitimately wonder how "something created something out of nothing." In all honesty, I can understand how someone could greet that concept with skepticism. But then those same self-proclaimed practitioners of scientific methodology turn around and replace the creation model of human origin with one that tells us that "nothing created something out of nothing." Then along the way, in order to justify it, they have to throw in "hopeful monster" theories to fill in the missing gaps.


Interesting, isn't it, how the antigod evolutionists who are constantly mocking Christians for any belief in miracles keep tossing in their own "then a miracle occurred" moments in order to give their worldview a leg on which to stand.


My thanks to Mr. Matthews for his letter!

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 08:33 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Saturday, June 18 2011

There are some structural issues with our economy where a lot of businesses have learned to become much more efficient with a lot fewer workers. You see it when you go to a bank and you use an ATM, you don't go to a bank teller, or you go to the airport and you're using a kiosk instead of checking in at the gate.

This is President Barack H. Obama parading the full glory of his economics intelligence to NBC's Ann Curry. I remain amazed what this inspiring leader of the world's [still sort-of] most powerful nation and of the free world can do without his teleprompter.

Our president's complete lack of any apparent knowledge about basic economics grows with each passing day of this administration. I was reminded of an article I ran across during the presidential campaigning in which then-candidate Obama was beating up on "the wealthy." Interested in what his net worth might be, I did some searching that led me to an article on Amazingly, I found it again: "Barack Obama and His Money: He was a bad investor. But that will make him better president." I thought of it in this context because our fellow citizens who happen to live in the land of left-believe consider it a badge of honor to vote for someone with the same inadequate economic and investment incompetence they have. Instead of looking for someone with above-average intelligence and experience in this vital field, they celebrate incompetence.

On the investment side, Obama considered consulting his friend Warren Buffett?which would have been a good decision?but decided to ask a wealthy contributor, George Haywood, for advice instead. This was a bad decision. Haywood recommended that Obama talk to an unnamed broker at UBS (bad advice), who immediately plunked some of Obama's money into two speculative stocks (terrible advice). One of the stocks was AVI BioPharma, which was seeking to develop a new flu-related drug around the same time that Obama was pushing for more federal money to fight avian flu. The combination of the lousy investment advice and the perceived conflict of interest cost Obama not only money but credibility.


So, Obama is perfectly capable of making crappy decisions (trust a stockbroker; underestimate the media's eagerness to see conflicts in everything). He is also, however, capable of learning from his mistakes.

In fairness to the article, the point is that Mr. Obama could learn from his mistakes.


The sad truth is that, even though he may have returned to a more solid personal investment plan, the issues of a national and global economy elude him. They are not as overly complex as his advisors like Mr. Ben Bernanke would have him believe.


Giving Dr. Thomas Sowell's Basic Economics a read would clear up most, if not all, of Mr. Obama's economic confusion. But then he would be of no use to the residents in the land of left-believe because he would then have more useful and helpful knowledge than they do.

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 07:44 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Saturday, June 18 2011

I will be the first to say that I was tired of hearing about New York Congressman Anthony Weiner's scandal even before the mainstream media really picked it up. As the story was incessantly repeated on the hour, became impossible to ignore, and was fodder for late night TV jokes and double entendres, it started to reveal our nation's widespread moral confusion.

What Anthony Weiner did was wrong. The fact that he is a Congressman is mostly additional information. Some would say that his sending a lewd picture of himself to women he was conversing with on the Internet is "more wrong" because he is an elected official and probably did so on the public's time. That argument may or may not matter depending upon whether one buys into the shaky notion that being a wretch in private, or toward your spouse can be disconnected from public service after hours. (Our founders certainly did not believe that bad character could be compartmentalized in order to hold office.)

Oddly, right in the midst of this national scandal, many Hoosiers, some of whom surely must have disapproved of Congressman Weiner's underwear photos, were applauding far worse public displays under the guise of "diversity" that were also subsidized, in small part, by taxpayers.

On Saturday, the homosexual Indy Pride parade and festival included dozens of skimpily underwear clad men publicly behaving on the streets of Indianapolis in ways that make Rep. Weiner look like a candidate for sainthood. We are told tens of thousands (including children) observed and applauded these individuals' displays.   In fact, the day after Indy Pride, the Indianapolis Star ran a front page Metro section story claiming that Indy Pride had become "mainstream." Yet, the dozens of sad and distrubing pictures we have of Saturday's events, just like those at all previous Pride events, could not be printed in that very paper.

Perhaps Congressman Weiner's biggest mistake was that he didn't hop up on a float and dance around with a bunch of other men in Speedos or near nothing briefs as part of a homosexual event. Had he sent pictures of that demonstration of "pride" claiming his "diversity" and "rights," he might widely be praised, ignored or excused today.

Our sex-saturated culture is obviously robbing people of all common sense and moral discernment. It is hardly a surprise that NBC is on the verge of a new TV series about the Playboy Club clearly designed for provocation and the mainstreaming of porn. By the way, you can sign a petition to NBC with concerns over this new show here:

Why is it that the behavior that has become New York's shame is central Indiana's pride?   Is this not a legitimate question?

For some, the public embrace of these controversial homosexual displays is quite emphatic.  Yesterday, a lead columnist in the Indianapolis Star blasted me for raising concerns about the vulgar nature of Indy Pride. According to the columnist I convinced the Mayor's office at the last minute not to assign a fire truck, police Humvee and paid firemen and police officers to be part of the pride parade. (AFA-IN simply pointed out that aligning with the homosexual demands groups' controversial political agendas, raunchy public behavior, adult businesses, leather bondage groups, cross-dressers, abortion advocates, drag queens, religious bigots and drug legalization groups was not a very wise trend to set for public officials and city agencies. After all, "what you condone, you become a part of.")

If AFA of Indiana's efforts (and other pro-family leaders whom the paper called "the likes of Micah Clark") to expose this event did cause the city to pull back significantly (Greg Ballard still made a first ever Indy Pride mayoral appearance) then it is another verification of Edmund Burke's observation that "evil prevails when good people do nothing."

It was your support of AFA, your prayers for this situation and your contacting the mayor and city councilors that significantly thwarted some of the city, (i.e. taxpayer funded), involvement that may have otherwise occurred had you not stood with us.

Posted by: Micah Clark AT 07:00 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Saturday, June 18 2011

How's this for a campaign slogan?

"If you voted for this moron in 2008 to prove you're not a racist, vote against him 2012 to prove you're not an idiot"

Discovered it in the comments following a news story about President Obama meeting with his economics team. Blunt, but to the point.

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 06:30 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Saturday, June 18 2011

During this whole Indy Pride incident I received some interesting feedback from people who thought that I was being "un-Christian" because AFA of Indiana would not applaud homosexuality or remain silent . . . after all, "God is love" and "we should be loving."  This is a common misperception in our postmodern society in which emotion overrules truth. Sometimes, the most loving thing one can do is to say "no," "stop", "warning", "don't do that" or "there is a better way."

Yet, when it comes to this issue, the dominant view is that the only way to be "tolerant" and "loving" is to embrace the agenda of the homosexual demands groups. Is this true? Perhaps we should ask Massachusetts, the Mecca of this liberal dogma.

The US Centers for Disease Control has released another report showing that teenagers who self-identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender engage in much, much higher rates of risky behavior including smoking cigarettes, binge drinking, and attempting suicide suggesting social, emotional, or psychological distress from their sexual lifestyle choices.

The media and many experts were quick to dismiss this report by claiming that social stigma is the main culprit. Surely that plays a role, right?

Buried the CDC report is data from two different states, Wisconsin and Massachusetts. One has had gay marriage since 2003 and therefore widespread pro-homosexual education in the public schools, which accompanies the un-defining of marriage and family. Unlike Massachusetts, Wisconsin has protected and even voted on a marriage amendment Identical to Indiana's HJR 6, which homosexual activists claim to be among the ultimate anti-gay and hateful actions any state can take.

Which state do you suppose is a safer place for "LGBT" teens very pro-gay Massachusetts, or the more intolerant, Marriage-protecting Wisconsin?

The answer: Wisconsin by a mile.  For example, about 25 percent of Massachusetts teens who self-identify as "gay" said they had missed schools because they felt unsafe, compared to 14 percent of gay identifying Wisconsin teens. More than half (50.5%) of Massachusetts gay teens said they felt "sad or hopeless" compared to 29 percent of Wisconsin teens. Thirty-three percent of Massachusetts' gay teens attempted suicide, compared to less than 20 percent of Wisconsin teens. Massachusetts' gay teens were about twice as likely as Wisconsin gay teens to commit a suicide attempt serious enough to require medical care (15 percent to 8 percent). (By contrast, heterosexual teens in both states were equally likely to have attempted suicide requiring medical care: around just 2 percent.)

It's hard to be a gay teen, but if you are going to be one, it's much better to live in Wisconsin, a state which passed a marriage amendment by 60 percent, than Massachusetts, a state which has embraced virtually every aspect the homosexual political agenda.

This data should not be too surprising. For many years we have known that even in the most liberal of European nations like Denmark, where there is no social stigma left on much of anything, homosexual teens still experience major depression and attempt suicide at rates four times higher than their heterosexual counterparts, leaving the conclusion that hopelessness is intrinsic to homosexual behavior itself.

This is why groups like AFA of Indiana must stand up against the tide and severe opposition to say "no, please don't do this." This is the only compassionate and responsible answer if we truly care about individuals struggling with same-sex attraction or gender identity confusion.

Posted by: Micah Clark AT 06:00 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, June 17 2011

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


As Father's Day approaches, I think it's an appropriate time to reflect on the difficult road it is for men to be real men in our culture. 



Everything that should define manliness - honoring commitments, working hard, being personally responsible, providing for your family, self-sacrifice, honesty - is downplayed and disregarded as paternalistic, presumptuous or pandering.  And everything that shouldn't define manliness - grossness, perversion, stupidity, irresponsibility, sloth and laziness - are either championed or at least presented as the true identity of the American male.


Matthew Philbin had a great commentary in this regard:

These are tough times to be an American dad, and indeed, an American man. The recession, or "mancession," as it's been called, hit men harder than women; male unemployment was 8.9 percent compared to 8 percent for women in May. Adding insult to injury, leftwing journalists have sniggered about the plight of the "beached white male." In 2010, women became the majority in the work force for the first time in history. More women receive college degrees than men do.

Culturally, in article after magazine article, on TV and in films, fathers and men in general are portrayed as hapless bumblers at best, abusive deadbeats at worst.

Sure, dads are useful as sperm donors as the media proudly tells us of "career women" who "can have it all" including a baby without a husband. They're useful as ATMs, too even some more practical feminists will admit. But to the Washington Post, they're blustering know-it-alls, in detergent ads they're prudish kill-joys, and household annoyances on a par with muddy dogs. Googling the phrase "Who needs men?" draws 355,000 results, including big stars crowing about artificial insemination. The rise of "gay chic" and the relentless smudging of traditional gender lines have devalued manliness, even as male politicians, entertainers and star athletes highlight the less-than-admirable male traits in scandals.

According to the National Fatherhood Initiative, 24 million American children - one in three - live in homes without their biological fathers. To many on the left, this is a sign of female empowerment. The stigma has been removed from single motherhood. Women are more independent now, more willing and able to control their own destinies (including reproduction) without need of a man. The character of "Murphy Brown" blazed that trail on TV in the early 1990s. The character of Dr. Lisa Cuddy ratified it on "House M.D." by adopting a baby in 2009.


"Who needs men?" indeed.


The answer is, "Everyone." But don't look to the media for that truth. Instead, look for liberal journalists to ponder "The End of Men" and "Why We Need to Reimagine Masculinity." Look for sitcoms and movies to normalize the absence of fathers. If you do see them, don't be surprised if they're loutish bachelors like Charlie Sheen and buffoonish dads like Homer Simpson. If you want to see men in a positive light, look for them changing diapers, listening sympathetically - in short, filling traditionally female roles.

I encourage you to read Philbin's full story.  It's enlightening, frustrating, and a call to action.  America needs real men again.  Ones that haven't been neutered by a backwards and clueless culture that teaches manliness is an evil appeal to unfair gender roles.  It makes sense that if God equipped us with different gifts as men and women, he probably did so to prepare us to play different roles in relationships.  Men are needed in the lives of children.  They're needed by women.  They're needed by society.  And only they can fill those needs.


Opening doors for a woman is not condescending or old fashioned.  It's chivalrous, respectful, and respectable. 



Working three jobs to allow your wife to stay home with the kids if she wants to be a mom isn't paternalistic.  It's honorable. 


Keeping your tongue in check and your eyes on your wife alone isn't being whipped.  It's being principled. 


Honoring your commitments and making your kids one of them...keeping your promises and having your word count for something...being found more often on your knees with an open Bible than on a couch with an open beer...that's what makes a man. 


All men will fail at one or more of those things.  More often than we like.  Because none of those things are easy.  But real men don't do things just because they're easy.  Real men aren't perfect.  But they make the effort to pursue it every day.


We need more men who realize that in our culture.  It's what will make Father's Day a celebration of manliness again rather than an occasion to laugh at the bumbling clowns we dangerously make men out to be anymore.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:09 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, June 17 2011

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

Do you suppose any Democrats who voted to keep Nancy Pelosi as their leader even after the voters across the country smacked her over the head with that giant, carnival gavel she carried around for years are having any regrets now?



First, it's never wise to appear tone deaf to the wishes of the public.  Pelosi and the Democrats knew they were ticking off the public when they crammed ObamaCare down everyone's throats despite the obvious popular opposition.  Nancy could have fallen on her sword, realized that though it was unpopular and cost them the majority, "it needed to be done."  She could have moved on.  By doing so, it would have helped her Party by sending the message to the electorate that the "Democrats got the message, and are moving in a new direction."

Even if they weren't, it would have appeared that way and allowed the new leadership - even if charting the same destructive left-wing path - to campaign that way.  But liberals love power.  And Nancy is clearly a liberal.  As a result, after one of the most stinging electoral defeats to an agenda in Congressional history, the Democrats stood up, re-elected her to her post, and said to Americans, "Please sirs, may we have another."  Given two recent news stories surrounding Nancy Pelosi, that may be just what they get.  The first:

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) saw her net worth rise 62 percent last year, cementing her status as one of the wealthiest members of Congress.


Pelosi was worth at least $35.2 million in the 2010 calendar year, according to a financial disclosure report released Wednesday. She reported a minimum of $43.4 million in assets and about $8.2 milion in liabilities.


For 2009, Pelosi reported a minimum net worth of $21.7 million.

In the midst of anemic economic performance, Nancy - the leader of the party that claims to be the ones for "the little guy" - makes windfall profits.  It's the story of socialism.  I don't know how the American people can miss this.  Whenever governmental officials claim to be authoring and promoting policies to redistribute wealth and help out the little guy, the same thing always happens - whether it's Cuba, the Soviet Union, China, or here in the U.S.: everyone in the country starts looking like the "little guy" except for those in power.  The government planners get wealthier, and everyone else gets poorer.  Nancy is making that point for the Republicans.


How do you campaign as the party who understands the plight of the little man, when you policies are screwing him, all while your fearless leader is raking in the dough?



And as if that isn't enough, I suppose the Democrats don't think Americans are going to see right through this raging double standard:

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said she is "very protective of congressional prerogative" regarding military action but believes that President Barack Obama did not need Congress' authorization to take action against Libya and does not need congressional authorization today to continue with the operation.

Yes, the Democrats will have oodles of credibility left with the country after the way they called Bush a war criminal, accused him of peeing on the Constitution and waging "illegal war," now that they are claiming the president has "legitimate authorization" to continue waging war in Libya without Congressional authorization.


Nancy is a mess.  That was disastrous for America when she had the gavel.  And her flagrant abuse of her own values and standards is making it disastrous for her party in ensuring they won't see that gavel again anytime soon.  Not that I mind, of course.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:08 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, June 17 2011

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

Watching the Republican debate the other night, I came away with the very strong and very encouraging feeling that President Barack Obama is in a lot of trouble in 2012.  And keep in mind, the debate did not even feature some of who I believe would be the strongest GOP contenders - Palin, Perry, Christie, Ryan.  The debate revealed that the Republican candidates get it...this election is about jobs and a referendum on the performance of Mr. Hope and Change.



Talking about that very reality the next day, I commented on the show that I expected there were a great many people in the mainstream media who flipped the channel when the debate was over just in time to see President Obama joking about how those shovel ready jobs weren't so shovel ready after all, as well as touting how he's much better off now than he was three years ago, and they looked at each other and said, "We've got our work cut out for us, this time."


Indeed they do.  But don't think that they're not going to make a valiant effort to defend their Obamessiah.  No matter how silly, no matter how asinine, no matter how strained, no matter how ludicrous their propositions have to be, they'll do it.  Don't believe me?  Check out this fabulous piece of insanity coming from the Politico.


Author Molly Ball proposes that it doesn't really matter who the Republican nominee is, Obama will defeat them so soundly, they won't even be able to win their home state.  While that may not make people snort when they think of Obama beating Romney in Massachusetts, think about who else Ball includes in this piece:


Pawlenty in Minnesota?

"never received a majority of the vote in Minnesota in his two successful runs for governor."

Cain in Georgia? 

"Georgian Herman Cain ran once for statewide office and failed to make it out of a Senate primary."

Bachmann in Minnesota? 

"almost certainly couldn't win the state ? her high-water mark in her own GOP-friendly district was 53 percent, registered during the Republican landslide year of 2010."

Santorum in Pennsylvania? 

"voters drummed Rick Santorum out of the Senate by 18 percentage points-he was the rare incumbent to lose by a blowout margin."

Palin in Alaska?

"...once an overwhelmingly popular governor of Alaska, saw her statewide approval decline after the 2008 presidential campaign, then crash after she left office in July 2009."

Perry in Texas? 

"Even in the red state of Texas, voters aren't wild about their potential entrant into the 2012 field, Gov. Rick Perry. A recent PPP survey found Perry's poll numbers underwater, with the governor viewed favorably by 42 percent and unfavorably by 50 percent."


Of course, it's telling that none of these analyses included polls between the two potential candidates (Obama and whichever Republican) in a head-to-head face off.  It's telling that they all focused on circumstantial data that was accurate and significant in past election cycles - the vast majority of that data long before the Obama nightmare became reality for Americans.


Rick Santorum losing his Senate race by a wide margin is extrapolated outward to him losing to a very unpopular Obama?  Palin's fickle approval ratings mean that she couldn't beat Obama in Alaska?  And Texas is going to vote for Obama?  Yeah.


Saying Barack Obama is in a strong position heading into the 2012 election is, by itself, defying logic.  He is polling well below 50, his job performance on the economy is ranked even lower, his opposition seems to be more interested in campaigning against him than against each other, and his signature accomplishment (ObamaCare) has never been more unpopular.  So to write a piece saying, "Obama is in good shape," should be embarrassing enough. 


But to write one saying he is going to walk to re-election, including trouncing any presumptive Republican in their home state (even if that's solid red states like Alaska or Texas) is making the case for being committed.


But get your barf bags ready, and your seatbacks in an up and locked's going to be par for the course this cycle.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:07 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, June 17 2011

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


Liberalism stinks.


Don't believe me?  Just ask the folks in San Francisco, which next to an Indian Reservation, is the closest thing to a liberal paradise you are likely to fine.  Human Events magazine recently compiled a top ten list of how ludicrous things are in that bastion of left-wingism, but I couldn't help but notice there seemed to be a common theme: embrace liberalism, the consequences smell really bad.


A couple examples from the list:

Bio-Fuel buses cause stink:  San Francisco has transformed its 1,500- vehicle city fleet to run on biofuels as a way to combat global warming.  Oops, make that climate change.  To help power the vehicles, the city's SFGreasecycle program is collecting cooking oils from San Francisco restaurants.  The result:  Besides clogging the air filters of the diesel-converted buses, city streets often smell like French fries or fried chicken.



Low-flow toilet stink:  In the name of water conservation, San Francisco made a big push for citywide use of low-flow toilets.  The only problem is that, without that extra push of water, sludge is clogging the sewer lines, causing an unpleasant odor.  The city has had to spend $100 million to modernize its pipes and is spending another $14 million for 25 million pounds of bleach to combat the rotten-egg smell near the city's otherwise pristine baseball stadium, AT&T Park, home of the world champion San Francisco Giants.

The whole list is worth a read (everything from banning Happy Meals, to banning the sale of pets - or as they call them in their PC world, "animal companions," to banning circumcision), but as you do, remember this really isn't funny.  It's exactly where the left would take us if it weren't for the resistance offered by conservatives.


I know the church often is accused of "scaring people into heaven" by warning them about the reality of Hell.  While some say that is not a good approach, I have always had the opinion whatever gets them to meaningfully accept Christ's plan for salvation is good enough for me.  And I take the same approach here: if taking a whiff of a San Francisco toilet is enough to make you repent and become conservative, I say welcome to the club!

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:06 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, June 17 2011

Ready for the new round of environmental concerns? Look no further than your Digital Video Recorder (DVR). The studies are alarming - naturally:

DVR set-top boxes, even when not recording "The Vampire Diaries," suck out the same amount of energy annually as is produced by nine coal-burning power plants, according to a new report.


About 160 million digital video recorders and cable and other pay-TV boxes in the U.S. eat up 27 terawatt-hours of electricity a year and cost consumers about $3 billion, according to researchers from the Natural Resources Defense Council.


Will be seeing environmental activists targeting this technology? Time will tell.


Actually, I am beginning to hope so. When liberal environmentalists begin interfering with the lives of the typical citizen, they will finally be exposed for the tyrants that they are.


I am tempted to write Democrat lawmakers to impose some type of taxes and/or regulations on DVR customers to combat this atrocious waste of energy. If one lives in a Congressional district represented by a Republican, contact a nearby Democrat Representative, explain that you're "trapped" in a Republican district, and request that he/she take action to crack down on this unnecessary waste of environmentally-damaging energy. I'm certain they can figure out some government action to take.


I'm even tempted to contact a local liberal environmental activist organization to ensure that they are aware of this critical concern and encourage them to help us eliminate this travesty of enviro-justice.


Have I gone wacko? Maybe so, but I keep thinking that when entertainment-loving Americans are directly assaulted, they will finally wake up to what is happening when they allow liberals to rule their lives.

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 10:47 am   |  Permalink   |  1 Comment  |  Email
Thursday, June 16 2011

If the great Rush Limbaugh is on the "cutting edge of societal evolution," then what does that make TheOldSalt?


Last weekend, I published my article "The Liberals Are Coming!" in which I commented on the liberal distortions about Sarah Palin's Paul Revere remarks.


Today, June 15th, my Rush in a Hurry email subject line reads, "The Liberals are Coming!"



TheOldSalt: ahead of the curve!


As Paul Revere would warn with alarm:


"The liberals are coming! The liberals are coming!"

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 02:30 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, June 15 2011

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


A few weeks ago I made comments on the radio show that caused more than a few listeners to question whether I was making a pre-emptive endorsement.  I really wasn't, and I really don't plan on doing so at all.  But I certainly can't fault them for thinking that way.  Because the truth is - as my previous comments revealed - that I am more than anxious to see the Governor of Texas, Rick Perry, enter the presidential race.



For the longest time, I thought (as many did) that Perry was not even considering a run.  His disdain for Washington and love for state politics is quite evident.  On top of that, Perry isn't a man who minces words.  So when he gives indications that he isn't interested in something, you can be guaranteed he's not being coy.  It appears, however, that perhaps the gravity of the current situation in our country may have driven Perry to reconsider.  I can't begin to express how much I hope that's true.


Simply put: there is no one I would rather see face off against Barack Obama in 2012 than Governor Perry.  The contrast would be stark, the choice clear.  For those who wonder why that thought gets me so excited, consider the explanation offered by columnist Bruce Walker:

What Republicans need is a candidate who is unabashedly conservative across the board, a savvy campaigner who does not make stupid mistakes, someone with no skeletons anywhere, a proven government executive who would hit the ground running as president, and a candidate who could very quickly and almost bloodlessly win the Republican nomination. 


Governor Perry is perfect for this mission.  Consider the five criteria I listed.  Is Perry conservative?  He is a social and a fiscal conservative with a very long track record of walking the walk as well as talking the talk.  In the fiscal area, think of Mitch Daniels or Chris Christie on steroids.  Unlike members of Congress, who have stray votes which could offend conservatives, Rick Perry has no blemishes at all. 


Moreover, Perry is aggressively conservative.  On June 7, Perry called for a special legislative session to abolish sanctuary cities.  On June 9, Perry asks fellow governors to join with him for a national day of prayer.  His book, Fed Up! Our Fight to Save America from Washington takes on squarely the leftist mania for implementing national policies in areas properly the province of state governments. 


Rick Perry has never lost an election.  He even knocked off leftist icon Jim Hightower in running for Agriculture Commissioner.  Moreover, Perry has the psychological advantage that Reagan had:  he grew up a Democrat, won election as a Democrat, and Perry was even the State Chairman for Al Gore in 1988.   He can get inside the head of Reagan Democrats better than any Republican around.  With video clips everywhere in cyberspace, the persuasiveness of a candidate is no longer guesswork.  Look at Perry and then compare him to other Republican candidates.  He never stumbles.  He never says things which come back to haunt him.  He knows how to win elections. 

Getting the picture?  Perry is an articulate straight shooter - exactly what will be needed to call out the nonsense that will have to flow from the Obama re-election campaign given his track record.


And could there be a better contrast for voters to see than the leader of the state that leads job creation and employment by wide margins and the leader of a country mired in a mess of unemployment and despair?



But what about the rest of Walker's five criteria?

Perry also has no skeletons.  His whole life, from being an Eagle Scout to serving his country honorably in the military to marrying (and staying married) to his childhood sweetheart to working his father's family farm bespeak a life constructed for Hollywood with Perry in the role of the hero and dragon slayer.  His wife is a nurse who has been active in promoting wholesome causes in that area.  The only attack that can be made on Perry is that he is too conservative and too religious -- great, let the left hang their hat on those "flaws."


Governor Perry is the longest serving governor in America from the second largest state in America, and before he was Governor Perry he was Lieutenant Governor Perry (an important job in Texas.)  He not only has experience, but Perry has been a successful chief executive.  The left will pick on his record -- indeed, some have already begun -- but those attacks can easily be turned against them.  Texas does not spend nearly as much on education as, say, California.  So what?  Texans learn better than Californians.  Americans grasp the horror of our national debt.  They want someone who will pinch pennies.

Indeed they do.  We wanted Mike Pence's social conservatism.  Perry has it.  We wanted Mitch Daniels' fiscal conservatism.  Perry has it.  And, as Walker goes on to point out, Perry is committed to states rights.  Across the country, Republicans are leading a resurgence in state autonomy (Jindal in Louisiana, Walker in Wisconsin, Daniels in Indiana, Christie in New Jersey, Haley in South Carolina, Brewer in Arizona).  And in each place, their reform efforts are being challenged and thwarted by an aggressively hostile obstacle in the Obama administration.


Perry, a staunch believer in what Jefferson called "the laboratories of democracy" (the states) would put an end to that and restore the 10th amendment.  Think that will go over well in states during the campaign?


There are many candidates on the Republican side that I would support for the presidency.  But no one excites me like Rick Perry.  This is only the surface as to why.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:09 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, June 15 2011

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


There's a reason that many political liberals are also committed Darwinian macro-evolutionists.  Not only do they get to "avoid" the authority of a Creator God, they also find people who appreciate and utilize their "heads I win, tails I win" strategy.


Take for instance a story that appeared recently in an edition of LiveScience magazine.  Apparently some Darwinian scientists have done some research and found amazing similarities between the jaws of pelicans and the jaws of certain kinds of whales. 


Now, the seeming dilemma for the Darwinists would be that these whales and pelicans are not along the same branch of the Darwinian "tree of life."  It would fit nicely into their story of history if they were. 



Remember (in case you've forgotten you goo-to-zoo-to-you training) that as species broke off from the main original ancestral ball of goo, we proceeded down different branches - with different species keeping various traits of their fellow branchites that they found most beneficial to their surroundings.


But again, the problem here was that the whales were on a different branch altogether from the pelicans.  So how did they end up with a similar jaw structure?


NOTE: if you are one of those kooky people who believe God created life according to its kinds, as intended, you might be tempted to say, "Well, given that God designed both to be eating in similar manners, needing a sturdy jaw to hold all the water they would take in with their food, he gave them the same good design for that."  You only are saying that because you're an idiot who can't understand the complexities of science.  Just go back to your cave and join all the other moronic, anti-science, creationist minds like Newton, Bacon, Pasteur, Kepler, Boyle, and Lineaus.


Now, back to the real science.  The explanation is quite simple: it's called "convergent evolution."  That's the fancy way of saying, "when observable data seems to contradict our entire line of logic, we name that something else that has the word evolution in it, to give the impression that it also validates our theory." 


As this Live Science article points out, the whales and pelicans offer "compelling evidence" for it.  Of course it does.

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

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


Incapable of finding anything besides a strong work ethic to tag Sarah Palin with following the release of 24,000 of her emails as Governor, the witch hunt liberal media went back to the well of calling her stupid.


On a recent Hardball Show (which I believe is being renamed "The Sarah Palin Hour" given that the host is bizarrely fixated with her...perhaps a little crush there, Chris?), Chris Matthews hammered Sarah Palin AGAIN for the Paul Revere situation from a couple weeks back (covering weeks' old stories is apparently what MSNBC means by "lean forward").



This time, Matthews focused on a response ad that Palin did with the NRA that you can watch here.


So what exactly remains Matthews' beef?  Is it that Palin didn't have the most articulate retelling of Revere's ride?  Though that would be fair, two weeks is a long time to spend on such an offense, don't you think?


No, Matthews is trying to give the illusion to his audience and anyone who will listen that Sarah Palin butchers American history because she's stupid.  He mockingly asks, "Shouldn't presidential candidates (which Palin is not) and prospective candidates have a firm grasp of American history?"  And to prove Palin lacks one, he mocks an ad that portrays Revere as a hero to gun-toting conservatives.


Perhaps someone could remind Mr. Matthews of what exactly Mr. Revere was doing that infamous night.  He was riding to spread the word that the British regulars were on the march (and, as we previously covered, he also let the British know in so many words when captured, that they were going to be met with massive resistance).  And why were the regulars on the march do you suppose? 


General Gage had dispatched about 700 of them to seize and destroy weapons and munitions that had been stockpiled in Concord.  To defend their stockpile of guns, and prevent the government from taking them, Revere got the word out to the colonists, who formed a small militia that met the British on the way near Lexington.


In other words, Revere's actions sparked resistance to an attempted government action of confiscating guns and weapons.  Hmmm.  Shouldn't media personalities and supposed media personalities have a firm grasp of American history, Chris?

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:07 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, June 15 2011

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


As the economy is stagnating, what little job creation exists is being doubled up by the influx of immigrants to our country every month, consumer confidence at all time lows, and the prospect of a tragic double dip recession looming ever larger on the horizon, here's something else to help define the Obamaconomy.


Remember when Barack Obama said in the lead up to the election that under his energy policies, "electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket?" 



If you don't remember that, it's because you chose to get your news from the mainstream media, which was an active part of Obama's '08 campaign staff.  Alternative (new) media covered the story they wouldn't.  Well, it seems this is going to be one promise Barack plans to make good on:

The increases are expected to begin to appear in 2014, and policymakers already are scrambling to find cheap and reliable alternative power sources. If they are unsuccessful, consumers can expect further increases as more expensive forms of generation take on a greater share of the electricity load.


"Each generator will have to decide for itself whether the investment required to meet environmental requirements can be justified based on its projection of market prices and the cost of its capital. In any case, those costs will be passed through to consumers," said Mark Pruitt, director of the Illinois Power Agency, which procures electricity for Illinois.


What is going to cause this is Obama's new regulations on coal plants and other fossil fuel sources of energy.  He has succeeded by his anti-fossil fuel crusade in hiking your gas prices to excessive levels from which they will not recover so long as he is in office.  Now, he's moving on to your electricity bills.  But don't worry - he has a plan.  This is all part of making the planet healthier and cleaner. 


Yeah, on a liberal college campus where you can dwell perpetually in the land of make believe with your Marxist professor, that may be true.  But in the real world, Rick Moran states the truth:

For every atom of CO2 we stop emitting in the US, China and India will put two into the atmosphere. Their economies will boom. Ours will shrivel.


Has there ever been a great nation that committed economic suicide for no real reason?

I ran a parody commercial on my radio show right after the election of Barack Obama in 2008, sarcastically selling commemorative electoral plates entitled, "2008: America commits suicide."  Who knew how prophetic that parody would be?

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:06 pm   |  Permalink   |  4 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, June 14 2011

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


In football they call this "out-kicking your coverage."  In politics it's called an overreach.  In their increasingly desperate efforts to vanquish the Energizer Bunny of conservatism, Sarah Palin, mainstream media types from the New York Times, Washington Post, MSNBC and others opened up a witch hunt by publicly releasing 24,000 of her emails as Governor and telling the public to help them find some dirt.



Did some people appreciate what they did?  Sure.  There are plenty of folks infected with a bad case of PDS.  But the majority of sane, rational people in America saw this for what it was: an unnecessary and duplicitous witch hunt against a private citizen, frighteningly instigated by the powerful media with all its resources.  In other words, this action has accomplished the exact opposite of what the vile left wanted: it has strengthened Palin and her defenders.


Not only have the emails revealed the reality of a hard working Governor without anything remotely scandalous or vitriolic, but perhaps more importantly for her future electoral chances, the entire episode vindicates her claims about being unfairly targeted by the media.


Remember it wasn't that long ago that Palin was being criticized for playing the victim.  Even some on the right were suggesting she was too interested in making herself the victim of the media's unfair treatment, and that America wasn't going to respond to that tactic well.  She wasn't being singled out any more than any one else on the right ever is, they said.  The media could have capitalized on this opportunity.  But they didn't.  Instead, they vindicated her claims in a profound way.


The editor of American Thinker, Thomas Lifson, explains:

The media feeding frenzy over 24,000 emails pertaining to Sarah Palin's governorship in Alaska is already redounding to her benefit, while further eroding the vestiges of credibility once enjoyed by the shrunken giants of American journalism, including but not limited to the New York Times, Washington Post, and CBS News. The mere fact that Mrs. Palin is a private citizen, and candidate for no office, has not prevented these once influential outlets from devoting substantial time and effort to minutely examining every document for something -- anything! -- to use as a gotcha. The extreme hostility is transparent to all.


The fact that the Times and Post both begged their readers for help in going through to documents says much about the essentially tribal nature of their audiences. The goal of both publications now is obviously the advancement of a political agenda, not the publication of significant news.

Indeed it does - something we've been proving on a daily basis on the radio program since we came on the air.  But additionally, Lifson explains how this attempted search and destroy mission by the liberal media actually helps her election chances should she run in 2012:

It seems incongruous to put Bill Clinton in the same sentence as Sarah Palin, but the political jujitsu the former president accomplished when struggling with the damning evidence of Oval Office misconduct and perjury in its cover-up has a lesson. The American public loves underdogs and despises bullies.  Polls asking the public about various occupations inevitably find that politicians and media rank near the bottom in terms of credibility and likability. President Clinton and his attack dogs recognized that the impeachment-minded GOP House could be demonized, in effect spray painting him with Teflon against their attack.



One can at least wonder if something of the same process might be at work with Mrs. Palin.  She has demonstrated time and again an ability to confound her haters with unorthodox tactics, turning their fury back against them.  The feeding frenzy in Juneau offers her another opportunity to turn the tables on those who seek to destroy her.

As odd as it sounds, if President Sarah Palin is standing on the steps of the Capitol, taking the Presidential oath of office in January of 2013, she may have the New York Times, Washington Post, and MSNBC to thank for it!

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:09 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, June 14 2011

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


I know the left has perfected the victim culture, but this one floored me.  Discussing Democrat Congressman Anthony Weiner's porn/sexting/twitter/underage scandal, check out the exchange that took place on Bill Maher's Real Time program between Maher, Sharon Waxman and supposed comedian Janeane Garofalo:

SHARON WAXMAN, EDITOR THE WRAP: Yeah, but you can't talk about Anthony Weiner with your kids. You can't talk about him at the dinner table. I mean, at some point.


WAXMAN: Yeah, I mean, I couldn't talk about what was going on in the news what I spent my day doing this week at the dinner table. It was X-rated.

GAROFALO: That's not his fault.


WAXMAN: That's not his fault?


GAROFALO: We can talk about the things he's fought for. I would say the distraction that's created is by a media that's overly-obsessed with this stuff because it's easier than doing the hard stuff of their job. 

Got that?  It's not Anthony Weiner's fault that as a public figure he has disgraced himself, his job, his Party and country.  It's not his fault that he's making for uncomfortable conversations around the nation.  No, it's the media's fault.  They shouldn't cover this kind of stuff.  When Congressmen lie and show a lack of character and moral righteousness, it should be covered up.


Can anyone go back to the archives and find a similar Garofalo commentary when the object of scorn was a Republican?  I mean, I'd hate to think that this courageous stand was politically motivated or inconsistent.

And what would ever give me the idea that it could be?  Glad you asked.  The rest of the conversation:

WAXMAN: Mostly I agree with you. Mostly I agree with you. In the Clinton scandal I agree with you. In this case Anthony Weiner did this to himself.


GAROFALO: No, no, no.


BILL MAHER, HOST: I agree, I would like him to stay, too, but I have to agree with you that, like, I cannot look at him now. Whatever he's saying, "Medicare for all," I've seen your ****.


GAROFALO: That's not his fault.

MAHER: That's all...


GAROFALO: Either way, that doesn't, if the media and the hypocrite Republicans didn't keep this going pretending the American people want it, it wouldn't be something you have to discuss with, and I'm sure you don't discuss Anthony Weiner with your kids at the table anyway, even before this.

And there it is.  It's not Democrat Congressman Weiner's fault he took pictures of his private parts and sent them to women on the internet, then lied about it to the world.  No, it's the fault of "hypocrite Republicans" who object to the behavior and thus draw attention to it.


There's the sanity of the left on full display.
Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:08 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, June 14 2011

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


Want to know what those "diversity-minded" liberals think of black people who don't agree with their politics?  Ask liberal star comedian Jon Stewart who mocked Republican Herman Cain as essentially illiterate on his program.

JON STEWART: But while Pawlenty attempts to get us to face the problem inside us, candidate Herman Cain offers real solutions to fictional issues.


(Begin clip from June 6 speech)


HERMAN CAIN: Don't try to pass a 2700 page bill. You and I didn't have time to read it. We too busy trying to live, send our kids to school. But that's why I'm going to only allow small bills. Three pages. You'll have time to read to that one over the dinner table.


(End clip)


STEWART IMPERSONATING CAIN: "Bills will be three pages! If I am president treaties will have to fit on the back of a cereal box! From now on the State of the Union Address will be delivered in the form of a fortune cookie! I am Herman Cain and I do not like to read."


(On screen a mock billboard with Cain's face on it reads: "HERMAN CAIN 2012 - I DON'T LIKE TO READ")

Why single out the black man as being illiterate, Jon?  There are plenty of other candidates he could have picked on.  Is Stewart unaware of the reality that several blacks were left illiterate and kept that way by the Democrats in the South after the Civil War, who refused to go along with Republican Reconstruction plans?  Is mocking that difficult plight what counts as humor on the left today?


And don't tell me that Stewart was picking on Cain because he found the idea silly.  We see right through that.  It's called sensitivity, Jon.


By the way, if you feel like the headline is unfair sensationalism given Stewart's attempt at humor, and if you think that I'm going way too far with my accusation, take it up with the left.  They made the rules, and it's high time we conservatives started making them play by them.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:07 pm   |  Permalink   |  3 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, June 14 2011

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


As we've discussed numerous times before, you don't have to wait to see the consequences of Obama's dangerous and disastrous policies on a national scale when you can witness them on a smaller state scale where they've been implemented.  An example is obviously RomneyCare in Massachusetts - a disastrous precursor for what is to come if and when ObamaCare takes full hold. 



But there are other examples of what happens to people when asinine liberal policies are enacted - examples that should, if we pay attention, warn us away from implementing them on a national scale.  Take, for instance, what just happened in the epically liberal city of Detroit.

First of all, when it comes to liberal credentials, Detroit is hard to beat.  It is the bastion of Democrat Party policy: high welfare, high taxes, a so-called "living wage," and an inumerable amount of city services financed by those high taxes.


In case you hadn't heard, last Thursday, Detroit went dark.  They lost power.  All of it.  Gone.  If you want a perfect encapsulation of the end result of liberal economic and energy policy, look no further than the Detroit blackout.  How did it happen?  That's even more instructive.  Henry Payne explains:

Like Obama nationally, Michigan has ignored its biggest city's power infrastructure and instead poured money into quixotic wind projects on Lake Michigan and Lake Huron to feed the state's Renewable Power Standard and the ideological demands of Washington.


"A wind turbine has over 8,000 individual parts and they all can be made right here in Michigan," said Michigan senator Debbie Stabenow upon handing her state $1.9 million of wind pork back in July, 2009. "I am pleased these grants will support the important research efforts happening across our state as we continue to lead the way in developing clean energy technologies in the 21st century economy."


Meanwhile, Detroit's antiquated electricity infrastructure can't even provide power through two 95-degree days before imploding. City officials said the blackout ? which struck all of the city's major buildings including city hall, museums, and the courts ? was "caused by extreme power demand for air conditioning after two days of temperatures in the 90s." Really? Just two days? And what happens when summer comes?

If you answered, "Liberal planners will somehow try to blame Republicans and the free market for the darkness," you know the left pretty well.  This is a perfect depiction of the end result of liberal government central planning.  And, to make it even better, Payne points out there's a conservative standard not far away to compare it to:

The city's antiquated electric lines from its 1927-vintage, natural gas-and-oil-fueled Mistersky power plant failed, plunging the city into darkness. But Green Obama doesn't have time for these "20th century" sources of energy. He's busy remaking the Rust Belt into the Green Belt ? in the memorable words of his former green disciple in the governor's office, Jennifer Granholm.


Why, you might ask, while we're on the subject, does Detroit have its own utility at all? Because city unions refuse to give up this public-jobs bank and connect to the larger grid run by Michigan's more efficient Detroit Edison utility (which produces power at less than half the cost per megawatt of Detroit' Power and Lighting Department). Mr. Obama would be proud. Government, after all, is all about providing jobs, yes?

Liberal allegiance to public sector unions keep them jacking up the people's taxes to pay high salaries to union workers to maintain an antiquated and out-of-date system that collapses when people turn on their air conditioners.  That's what they call, "progressive."

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:06 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Monday, June 13 2011

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


I can honestly tell you that this one depressed me.  Normally I don't let polls get to me or weigh me down.  I try to remain positive about the future of the country and our prospect for getting this ship turned around.  After all, that's why I do a radio show, write a column and give speeches.  If I didn't think it was possible to save our culture, I wouldn't waste my time.


But with as hopeful as I try to remain, I am aware of the history of republics in our world.  They don't last.  They fall either as the result of internal corruption and decadence, the result of sloth, complacency and entitlement, or a combination of both.  When I saw a recent poll, I trembled for the future of my country.


The question was simple: "Do you think our government should or should not redistribute wealth by heavy taxes on the rich?" Most Americans said no. Forty-nine percent do not support Obama's vision, including 69 percent of Republicans and 53 percent of independents. But 47 percent of Americans do want to be shown the money, including a whopping 71 percent of Democrats.
The demographic breakdown is instructive: Fifty-two percent of women but just 42 percent of men support wealth redistribution. But the real gap is between whites and nonwhites. Here, 64 percent of nonwhite Americans want federal money given to those who have not, while just 41 percent of whites want the same.

When the Soviet Union collapsed, the socialists and communists didn't give up their fight against free markets and free societies.  They continued their dialectic approach - step by step - carefully orchestrated with poll-tested language that appeals to people's darker angels.  Class warfare became the vehicle by which they obliterated people's common sense by overwhelming it with jealousy and envy.  Without a firm grounding in Biblical Christianity, too many of our people are now incapable of seeing that and overcoming it.  As a consequence, we are at a tipping point.  I remain committed to the cause and will keep fighting even if that critical watertight compartment is breached on our Titanic ship of state.


But looking at these numbers, I shake my head as I lament what is happening to a country that I love.  I also am heartened by remembering the timeless promise that conquers all despair: this world is not my home.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:08 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Monday, June 13 2011

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


The local paper in my hometown of Kokomo, IN (the Kokomo Tribune) runs a weekly feature called "The Public Eye."  Given that it's authors, Scott Smith and Ken de la Bastide, consistently poke out their right (conservative) eyes in the coverage of the news, it's a bit of a misnomer.



Nonetheless, these local reporters are up to their all-too-frequent antics of playing loose with the facts to convey a left wing message.  This week, setting up what they facetiously called a "public service" by offering readers a true/false quiz over recent comments from leading American political figures.


I should mention that this is a preemptive strike on my part.  They only asked the questions this week, promising to reveal "the answers" in next week's edition.  No doubt, the entire community waits with bated breath.


All of that to say that it is possible that the Left Eye writers will get it right next week and set the record straight about some of these statements.  But given their track record, and given the dishonest way they even represented the original comments, I'm not counting on it.  So, to help them get it right, I thought I would offer my services.


Not surprisingly, 3 of the 4 featured quotes were from conservatives.  Hey, to the Left Eye, ragging on conservatives 75% of the time is "fair and balanced."


First, the Left Eye offered up the recent Palin quote on Paul Revere, as though this hasn't been covered enough by their big brothers in the mainstream press.  We'll see if Smith or de la Bastide bothers to quote any of the college professors who have pointed out that technically Sarah was right.


Secondly, they mentioned one of Vice President Biden's gaffes from the campaign trail.


Third, the authors paraphrase Glenn Beck (misspelling his name, of course...I mean, it's not like he's a major figure whose name is easily accessible or anything) as saying that conservatives started the Civil Rights movement and ask if that is true or false.  It's interesting they didn't ask which Political Party was famously turning fire hoses on the civil rights marchers during the 50s.  That significant fact may just be in their blind spot.


And finally, Smith and de la Bastide, irresponsibly misquote Republican Michele Bachmann's statement that the Founding Fathers "worked tirelessly until slavery was no more in the United States."  The Kokomo Tribune's Left Eye posited, "Bachmann said the Founding Fathers of the nation ended slavery."  Given that several of the Founders DID work tirelessly to end the scourge of slavery (some even called for its abolition at the Constitutional Convention), it will be interesting to see how the Left Eye answers their own skewed question.



Without even seeing next week's edition, I am amused by the ironic opening statement of their story this week:

People who should know better have a way of rewriting history to reflect their point of view - or are simply ignorant of our nation's glorious past.

 Pot, meet kettles.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:07 pm   |  Permalink   |  12 Comments  |  Email
Monday, June 13 2011

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


I commented on Friday of last week about the pathetically transparent move by the anti-Palin mainstream media to dig up any kind of dirt they could on the former Alaska Governor by scouring (and actually begging their readers to help them do so) through 24,000 emails from Palin's early days in the Governor's mansion.  No wonder Palin calls them "lame-stream."


My challenge last week was for anyone to try to make the case that the left doesn't fear this try to make the case that she is not regarded as a try to make the case that she is a joke "reality TV star" in their eyes that no one takes seriously.  After all, we don't see the Times, the Post, MSNBC dispatching staffers and begging followers to scrounge through Snooki's emails to see if they can find anything newsworthy in the "Jersey Shore" star's exchanges.



I'm happy to see that this blatant desperation is actually backfiring on the geniuses who concocted it.  Jim Roberts, the assistant managing editor of the New York Times has been forced to defend his actions, stating emphatically, "This is not a witch hunt." 


Riiiiiiiight.  Because you guys have always pursued out-of-office private citizens with high profiles in such a manner, right?  I mean, it's not like you didn't do the same thing with another former Vice-Presidential candidate named John Edwards.  It's not like the National Enquirer actually scooped you guys on his scandal or anything.


A reporter at MSNBC (also participating in the Palin "not-a-witch-hunt"), Bill Dedman, defended his network by stating, "From our perspective, we're just providing the public records to the public, who own them."


Ah yes, a public service.  That's all this is.  And EVERYBODY'S buying it, guys.

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

Gallup has also released a survey that reveals the power of the culture, media and Hollywood to shape and misinform the public. It found that most Americans falsely believe that 25% of the population is "gay." That is ten times higher than reality. Even the recent survey by the pro-homosexual Williams Institute reconfirms that just 3% of the US population is homosexual or lesbian. Only 8 million individuals identify with homosexuality out of 288 million Americans. That equates to less than 180,000 out of 6 million Hoosiers, though some Indiana studies indicate that number is less than 100,000. Compared to the overall Indiana population, 39.4% of Hoosiers are married, yet only 0.3% of the Hoosier population consists of homosexual couples living together. 

It is clear that the influence, economically, culturally and politically of this segment of society is staggering compared to their small numbers. (This is one reason why homosexuality, unlike race and skin color, does not meet the legal criteria set by courts for minority status.)

The vocal nature and media driven delusion of their demographic size may be why many politicians seem to want to pander to homosexual activists. Still, there is really no excuse for someone like the Mayor of Indianapolis to attend, or send representatives to this weekend's Indy Pride parade and festival.

Indy Pride is a truly reprehensible display of hedonism, vulgarity, moral and spiritual confusion. Many of the photos (not those which the media chooses to show) of the floats in the parade of many men dressed in leather dog collars, just their underwear, or as women are truly sad. The Pride festival is also littered with booths for adult businesses and a whole host of other causes, which would shock and offend the sensibilities of hundreds of thousands of common-sense Hoosiers.

Please pray about this event this weekend, and that all those involved will see the error of their ways and come to know that there is a true love out there that satisfies their heart's desire, and through Him, a spiritual hope, fulfillment and a peace that passes all understanding is available to all regardless of their past or self-perception. (For stories of individuals who have found this hope and left homosexuality for good go to: )

Posted by: Micah Clark AT 10:13 am   |  Permalink   |  2 Comments  |  Email
Sunday, June 12 2011

Once more, the deceptions and vile mischaracterizations from the left worm their way through Big Media.


Sarah Palin, the threat du jur to the tolerant, smiley-faced left, is once again in their crosshairs because of remarks she made concerning the ride of Paul Revere:

During a bus tour of the East Coast, Palin said Revere warned the British "by ringing those bells, and makin' sure as he's riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be sure and we were going to be free, and we were going to be armed."

So all those wonderful citizens in the land of left-believe are now so overly concerned about historical accuracy that they are picking apart every word. (This is the same bunch of folks, ya' know, who like to tell us about the support from Martin Luther King, Jr., Abraham Lincoln, et al for homosexuality.)



Jerry Holbert of the Boston Herald published a political satire cartoon depicting Sarah Palin making "Paul Revere" type comments about moon residents with a caption reading, "More U.S. history by Sarah Palin."


However, an interview on NPR between Melissa Block and Professor Robert Allison, chair of the History Department, Suffolk University, demonstrates that Ms. Palin is not as far off in her assessment as the left's historical department would have us believe:

BLOCK: So Paul Revere was ringing those bells? He was a silversmith, right?


Prof. ALLISON: Well, he was - he also was a bell ringer. That is, he rang the bells at Old North Church as a boy. But he, personally, is not getting off his horse and going to ring bells. He's telling other people - and this is their system before Facebook, before Twitter, before NPR - this was the way you get a message out, is by having people ring church bells, and everyone knows there is an emergency. And by this time, of course, the various town committees of safety, militia knew what the signals were, so they knew something was afoot. So this is no longer a secret operation for the British. Revere isn't trying to alert the British, but he is trying to warn them. And in April of 1775, no one was talking about independence. We're still part of the British Empire. We're trying to save it. So this is a warning to the British Empire what will happen if you provoke Americans.


BLOCK:Sarah Palin also was saying there that Paul Revere's message to the British in his warning was: You're not going to take American arms - you know, basically a Second Amendment argument, even though the Second Amendment didn't exist then.


Prof. ALLISON: Yeah. She was making a Second Amendment case. But in fact, the British were going out to Concord to seize colonists' arms, the weapons that the Massachusetts Provincial Congress was stockpiling there. So, yeah, she is right in that. I mean, she may be pushing it too far to say this is a Second Amendment case. Of course, neither the Second Amendment nor the Constitution was in anyone's mind at the time. But the British objective was to get the arms that were stockpiled in Concord.


BLOCK: So you think basically, on the whole, Sarah Palin got her history right.


Prof. ALLISON: Well, yeah, she did. And remember, she is a politician. She's not an historian. And God
help us when historians start acting like politicians, and I suppose when politicians start writing history.

We can not that Ms. Palin's comments did not make any specific reference to "Second Amendment," even though they bring that up in the NPR interview. Nevertheless, this interview response was not exactly the template that NPR and the folks living out there in the land of left-believe were hoping to demonstrate.


Even though Sarah Palin's comments will continue to be twisted and misused, her warning remains clear to patriots everywhere:


"The liberals are coming! The liberals are coming!"

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 10:05 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Sunday, June 12 2011

How you answer this question depends upon whether you see the glass half empty or half full. Last week, Gallup Polling released the results of a poll that basically asked Americans if they embraced socialism. When asked if the government "should redistribute wealth with heavy taxes on the rich," 47% of Americans said "yes, it should."  More Americans said government should not redestribute wealth, but just barely. Only 49% rejected government redistribution.

Some may wonder how this polling response could be so close after two years of failed economic policies, far bigger government and billions in stimulus spending. I recently watched a fascinating PBS documentary on Huey P. Long. The "Kingfish," the charismatic Louisiana Governor who, but for an assassin's bullet, may have become President in 1936.

Long, like the socialist Father Charles Coughlin was a pure leftist. Long's platform included his slogan "every man a king" as well as his "spread the wealth clubs."  Far more overt than liberal Presidents FDR, Johnson, Carter and Obama, Huey Long constantly complained that Franklin Roosevelt didn't go far enough, fast enough. He made these charges with an enormous amount of popular support.

The program was a stark reminder that in very tough economic times, Americans have always had a dangerous tendency to give up liberties expecting the government to take care of them.  (Huey Long was as close to a dictator as any state has ever had, and would have ruled America in the same manner, running over all sorts of checks and balances to accomplish his goals.)

If you include new data released two weeks ago from the U.S. Census Bureau the glass is looking more empty than full. For the first time in American history the percentage of single parents and cohabiting couples now exceeds married couples. In the 2010 Census, married couples now represent only 48% of all family households, down from 52% in the last Census count. A recent Pew Research poll found that nearly 40% of Americans say that marriage is obsolete.

This decline of marriage may catch the eye of social conservatives first, but it ought to really worry the TEA Party movement too! According to the Heritage Foundation "children born outside of marriage live in poverty 51% of the time compared with only 7% of children living in poverty in married homes. Thus the absence of a married mother and father increases the frequency of child poverty by 700 percent."  More specifically, the Heritage Foundation notes "prolonged welfare dependency is 1700 percent more likely for children born outside of marriage."  The National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, revealed this when it found that "children living with a married mother and father received AFDC welfare benefits only 3% of the time since their birth." (Incidentally, Heritage also finds that marriage after illegitimacy cuts child poverty by 50%.)

In addition to overcoming the hurdle of the high number of Americans who think that the government should "spread the wealth," smaller government, and less dependency upon it, is simply impossible if marriage continues to disappear.

Posted by: Micah Clark AT 07:30 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Sunday, June 12 2011

As you know, Planned Parenthood and the ACLU of Indiana were back in federal court on Monday trying to block the implementation of House Enrolled Act 1210 which prevents Hoosier tax dollars from going to groups that perform abortion. The judge is expected to rule on this particular request for an injunction in two weeks.

I have spent some time reading Attorney General Greg Zoeller's Defendant's Memorandum in Opposition to the Motion for Preliminary Injunction. There are a lot of things that stand out in that 36-page item concerning the big issue of state's rights. (General Zoeller makes a great case for defending life and existing legally tested pro-life laws in his memo, as well.) Rather than analyze and comment on these points, for brevity, here are just a few interesting items from this memo:

- Medicaid currently covers many health services, but not abortion;

- The state currently determines many of those services which Medicaid reimburses;
- Attorney General Zoeller's brief argues, "federal law permits Indiana to structure its Medicaid program however it sees fit."

- Even after accepting federal funds, Section 1396c recognizes the State's continuing prerogative to alter its Medicaid program.

- Any State that administers a non-compliant program runs the risk that the Secretary [HHS] will turn off the funding spigot, but this remains a lawful option for the State under the statute.

- Attorney General Zoeller observes, "the State is aware of no Seventh Circuit cases holding that there is a freestanding right of action to enforce federal Spending Clause statues against States under a theory of preemption."

- Directly citing then Supreme Court Justice O'Connor, Zoeller notes, "Congress has afforded States broad flexibility in tailoring the scope and coverage of their Medicaid programs."

- The Medicaid Act provides that "[i]n addition to any other authority, a State may exclude any individual or entity [from participating in its Medicaid program] for any reason for which the Secretary [of the Department of Health and Human Services] could exclude the individual or entity from participation in [Medicare]."

- The First Circuit has held that "this ?any other authority' language was intended to permit a state to exclude an entity from its Medicaid program for any reason established by state law." The court noted that its interpretation was derived directly from the legislative history of 42 U.S.C. 1396a:  The Committee bill clarifies current Medicaid Law by expressly granting States the authority to exclude individuals or entities from participation in their Medicaid programs for any reason that constitutes a basis for an exclusion from Medicare. . . This provision is not intended to preclude a State from establishing, under State law, any other bases for excluding individuals or entities from its Medicaid program.

The courts will determine this issue, with potential ramifications for the right to life and states' rights. Still, it is clear that Indiana has some very strong arguments in our favor being made by Attorney General Zoeller.

Posted by: Micah Clark AT 06:09 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Sunday, June 12 2011

Now fear the Lord and serve Him with all faithfulness. Throw away the gods your forefathers worshiped beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve the Lord. But if serving the Lord seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your forefathers served beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord. - Joshua 24:14-15

As America commemorates the 150th anniversary of the beginning of the Civil War, it is appropriate to recall how dark those days looked to those facing them and the source of the strength that sustained them. President Abraham Lincoln, especially, faced struggles on all levels of his life that would devastate most of us. Even though President Lincoln always expressed his belief and trust in the Scriptures and his respect for religion, Dr. Phineas Gurley, Lincoln's pastor at the New York Avenue Presbyterian Church, noted that, "the death of [Lincoln's son] Willie Lincoln in 1862 and the visit to the Gettysburg battlefield in 1863 finally led Lincoln to personal faith in Christ."



Upon Moses' death, the mantle of leadership of the Israelite nation passed to Joshua. He, too, faced struggles that would bring many of us to our knees. Even after witnessing numerous miracles that led them to victory over disparate tribes in the Promised Land, it was all too easy for the Israelite people to lose sight of the Lord's hand in the blessing of victory. Before his death, Joshua gathered the people and issued the challenge recorded in Joshua 24.


Perhaps it was with Joshua's address in mind that President Lincoln replied to a college president's question about whether the country would survive:

I do not doubt that our country will finally come through safe and undivided. But do not misunderstand me... I do not rely on the patriotism of our people. the bravery and devotion of the boys in blue... [or] the loyalty and skill of our generals...


But the God of our Fathers, Who raised up this country to be the refuge and asylum of the oppressed and downtrodden of all nations, will not let it perish now. I may not live to see it... I do not expect to see it, but God will bring us through safe.

Like our former president, may we be made certain that the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether. Amen.

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 05:00 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Saturday, June 11 2011

President Obama is ripping into American companies for not "stepping up the plate" and putting Americans back to work. At one of his time-wasting "townhall" meetings on May 12, Mr. Obama complained that

Companies... [are] making a lot of money, and now's the time for them to start betting on American workers and American products."

He also slipped and said there's "nothing more important" than working for the government.



Democrats are angry at American business for not going on a hiring binge. After all, unemployment is a big factor in politics right now. Yet, Democrats detest corporate success. In the good old days, profits were a sign of success. In the land of left-believe, profit is a dirty word. On the very same day that Mr. Obama was telling American business - again - how to do their jobs, oil company CEOs were being grilled by Senate Democrats at a hostile hearing. Their crime? Making profits! Profits, we note, assisted by the idiot energy policies of liberals that inevitably drive the price of oil up.


Uncertainty in the marketplace, increasingly burdensome regulations, and higher fees and taxes - all derived from government actions - are hampering hiring. In a free market, companies love to expand and hire as they succeed. But in left-believe America, success is scorned and punished.


And then it is scorned some more for not helping the Obama-Democrat agenda in a timely manner.


Obama & Company... frittering our jobs away.

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 07:45 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Saturday, June 11 2011

In an on-air interview with Terry Holt about the Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY), CNN anchor Jessica Yellin comments:

And to be honest he's never been a crusader on social issues so you can't argue he's been a hypocrite here, you know a morality hypocrite.

Once again, residents of the land of left-believe parade their moral bankruptcy for all to see. And they're proud of it; that's the sad part.



Not to mention that she is errant on multiple levels.


Mr. Weiner's actions are a violation of his marriage vows. Making a promise and breaking said promise is a lie, and even liberals consider [certain] liars hypocritical.


Since the interview, Mr. Weiner has backtracked and said that he lied about not sending the photo. Again, he lied, making him a hypocrite.


And we can even do a bit of reverse engineering. Even if Mr. Weiner has never been a "crusader on moral issues," he is a seated Congressman, meaning that he has expressed a personal belief in law and upholding law. Even though his photo would likely be argued as innocuous by skilled legal folk, it is indecent. If one intends to uphold law, why text photos that push beyond the boundaries of the laws he purports to support unless one is a hypocrite?


Bonus Lib-Quote:


This is not a recent quote, but it popped up on my homepage recently and provided food for thought. Scientist and outspoken atheist Carl Sagan:

Our solar system consists of one star and some debris.

With this kind of deprecating worldview made increasingly popular by such liberal atheists, small wonder that humanity has taken hold of the self-loathing that ultimately celebrates evil over righteousness. The removal of God from our worldview and consciousness leaves humanity with no glory for which to strive. Cosmic "debris" hardly has anything upon which we can call to ennoble us with greater dignity and purpose. This goes a long way toward comprehending the moral bankruptcy of the left that is on display just about every day.

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 07:00 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Saturday, June 11 2011

Almost every item I pick up in any store is marked "Made in China." I have even passed up buying some items because of that - not that I am opposed to China's manufacturing industry, but because I was looking for something local at places I was visiting, not something made on the other side of the world.


I bought a box of Chinese fortune cookies a few days ago. The box says that they are a "product of USA."


Go figure.

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 06:11 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, June 10 2011

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


This weekend the Indy Pride festival and parade will take place in downtown Indianapolis. This outdoor homosexual event is one of the most vulgar public displays of hedonism to occur anywhere in our state.   Here are some of the vendors and sponsors already registered with Indy Pride:

- The Great Lakes Leather Bondage and S&M society;
- Several adult businesses, (many with adult web sites) selling pornography, sexual items and devices;
- A vendor calling for the legalization of marijuana;
- The Indiana Socialist Party;
- The Kinsey Institute  (Kinsey is there to recruit for a study on homosexuals and alcohol abuse);
- Numerous cross-dressing or transvestite advocacy groups;
- Various apostate churches, New Age groups and fringe religious entities;
- Americans United for the Separation of Church and State;
- Dozens of left-wing homosexual marriage and homosexual demands advocacy groups;
- Various homosexual nightclubs, bars and gyms;
- Numerous alcoholic beverage companies;
- Abortion advocates including Planned Parenthood.

In addition to the parade there are always dozens of drag queen performers and stage shows for such cross-dressers, transvestites and others with gender identity disorders.

Although homosexuals represent less than 3% of the population, Indy Pride is claiming that tens of thousands will be in attendance for this event. (Many eyewitness accounts often dispute these large claims.)  This may explain why some political entities and regular businesses have also purchased booths, sponsorships or registered to march in the gay pride parade.  This list of includes:

Congressman Andre Carson
The Greg Ballard for Mayor campaign;
The Melina Kennedy for Mayor campaign;
Ed Coleman for City Council;
Len Farber for City Council;
Leroy Robinson for City Council
Sheriff John R. Layton
Committee to Elect Teresa Hall for Judge;
The Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department
The Marion County Sheriff's Department
The Libertarian Party
Cummins Engine, Inc.
Dow Agro Sciences
Eli Lilly & Company (also Lilly Pride)
Fifth Third Bank
PNC Bank
Sam's Club
Wellpoint / Anthem

There is another matter of serious concern, which may appear in the news today.  The Mayor's Public Safety Director, Frank Straub, has allegedly either ordered or recruited a group of Indianapolis police officers and fire fighters who will be paid to march in the parade. This apparently also includes the use of a homosexual pride decorated Hummer SUV police vehicle (all paid for by taxpayers.)   Director Straub may have pulled political stunts like this in New York City with public employees there, but this is still unacceptable here in the heartland of America.

Rather than an event to be "proud" of, or mistakenly viewed as merely an odd expression of freedom, this is the kind of thing that deeply troubled our nation's founders.  As the House author of the final draft of the First Amendment warned, "The known propensity of a democracy is toward licentiousness, which the ignorant and ambitious confuse with liberty."

Let us not be outraged, or anxious.  We should keep in mind that without true faith, any person and any behavior, no matter how dangerous, bizarre or vacant can be justified and applauded in a postmodern society where truth is as malleable as Silly Putty.   Even the Apostle Paul in writing to the church in Corinth observed, "such as were some of you" specifically noting before their life changing and life saving faith, homosexuality and other immoral behaviors were once common among them.  This sad event should be a call to prayer for our capitol city and those individuals caught up in these risky lifestyles.

For these reasons, I would greatly appreciate your praying about this Indy Pride event and its agenda to radically reshape society.   Pray that those who attend will find the true love and peace in their souls that we believe only authentic faith can provide.  I would recommend that you pass this email on to your pastor and church friends in the hope that through all our prayers together, people at Indy Pride will encounter His truth and the real peace that passes all understanding.

There is one last point to remember.  Indy Pride is an extreme display of paganism and sexual vulgarity.  Many people caught up in homosexuality have never worn a leather dog collar or led someone around with a whip.  They are not drag queens or exhibitionists.  For this reason, they avoid Indy Pride and all of its over-the-top displays.   When praying for people struggling with misplaced sexual attractions, the pictures below should not be your only view of this serious problem.

AFA of Indiana will continue to bravely defend the time-honored values, which uphold our society in the public arena. However, your help uplifting these values, those trapped by sexual brokenness and even those who oppose us in the solitude of prayer is what is most needed now, and into this weekend.

Posted by: Micah Clark AT 05:09 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, June 10 2011

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


In his recent column that covered various things that annoy him (from grammatical errors to saying "o" in a telephone number rather than "zero," to weather forecasts), economist Walter E. Williams said something that I found to be particularly significant and worth discussing.  It is the growing perception in our modern age of media that a presidential candidate be of above average intelligence.



I know that sounds weird to even bring up - and that's kind of the point.  We have this expectation, bred by a media that deems any liberal candidate brilliant and every conservative a Neanderthal, that a good presidential candidate has to be an egghead.  Williams points out that may not only be unwise, but also dangerous:

There are a lot of things, large and small, that irk me. One of them is our tendency to evaluate a presidential candidate based on his intelligence or academic credentials. When Obama threw his hat in the ring, people thought he was articulate and smart and hailed his intellectual credentials. Just recently, when Newt Gingrich announced his candidacy, people hailed his intellectual credentials and smartness as well.


By contrast, the intellectual elite and mainstream media people see Sarah Palin as stupid, a loose cannon and not to be trusted with our nuclear arsenal. There was another presidential candidate who was also held to be stupid and not to be trusted with our nuclear arsenal who ultimately became president -- Ronald Reagan. I don't put much stock into whether a political leader is smart or not because, as George Orwell explained, "Some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals believe them."


All the evidence that I see is that academics and intellectuals have messed up the world. I challenge anyone to show me a major calamity that was engineered by a stupid, inarticulate person, but those caused by intelligent, articulate persons are too numerous to count, from the likes of Hitler, Stalin and Mao to Woodrow Wilson, FDR and Obama.


My vision of a good presidential candidate is a person with ordinary intelligence but great respect and love for our Constitution. Maybe Palin's and Reagan's respect and love for our Constitution qualified them as dumb in the eyes of the mainstream media, intellectuals and academics.

Williams is making a great point - but it's a difficult one (by design) to transmit.  By suggesting that your expectations for a presidential candidate do not necessarily include stunning brilliance, you are opening up the candidate you are backing to the criticism of being dumb.  There's a wide chasm between dumb and average intelligence.


The reality is that many of our best and brightest are not good leaders.  Besides minds best designed for analytics rather than leadership, there is a tendency of the super intelligent to think of themselves as superior to the common man.  They become the new nobility.  They expect that the peasantry can't govern themselves properly and are in need of direction, guidance, and having their lives run for them so they don't screw them up.  Think Woodrow Wilson.



This isn't a war on intellect.  We need intellectual giants contributing in every area of our society.  It's just to suggest that the best place for them isn't always the White House.  Sometimes a man or woman with common sense, loyalty and love of country, and an open mind with the gift of discernment is far preferable to someone who aced their SATs.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:08 pm   |  Permalink   |  4 Comments  |  Email
Friday, June 10 2011

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


Though she later retracted perhaps the most egregious of her comments to Roland Martin on TVOne, Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz still deserves to be called out for her racially divisive and unnecessarily provocative attack on her political opponents as "racists."



Remember, PBS's race-baiter Tavis Smiley has previously warned us that 2012 is going to be the most racist election in history.  In an effort to prevent that from happening, I find it necessary to point out the racism when it surfaces.  Which brings me to Ms. Schultz doing what the race-baiters of the left do best - injecting race when it doesn't belong simply to stoke unrest:

MARTIN: Your home state - Gov. Rick Scott is leading one of these efforts, and for the life of me, I don't understand whenever I see Republicans or even Democrats contesting votes and things along those lines. We talk about this is the fundamental right to be Americans, but to put roadblocks up to - to - for voting makes no sense to me.

With all due respect, what an idiotic question to begin with.  The 2nd Amendment guarantees a right to bear arms, no?  Does that mean that there shouldn't be any roadblocks to accessing a gun?  Should they all be free?  Funny.that doesn't quite seem to be the position that leftists like Roland Martin and Debbie Wasserman Schultz take.  So with a terrible set up like that, you know Ms. Schultz was going to come up with a doozy of a response:

SCHULTZ: Well, I mean if you go back to the year 2000, when we had an obvious disaster and - and saw that our voting process needed refinement, and we did that in the America Votes Act and made sure that we could iron out those kinks, now you have the Republicans, who want to literally drag us all the way back to Jim Crow laws and literally - and very transparently - block access to the polls to voters who are more likely to vote for Democratic candidates than Republican candidates. And it's nothing short of that blatant.

It's interesting the way that Schultz phrases that second to last sentence (if you can consider her last sentence an actual sentence, that is).  Republicans are wanting to "block access" to likely Democratic voters.  Why couldn't we read this as Democrats wanting to "give access" to likely Democratic voters.  It's all poll-tested, caucus-approved language meant to spin more than accurately describe what's going on.


In terms of the Jim Crow comment, that is such a patently absurd accusation that Schultz destroys any credibility she has.  Branding the entire Republican Party racist - including the minorities within that Party, by the way - is enough to confirm that Schultz does not deserve to be taken seriously.  Apparently realizing how badly she had overstated her own case, Schultz later retracted the Jim Crow comment.  What's interesting is that Roland Martin showed his lack of journalistic integrity when he didn't even challenge or bat an eye towards such an offensive and outrageous accusation.  Are we to believe that he agrees with this wild assertion that even Schultz felt compelled to retract?



Oh, but Debbie wasn't quite done.  Asked about photo ID laws, she responded for the Democrats:

SCHULTZ: Well, photo I.D. laws, we think, is - are very similar to a poll tax. I mean you look - just look at African-American voters as a snapshot. About 25 percent of African-American voters don't have a valid photo I.D. I mean - and - and the reason it's similar to a poll tax is because you've got the expense. You've got the effort. There's difficulties for s- -- for many people in getting a photo I.D. So, you're literally just throwing a barrier in the way of someone who's trying to exercise their right to vote.

Oh my.  Where to begin?  First of all, the "expense" of getting a valid photo ID is virtually nothing in every state.  The suggestion that a quarter of all black voters don't have a driver's license, student ID, military ID, work ID, passport or anything else is silly on its face.  Does Schultz really expect us to believe that a quarter of all blacks in this country have never boarded a plane, rented a movie, cashed a check or used a credit card - all things that many times require a photo ID?  I have always found it curious that Democrats flip out about keeping the sanctity of a vote as serious as the sanctity of renting a movie at Blockbuster.


And as long as we're talking expense to the poor citizen just for wanting to exercise his rights, might I bring up the lovely topic of ObamaCare?  In some states, getting a photo ID to vote MIGHT cost a few bucks.  That's outrageous to Dems, apparently.  But they have no problem enacting a law that forces every American to purchase a health insurance plan that costs them far more than a few bucks, whether they want to or not.  Hmmm, seems a bit inconsistent, don't you think?  Imagine that.


I've said that the presidency of Barack Obama might end up being the best thing that ever happened to conservatism in America.  The chairmanship of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, I think, is going to run a close second.
Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:07 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, June 10 2011

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


I'm not sure when New York Times columnist gave up his position as one of the chief thinkers on the left to assume the role of lead warmer alarmist in Al Gore's band of merry men, but it evidently happened at some point.  In his latest contribution, Friedman has informed us all that - get this - "The Earth is Full."


Uh, Tom, rent a car and drive out west.  Better yet, look at night light shots from space of planet Earth.  We don't have anywhere close to a population problem.  What we have is the poor use of resources facilitated by socialist central planners who deny industrialization to parts of the world that desperately need it - all because those central planners (like Friedman) fear upsetting the eco-system.  Because obviously it's better to have people starve.  That reality not only spares the wildlife of a region from having to relocate, but it also helps eco-alarmists like Friedman sell books that tell us all how we need to break out the abortions and death drugs because our planet is too packed.



Like any good liberal, Tom has all this pieced together for us:

We're currently caught in two loops: One is that more population growth and more global warming together are pushing up food prices; rising food prices cause political instability in the Middle East, which leads to higher oil prices, which leads to higher food prices, which leads to more instability. At the same time, improved productivity means fewer people are needed in every factory to produce more stuff. So if we want to have more jobs, we need more factories. More factories making more stuff make more global warming, and that is where the two loops meet.

Makes perfect sense, doesn't it?  So what must we do, Tom, to avoid this catastrophe?!  Please!  Tell us!

We will realize, he predicts, that the consumer-driven growth model is broken and we have to move to a more happiness-driven growth model, based on people working less and owning less.

Owning less.  And I'm sure Tom, who lives in a near 12,000 square foot estate valued at over $9 million will be the first to start auctioning off his things, right?  Just like Al Gore and all his cohorts have unloaded their private jets and taken up riding in coach?  Pathetic.


I know that liberals love to tout how intelligent they are while simultaneously running down anyone with conservative or - heaven help us - traditional religious beliefs.  But can someone please tell me how Tom Friedman's hysterical hyperbole that warns, "we never know when the next emitted carbon molecule will tip over some ecosystem and trigger a nonlinear climate event -- like melting the Siberian tundra and releasing all of its methane, or drying up the Amazon or melting all the sea ice in the North Pole in summer," is any different than Harold Camping telling us to get ready because Jesus is going to come back in May or October?

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

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


In a bout of bad weather a few weeks ago, I got an email from a listener to the radio show asking why I didn't give regular weather updates or forecasts on my program.  Obviously (as we found out right around Memorial Day), when there is life-threatening weather in the area, live weather coverage will break in over the top of my show to alert citizens.  But the reason I don't give regular weather forecasts is because of our large online audience that isn't in the immediate broadcast area.


Someone listening in Spokane, WA is probably not going to appreciate hearing that it's going to be sunny and 72 when they look out their window and see a windy, nasty, 40 degree rain storm.  In fact, it might actually hurt my credibility with them if they didn't realize I was in another state.


Then again, that type of way-off-the-mark prognosticating is apparently becoming accepted in our culture.  Not necessarily with weather forecasts, but rather economic ones.  For instance:


The number of Americans filing new claims for unemployment aid unexpectedly edged higher last week, stoking fears of a stalled economic recovery even as a separate report showed record U.S. exports in April.


Initial claims for state jobless benefits increased 1,000 to 427,000, the Labor Department said. However, economists polled by Reuters had forecast claims dropping to 415,000 from a previously reported count of 422,000.


The rise kept first-time claims perched above the 400,000 mark for the ninth week in a row. Analysts normally associate a level below that with steady job growth.


"It's the same dismal trend continuing. It's not getting worse, but it's not getting better either," said Keith Hembre, chief economist at Nuveen Asset Management in Minneapolis.

Don't you love that dichotomy within two paragraphs?  The new unemployment claims "unexpectedly" went up...but it's "the same dismal trend continuing."  For the ninth week in a row we've had these kinds of bad economic reports, yet the "experts" continue being surprised and finding it unexpected.


Obviously all this makes sense if you think about it.  The same reason good economic news was "unexpected" during the Bush years, bad economic news is "unexpected" during the Obama years.  The experts chosen by the media to do their analysis are in the tank for the left.  They continue to tell you how dismal things are when a Republican is in office, while simultaneously telling you how great things are going when a Democrat is there.  Reality doesn't matter, because when the reports that contradict their fabricated picture come out, they merely tell you that was "unexpected," and then go right back the next day to the template.


In other words, judge the economy by what you're living...not what any expert tells you about it.  Because as any sane person can tell, their predictions and forecasts are about as reliable as my weather briefs would be for the people of Spokane.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:09 pm   |  Permalink   |  4 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, June 09 2011

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


I was talking with a friend the other day about what he had witnessed at the gas pump that really broke his heart.  I'd seen the same thing before myself, as I'm sure you have.  A person of average or lowly means pull into a pump, get out looking at his checkbook, write a check to the gas station for five dollars, and pump a gallon of gasoline into his car.  I picture him driving off keeping it below 45 mph, hoping that gallon could get him through the rest of the week.



It's outrageous that our leadership is allowing this nonsense to happen.  They can talk all they want about economic recovery, but what was happening to that man at the pump is rippling throughout our economy and having devastating impacts not just on jobs, but on families.  While we sit on top of some of the world's largest fuel supplies, our leftist leadership keeps telling us that there's nothing we can do about the oil situation.  If you ever wanted to know what the left's compassion really looked like, watch them continue lying about that as struggling Americans scrape up change to put a single gallon of gas in their car.


But high gas prices are just part of the left's larger plan to deliver us to a utopia of renewable energy.  Obama has said himself that $4 a gallon gas isn't bad.  His energy secretary thought $6 or $7 would be appropriate.  In other words, the high gas prices are here to stay as long as we have the left dictating our energy policy.  And if you don't think it's going to go up from here, consider this...


While our leftist governing masters love to pretend that they are on our side against all these greedy, evil corporations, it sure sounds like the head of one of those corporations, GM, is a second pea in the Obama pod:

General Motors Co. CEO Dan Akerson wants the federal gas tax boosted as much as $1 a gallon to nudge consumers toward more fuel-efficient cars...Akerson would like to see it step up to the challenge of setting a higher gas tax, as part of a comprehensive energy policy.



A government-imposed tax hike, Akerson believes, will prompt more people to buy small cars and do more good for the environment than forcing automakers to comply with higher gas-mileage standards.


"You know what I'd rather have them do ? this will make my Republican friends puke ? as gas is going to go down here now, we ought to just slap a 50-cent or a dollar tax on a gallon of gas," Akerson said.


"People will start buying more Cruzes and they will start buying less Suburbans."

Actually, sir, it's not your "Republican friends" who will puke at that idea.  It's the average citizen struggling to make ends meet.  So nice to see Mr. Akerson in bed with Mr. Obama and all the enviro-leftists who see it as their job to manipulate what kind of cars we drive and lives we live based on their economic blackmail.


It kind of gives you a different picture than Hollywood and the mainstream media does of exactly who is in bed with "greedy CEOs," doesn't it?

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

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


Joe Biden famously redefined the word patriotic to mean "wanting higher taxes."  Now there's a left-wing group called "Patriotic Millionaires."  You can see where this is going, can't you?


First things first.  Rich people get to be rich people by being pretty shrewd and wise with their money (with the obvious exceptions of a few here and there who just fall into money - but those truly are few and far between).  That's why you should always be skeptical when you hear them start telling you how they think they should be taxed more.  It's a very clever strategy for rich liberals given that they are part of a movement that claims to loathe wealth and personal possessions.  How can a liberal pretend to be a good and decent person if you have material wealth given that liberals see that as a sign of corporate greed?  Well, you do what Michael Moore and Barack Obama do - you go on TV and tell everybody that you want the government to start taxing you more.



By doing so, you convince the gullible that you aren't like all those other misers who hoard their wealth.  No, you are a generous and benevolent rich person, willing to give of your great wealth to care for the masses.  The only thing that kills that little ploy is when you're asked the question: if you really feel this way, why are you waiting on the government to take it from you?  Why not just give that money away to those who need it?


And that's when the whole charade falls apart.  When you see that Barack Obama is one of the country's stingiest people when it comes to his personal wealth (until it became public, the Obamas sometimes gave less than 1% of their income away to charity - Biden wasn't much better), his pleas that he should be taxed more are proven to be nothing more than pandering.


After all, the rich have plenty of loopholes and shrewd accounting tricks to shelter their income and finances from the IRS reach - again, they didn't become rich because they were stupid.  So never judge a rich man's compassion and empathy based on his public cries to be taxed more.  Judge it based on his willingness to freely give from his own pocket.  That's the kind of compassion and charity Jesus talked about.  And interestingly, it's the very kind of compassion and charity these rich liberals don't want any part of. 


Case in point:

A group of self- described liberal millionaires seeking to raise taxes on America's top earners, refused--when questioned by consider making donations themselves to a Treasury Department Web site [2] that allows the public to make contributions to help pay down the public debt.


The  "Patriotic Millionaires" group held a conference call on Monday in advance of the10th anniversary of President George W. Bush's tax cuts to encourage President Barack Obama and Congress to raise taxes for Americans who make $1 million or more annually. asked the liberal millionaires this question: "The Treasury Department has a Web site -- [2] -- where anyone who wants to can make a contribution at any time to pay down the federal debt. Are you willing to make a contribution to pay down the debt and, if so, how much would it be?"


Dennis Mehiel, the principal shareholder and chairman of the board of U.S. Corrugated, called the notion that he and his fellow millionaires would consider donating some of their millions to the Treasury Department to help eliminate the deficit "preposterous on its face."


Of course it is.  Because to do so would actually cost them something, whereas going on TV and demanding you be taxed more (when you know full well you have ways to dodge the tax man) gets you good publicity without actually hurting your bank account.  Beware the fraudulent compassion of the left.

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

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


We live in the era of the fact checkers.  These media watchdogs are touted by almost every news agency as there to protect us from the spin and deception of wily politicians with an agenda.  There's only one problem with that: the fact checkers are usually wily themselves, and certainly have their own agenda (particularly those associated with mainstream media).


Truthfully, any fact-checking should be fact-checked by the person who shouldn't need a fact-checker anyway because they should be fact-checking what they're told themselves: you!



But if you need some convincing on why you can't trust the fact-checkers...or if that previous sentence was too confusing to follow and you really don't have the desire to go back and walk through it slowly, just consider this:


The Associated Press dispatched two supposed fact-checkers to tell us how far from the truth Mitt Romney strayed in his speech officially launching his presidential campaign.  Their title says it all: "Romney miscasts economy in GOP debut."  The line in question?  Romney proclaimed, "When he (Obama) took office, the economy was in recession.  He made it worse.  And he made it last longer."


Here's what the AP team came up with to defend their leader:

The gross domestic product, the prime measure of economic strength, shrank by a severe 6.8 percent annual rate before Obama became president. The declines eased after he took office and economic growth, however modest, resumed.


... A case can be made for and against the idea that Obama's policies made the economy worse than it needed to be and that the recession lasted longer than it might have under another president. Such arguments are at the core of political debate. But Obama did not, as Romney alleged, make the economy worse than it was when he took office.

So they realize it's going to be tough to argue with the fairly obvious reality that everyone in the country is living: that Obama made the recession last longer because of his policies.


But did you get the ridiculous suggestion they made that "economic growth" resumed once Obama was in office, so obviously Romney is wrong that the economy is worse?  Perhaps Mr. Romney should "fact-check" the fact-checkers on this one.  Take a look at some of the facts (cited by Tom Blumer) that Romney might point out to them:

Woodward and Kuhnhenn themselves note that the unemployment rate has gone from 7.8% in January 2009 to May's just-reported 9.1%. Except for those who value sloth, that's a 1.3-point, 17% change in a "worse" direction.


The civilian labor force has shrunk by 492,000, even though the civilian 16-plus population has increased by almost 4.6 million. Baby Boomer Social Security retirements don't explain that away.


The labor force participation rate has dropped 1.5 points to 64.2%, the lowest rate in 27 years, while the employment-population ratio has fallen 2.2 points to 58.4% -- and it's not because there's been a sudden surge of voluntary housewives and househusbands.


2.42 million fewer people are working than were in January 2009, while 199,000 fewer are working compare to when the recession ended. Remember, this is per the Household Survey; the Establishment Survey's comparable numbers are -2.52 million since January 2009 and +550,000 since the recession ended. Here's a task for Woodward and Kuhnhenn: Figure out why there is such a post-recession disparity between the two surveys -- and for heaven's sake, do a better job that Paul Wiseman's pitiful effort on Thursday, where he compared numbers coming from the different surveys as if they came from the same data source.


13.9 million Americans, 1.93 million more than in January 2009, are counted as unemployed.


6.23 million Americans, over 530,000 more than in January 2009, say they are "not in the labor force, (but) want a job now."


Of the 550,000 jobs added since the recession ended per the Establishment Survey, 90%, or 495,000 of them, have been added at temporary help services. Seriously. Again per the Establishment Survey, temp employment is up by 277,000 since January 2009, while total employment is down by 2.52 million (i.e., non-temp employment is down by 2.8 million). If this took place during a conservative or GOP administration, "The Temping of America" would have been an hour-long documentary topic at every establishment media broadcast outlet by now.

Romney puts those "facts" up against the AP's "well, but the economy grew an itsy witsy bit" argument, and I think most Americans are going to know whose speaking the truth and who's weaving a yarn.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:06 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, June 08 2011

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


A friend of mine is the head of maintenance and grounds at a local school district.  I had a conversation with him recently where he was recounting some of the new rules and regulations the government has put into place to "make kids safer."  Among them?  No ant spray without government approval.  And by approval, of course, I mean massive paperwork, headache, red tape, form submission, resubmission, licensing agents, supervisor evaluations, and about 50 other hoops that have to be jumped through before the night janitor can walk around with a tank of Ortho Home Defense (yes, the same stuff you spray at your house around your 2-year-old's play things) and kill the ant infestation in the teacher's lounge.


Gotta love government.  The party of government (Democrats) always want to make it seem like we conservatives are calling for anarchy.  Hardly.  There is a reasonable role for government to play.  But so often, in the name of protecting us, government invades areas where it doesn't belong and makes things far more miserable for us all than is necessary.


But usually, it takes being overrun by ants for liberals to be willing to grant an inch on that fairly obvious point.  I'm betting there's a group of them in Florida sitting in their jail cells that are starting to get it:

Members of Orlando Food Not Bombs were arrested Wednesday when police said they violated a city ordinance by feeding the homeless in Lake Eola Park.



Jessica Cross, 24, Benjamin Markeson, 49, and Jonathan "Keith" McHenry, 54, were arrested at 6:10 p.m. on a charge of violating the ordinance restricting group feedings in public parks. McHenry is a co-founder of the international Food Not Bombs movement, which began in the early 1980s.


The group lost a court battle in April, clearing the way for the city to enforce the ordinance. It requires groups to obtain a permit and limits each group to two permits per year for each park within a 2-mile radius of City Hall.


Arrest papers state that Cross, Markeson and McHenry helped feed 40 people Wednesday night. The ordinance applies to feedings of more than 25 people.

Oh I'm sure that there's probably some horror story that a liberal central planner could come up with to explain why this ordinance "had to be put in place."  I'm sure it's to protect us somehow.  But what does it accomplish?  It prevents a group of concerned human beings from taking care of their fellow human beings.  It's sort of like telling a maintenance and grounds director he can't be trusted with ant spray without some central planner's approval.


Sorry, that's not good government.

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

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


Prepare yourself.  A travesty of justice will soon be occurring.  It will be monumental.  It will be appalling.  It will be underhanded.  It may be catastrophic.  It will also be extraordinarily downplayed by the media, which is why preparing yourself with the facts now is wise.  We will be the ones who have the force the media's hand because they will not pursue this story otherwise.



It will all come to a head when the lawsuit(s) over ObamaCare reach the U.S. Supreme Court.  It is likely that there will be four votes to overturn the blatantly unconstitutional law virtually guaranteed (Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito).  Some will say that there would most likely be four votes to uphold the law (Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan), with Justice Kennedy casting (as usual) the decisive vote.


But at least one of those votes to uphold the law should not be participating.  Justice Kagan's background disqualifies her from being involved in the case according to signed and sworn promises she made during her confirmation hearings.

On Wednesday, Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal did what his job called for: He traveled to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, located in Cincinnati, Ohio, and defended President Barack Obama's health-care-reform law against a challenge that had been filed by the Thomas More Law Center.  The challenge claims Obamacare's individual mandate is unconstitutional.


Back on May 10, Katyal also argued for the administration in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Richmond, Va., against challenges to the constitutionality of the health-care law. There the suit had been brought by the state of Virginia and Liberty University.


Katyal has also signed multiple briefs and legal documents that the administration has filed in various federal courts in defense of the constitutionality of the health-care law.


What makes this noteworthy is that in defending the administration's position on the constitutionality of President Obama's health-care law, Katyal is not only doing his job, he is also doing something he was first assigned to do in early 2010 by then-Solicitor General Elena Kagan.



Kagan, of course, now serves on the U.S. Supreme Court. So, when the arguments that Katyal is forming and presenting in defense of Obamacare in the lower courts arrive in the Supreme Court, their validity will be judged by Katyal's old boss who assigned him to make the arguments.

This is a fairly obvious conflict of interest.  Any rational and fair mind wouldn't struggle to see why Kagan should, in the name of common sense and justice, recuse herself.  You know who seems to agree with that?  Elena Kagan:

There is a federal law that dictates the circumstances under which Supreme Court justices must recuse themselves from a case. It is 28 U.S.C. 455. In the questionnaire she filled out for the Senate Judiciary Committee during her confirmation process, Kagan not only expressly recognized she would be governed by this law as a Supreme Court justice but told the committee she would abide by its "letter and spirit."


The law states that any "justice, judge or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might be reasonably questioned."


It also states that any justice, judge or magistrate "shall also disqualify himself . [w]here he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceedings or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy."

Internal emails while Kagan was Obama's Solicitor General that have been uncovered via the Freedom of Information Act reveal Kagan's involvement in setting up defense for this law.  She puts her stamp of approval on Katyal's promise to "crush" the opponents of ObamaCare.


Those emails also show Katyal wanting intricate involvement of Kagan's office in developing a solid strategy for defending the law in court.  Please recognize, this action itself isn't underhanded.  This is something that was appropriate for Kagan to do given her position at the time - it's just inappropriate for her to now turn around and sit as judge on those very strategies she helped coordinate and develop.


So why do I think we're going to have a travesty of justice?  Here's why:

On June 15, 2010, two weeks before Kagan's confirmation hearings, Katyal sent Kagan an email in which he said that Attorney General Eric Holder had told him that "he expects a big story coming out shortly about whether you are recused in health care litigation."


"I went over the timing and that you have been walled off from Day One," Katyal told Kagan.


On July 13, 2010, during Kagan's confirmation process, Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee sent Kagan a letter in which they asked her whether she had ever been asked or had ever offered her views about the underlying legal and constitutional issues "related to any proposed health care legislation, including but not limited to Pub. L. No. 111-148 [the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act], or the underlying legal or constitutional issues related to potential litigation resulting from such legislation."


Kagan said she never had.


So glad Dick Lugar voted to confirm her to the Supreme Court, aren't you?  Honesty and integrity are not going to be obstacles to leftists like Kagan.  They will hurdle them with ease unless they are publicly shamed for it.  Don't count on the media to do their jobs - get ready to do it for them.  We are the last line of defense against this judicial malpractice.

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

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


One of the common arguments against the Reagan legacy that liberals use is the massive deficits that were incurred during his years in office.  The History Channel has a pretty good DVD set you can buy called "The Presidents" that I actually use in my classes.  It gives about 10 minute synopses of each of the country's presidents that highlights the major things that occurred and were accomplished.



The presentation is quite strong for the presidents up to the turn of the century, but after that you have to be on guard.  It gives fawning adoration to FDR of course, but brutally excoriates Nixon (the kids in my class even laughed audibly at the music bed the History Channel chose for sounds like it's cheap haunted house music).  I have never seen a more glowing tribute to Jimmy Carter than what they put together, and when it comes to Reagan, they do a fair job - except for an intentional over sampling of historians who tell you that Reagan didn't care about the future.  He just wanted to spend, spend, spend and not worry about tomorrow.


We can get into the reasons behind the Reagan deficits another day, but for now, let me point out that this is yet another reason we conservatives have to be thankful for the presidency of Barack Obama.  No liberal can ever expect to be taken seriously when criticizing the Reagan deficits now that we have lived through the Obama years.

Take as an example what occurred in an exchange on Bill Maher's Real Time the other night:

FORMER CONGRESSMAN RICK LAZIO: Mitt Romney unlike Barack Obama has 25 years of private sector experience. I think when you're looking at an economy...


MELISSA HARRIS PERRY, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: And that worked out, Wall Street's doing great.


LAZIO: ...that just created 15,000 jobs. If you compare this, this, this recovery compared to the last ten recoveries, we would have created, if we went to the same average, we would have created about 14 or 15 million more jobs. If we went back to '82, in 1982 Reagan inherited a ten or eleven percent unemployment rate. Coming out of that recession, they ended up creating about 14 million jobs.


MELISSA HARRIS PERRY, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: I'll put my Obama deficit next to your Reagan deficit any day of the week. Right, so...


LAZIO: I will too, because it's about a trillion and a half dollars this year alone for Obama.

First of all, I'll let you recover from the shock of seeing an MSNBC contributor in the tank for Obama.  Now, consider these numbers:

If you add up all of Reagan's deficits throughout his two terms, it's a combined $1.5 trillion. Adjusted for inflation, that's $2.72 trillion.


In Obama's first three years in office, his combined deficits will total $4.23 trillion. In just three years.

I'm anxious to see when The History Channel adds Obama to their "The Presidents" volume, if they tweak the Reagan bit.  If not, they might end up looking a bit like Melissa Harris Perry did, giving students more to laugh at than just their Nixon ghost music.

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

Many heads turned in central Indiana when Kokomo Mayor Greg Goodnight's original choice to be Fire Chief Scott Kern decided to run against Goodnight for Mayor in the Democrat primary.  Many more heads turned when Kern changed his plans and filed to run against Goodnight as a Republican in the fall instead.

Since that time, Kern has been a regular at Republican Party events, and has been speaking the language of conservatives.  So what does Scott Kern believe?  What are his convictions, his principles, and why did he decide to leave the Democratic Party and join the Republicans?

Mr. Kern called in to talk with Peter Heck on his show today about those very questions.

Hear the full interview here.

Posted by: Anna Anderson AT 05:06 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, June 07 2011

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

Let's address a few things up front about the Weiner situation: First, honestly, it's not funny.  All the jokes about the name notwithstanding, this is far from funny for him, his family, or for the integrity of the Congress.  Second, people fail and fall.  People make mistakes, and while that doesn't make his behavior excusable, it makes it human.  Third, Weiner's decision to lie about the incident makes this an even more serious issue than just a moral failing.  Fourth, his refusal to resign is yet another indication of a double standard that exists not just on Capitol Hill, but in public life in general.

There is no escaping the reality that had this been a Republican Congressman, the man would have already resigned his office.  Beyond the defeaning calls from the media for him to do so, beyond the endless charade of jokes that the Democrats would have made about him, a Republican in similar circumstances would have been met with the full force of a party leadership that would have pressured him to exit.

But in addition, Republicans would have been forced to endure another round of criticism for failing at being the Party of Family Values, with the Congressman in question being made into the poster child for their hypocrisy.  We see it everytime a Republican has a moral failing.  Think Mark Souder.  Think Mark Foley.  Democrats are always quick to beat Republicans over the head with the "family values" argument.

Now, before you comment, "Well, live by family values, die by family values," stop and consider where that leaves Democrats.  The Weiner saga is yet another proof of the reality that Democrats can survive immorality and debased scandal simply because they shamelessly eschew any notion of morality.  If you don't hold to any standards, no one can accuse you of being a hypocrite.  What a terrible model for our society.  Yet that is what Democrats have become.  Check out Weiner's statement:

"Nothing about this should reflect in any way on my official duties or oath of office," he said. "I engaged in inappropriate online conversations. ... I don't believe I did anything that violates any law or rule."

And that's it.  In other words, "if I didn't violate any law, then there is no reason why I should lose my job."  The fact that he lied to his family, made a mockery of his office, shamed himself, denigrated Congress, and obviously has some moral issues to work through don't even begin to register with him as reasons he might not be suited to serve in Congress.  Even the Dems distancing themselves from Weiner will only talk "legality," not morality.  That tells you something about their party.

More than the politics, more than the raging double standard, that's my problem with this whole deal.  What a dangerous place we have arrived at in our culture if our code of ethics and our expectation of the moral convictions of our lawmakers has eroded to the point that we are okay with people who lie to their own wife and family, while thinking they're sure to be honest with us.

I have said multiple times that I don't get why anyone would want to associate with the Party on the left side of the political aisle.  This Weiner situation demonstrates that point all over again.  It's not the fact that they have among them humans who make mistakes.  It's that the Party doesn't have the fortitude, conviction, or moral compass enough to attach any consequences to them.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:09 pm   |  Permalink   |  1 Comment  |  Email
Tuesday, June 07 2011

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


In our latest episode of "standards for thee but not for me" on the left, we have DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, a woman that American Thinker's editor Thomas Lifson has noted is under the impression she is far brighter and more intelligent than what she really is, commenting on the Anthony Weiner "picture" scandal:

Earlier this week, DNC chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz told CNN that Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) is dealing with "a personal matter." That "personal matter" includes not knowing "with certitude" whether or not the, er, picture that was tweeted to a 21 year old college student belongs to the Congressman.



Well, that Debbie Wasserman-Schultz should really get acquainted with this Debbie Wasserman-Schultz:


"his goes beyond Rep. Foley, it goes to the values of the Congressional leadership. These are not family values, these are not American values."


What was Wasserman-Schultz referring to in that 2006 quote? The behavior of Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL . . . are you watching those party labels?), who made advances towards 18 and 21 year old young men.


In fact, she went as far as to demand the resignation of then Speaker Denny Hastert for not addressing the Foley matter quickly enough.

In other words, not only do we have the inconsistency and hypocrisy of calling Weiner's issues a personal matter why proclaiming Foley's to be public, but we have the outrageous double standard of calling out Republican leaders like Denny Hastert for doing...EXACTLY WHAT SHE IS DOING!  By the standard she used to judge Hastert, Schultz is calling for her own resignation.  This is dimness at its finest.


And these people make fun of Sarah Palin?  Seriously?


Wasserman-Schultz, Pelosi, Harry Reid, Rahm look at who the Democrats pick to lead them and you scratch your head and say why?  Then you realize: as shocking as it is, this is the best they've got.  Yikes.

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

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


I said a while back that it was time for conservatives and Republicans to stop taking a back seat and being passive when they are called racists.  It's time to turn the accusations around on the accusers.  It's time to beat the left at its own game.  And we are more than capable because they have long been the ones with the race problems.


Tim Graham did an excellent job in this role-reversing movement recently when he called out Time Magazine and their writer Mark Halperin for being raaaaaaaaacist:

Twice in the last two weeks has Time magazine devoted a page to Mark Halperin's oddsmaking on who will be the Republican nominee -- the May 23 issue (page 35) and the June 6 issue (page 16). Twice, there's been no mention of Herman Cain. The GOP cast of contenders is lily-white. This seems odd, since Cain participated in the first presidential debate on May 5 to high praise and formally announced on May 21. Are Time and Halperin racists? They can't say they're unaware that Cain is running.



They can't say that Cain is too much of a long shot. In the first set of odds, Halperin put Michele Bachmann at 1,000-to-1. (The best odds in order were to Romney, Huckabee, Daniels, Pawlenty, Huntsman, Gingrich, and Palin, second to last at 60 to 1.) In the second set, Huckabee and Daniels were removed from the list, and Santorum (at 500 to 1) and Ron Paul (at 2,000 to 1) were added. Bachmann was still at 1,000 to 1.  Halperin also added "Mystery Candidate" -- but named those (Rick Perry, Chris Christie, Paul Ryan, and Jeb Bush.)


Time magazine should really have to explain this remarkable (double) oversight of a black Republican.

Uh, yes they should.  This is a major issue.  What would possibly explain the oversight?  Remember a lead story headline at just a couple weeks ago was the IBOPEZogby poll that showed Herman Cain had catapulted to the top of the declared Republican field.  That's over Gingrich, Romney, Christie, Paul.all of them.


Not to mention what Tom Blumer reminds us of as well:

In a Gallup survey released on Tuesday, May 24, more than likely a week before Time's June 6 issue was put to bed, Cain, as reported by Juana Summers at the Politico the next day, "Cain leads all his potential rivals in "positive intensity," calculated by measuring the difference between the potential candidates' strongly favorable and strongly unfavorable ratings."

So explain how a major political magazine can write two stories on the Republican field of candidates and ignore the one candidate who is leading the entire crop in polling data, has the highest positive intensity rating among all the contenders, and was voted nearly unanimously by focus groups to be the winner of the first Republican debate?  If you said because he's the one with the black skin, you got it.

Time Magazine and Mark Halperin are engaging in racial discrimination.  Sure, it is highly likely they don't want Cain to win the nomination because that will destroy their ability to paint Republicans as racists.  But hold on, wanting a guy to fail because he's black...isn't that racism?  Thinking all black people should think the same way...isn't that racism? 


I guess Tavis Smiley was right - this is going to be the most racist election in history.  Because his own side is going to see to it.  The folks at Time have some serious splainin' to do.

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

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


The tolerance for differing views is truly inspiring.


Departing Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is on his farewell tour, visiting troops in various locations, including Afghanistan.  While there recently, Gates took questions from the gathered Marines.  A Marine sergeant took the opportunity to ask what a lot of military men have been wondering since Gates and Obama decided to turn the U.S. military into a giant social experiment:

"Sir, we joined the Marine Corps because the Marine Corps has a set of standards and values that is better than that of the civilian sector. And we have gone and changed those values and repealed the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy," the sergeant told Gates during the question and answer session.



"We have not given the Marines a chance to decide whether they wish to continue serving under that. Is there going to be an option for those Marines that no longer wish to serve due to the fact their moral values have not changed?" he asked.

See, this is where the fraudulent credentials of the so-called tolerance crowd on the left are exposed.  In the name of tolerance, they have uprooted the foundations and standards of 200+ years of military code.  The vast majority of enlisted men and officers came into the military under a different code than the one that Team Obama has sought.  And many of those now feel that the military is going down a forsaken path that they want no part of.  So will Gates and Obama - the great champions of tolerance - be tolerant of their desire to withdraw from their service?  What do you think?

"No," Gates responded. "You'll have to complete your ... enlistment just like everybody else."

Hmmm.  It sorta seems like tolerance is a one-way street, doesn't it?  If you agree with secular liberal values, then you are an agent of tolerance, and one to be tolerated freely.  But if you hold conservative or traditional values, you are second class.  Funny how that works, isn't it?


What this story also illuminates is that there are many in the military who are not pleased with the political games that Barack Obama has decided to play with our national defense forces, and that military men like Gates have permitted for the sake of their own careers.  Shame on Gates for his cowardice, and shame on Obama for his ignorant and short-sighted tampering with a code of ethics that has served the U.S. military well.


Keep in mind, the ban has never been on people.  If you consider yourself "gay" or "trans" or "bi" or "tri" or whatever, you can proudly serve your country.  The ban has always been on certain kinds of sexual conduct (including but not limited to: heterosexual adultery, bestiality, homosexuality, etc.).  So don't buy the nonsense that says this move is about civil rights.  Hardly.  It's about the next step in the crusade for sexual anarchy, pretending that men having sex with men openly in the U.S. military isn't going to have a negative impact on our troops' readiness, cohesion, or effectiveness.


What a disaster.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:06 pm   |  Permalink   |  2 Comments  |  Email
Monday, June 06 2011

The real world can be tough. Just ask Christina Romer and now Austan Goolsbee. Mr. Goolsbee replaced Ms. Romer as the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers. The chairman of this Council is a top economic adviser to the President. Mr. Goolsbee now follows in the footsteps of Ms. Romer by his announcement to resign the post and return to university teaching.


We certainly know that our economy is still ailing in a big way. There is still much to do to get it on the right path. Yet, top economic advisers to the President walk off the job in the middle of this massive challenge.



It is intuitively obvious to the most casual observer that if their advice was successful and they were making headway, they would be proud to stay on the job and tough it out. Return to teaching after being a member of the team that gets America back to work.


Here's the dirty little secret: they have unleashed their load and it ain't working. Their little socialist economics policies are boomeranging right back at them, and real life is telling them that they have nothing left.


They're out of ideas, and they know it. They're running out of [our] money, too, and they know it.


When reality rears its ugly head, where to flee for shelter? To the university, naturally. Now I have a great deal of respect for all kinds of education, including formal higher education. But that is not an endorsement that every idea cooked up in those institutions, and those cooking them up, are superior to real life. Sometimes, that is just not the case. But they can find solace by returning to the classroom and telling a few heads of mush how successful they would have been if it weren't for those nasty Republicans, T.E.A. parties, talk show radio and television hosts, and Sarah Palin. If only they could eradicate those pesky free-market advocates, along with the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, well, then, this economy would really be taking off.


Unfortunately, the rest of us who can't duck into some university tower get to hold the mess these folks leave behind.


Now if only the economist-in-chief would resign.  Wishful thinking, I know.

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 09:18 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Monday, June 06 2011

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


I give this to Paul Krugman: he's an intrepid, tireless little fighter for Team Obama.  I think he's clueless.  I think he's a shill.  I think he's long since surrendered his intellectual integrity to toe the party line.  But he's got guts.  He doesn't mind making a fool of himself for the cause.


Consider his most recent self-crucifixion, defending the Democrat lie that Medicare is "sustainable in its current form" (the title of his post):


What is true is that the U.S. Medicare is expensive compared with, say, Canadian Medicare (yes, that's what they call their system) or the French health care system (which is complicated, but largely single-payer in its essentials); that's because Medicare American-style is very open-ended, reluctant to say no to paying for medically dubious procedures, and also fails to make use of its pricing power over drugs and other items.


So Medicare will have to start saying no; it will have to provide incentives to move away from fee for service, and so on and so forth. But such changes would not mean a fundamental change in the way Medicare works.

Uh...wait a second.  Isn't Krugman suggesting changes to Medicare?  How can you possibly say it is sustainable in its current form if you then explain yourself by citing ways it should be changed to remain sustainable?  This is the kind of nonsense that must be pointed out to the masses as they listen to Democrats suggest that Republicans are wanting to "destroy the system."


The only ones wanting to destroy Medicare are those who are telling you that it is sustainable as it is.  The ones who really believe that are either too ignorant to realize the system is going belly up, or they are too diabolical to care.  The rest, like Krugman, just have to attempt slights of hand like this to make you think he's not doing exactly what he's condemning Republicans for doing: suggesting massive changes to the system.


And if you don't think what he's saying is massive...if you are tempted to believe him when he says it isn't a fundamental change, think about what he's saying.  Medicare has to stop paying for "dubious medical procedures."  Well, who gets to decide that?  And what constitutes dubious anyway?  The mother of the woman at Obama's townhall meeting who got a pacemaker at age 100...was that dubious?  Boards of bureaucrats saying no to procedures and surgeries requested and needed by seniors that they previously have been able to get...does that sound like a fundamental change?


Truthfully, what we need is a national debate that acknowledges both the Republicans and Democrats who are serious about saving Medicare are proposing large changes to the way the system works now.  Paul Ryan and the Republicans are suggesting changes to give the individual more control over their healthcare.  Paul Krugman and the Democrats are suggesting changes to give the government bureaucrats more control over the healthcare of the elderly.


Let's put both those ideas on the table and fight this out at the ballot box, shall we?  Now you're starting to see why Krugman and the Democrats are content to keep lying and trying to sneak their ideas through.  Wise up, America, a pivotal election day grows nearer.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:08 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Monday, June 06 2011

This coming Saturday, June 11, Peter Heck will be emceeing and speaking at a statewide TEA Party rally for U.S. Senatorial candidate Richard Mourdock being held right in the backyard of his radio show...Kokomo, IN.  Mourdock is the Indiana State Treasurer who is mounting a challenge to 35 year incumbent Richard Lugar.


On Monday's show, Peter hosted Kenlyn Watson, one of the leaders of the Kokomo Area Tea Party committee that is helping host the event.  She discussed the immense size of the event, the number of folks coming from around the state, and what those attending can expect. 


Listen to the full interview and discussion here.

Posted by: Anna Anderson AT 05:07 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Monday, June 06 2011

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


In one of his more civil rants recently, Bill Maher opined that he believes "anybody could be president in this dumb f***ing country." (Warning: source link does not edit language).


It's interesting that Maher would take such an aggressively hostile tone towards the intelligence of his fellow countrymen given that his ratings and livelihood are built upon the ignorance of the masses.  Not to mention the fact that if there is an intelligence gap in this country, perhaps it's because too many people are believing the vile nonsense pouring from the mouths of people like Maher.



In but the latest example of what I mean, take a look at this exchange:

BILL MAHER: What it really comes down to is that we spend so much of the money on the richest people in this country. Between the Bush tax cuts when he was in office and now the extension it's something like $2.8 trillion to the richest one percent who don't feel that at all. Can you honestly tell me if we had taken that amount of money and put people to work building bridges and roads and schools in this country.




MAHER: ... wouldn't this country be better off right now?

First, I dispelled the silliness about needing another WPA in my column this week.  But beyond that, Maher's statement is just patently absurd.  Noel Sheppard at NewsBusters explains why:

As NewsBusters reported last August, the liberal think the Brookings Institution calculated that extending all of the Bush tax cuts for an additional ten years would cost the Treasury a total of $3.675 trillion.


Of that, Brookings identified that $679 billion - or less than $70 billion a year - would go to married couples making over $250,000 and individuals earning in excess of $200,000.


It therefore is logical to conclude the cost of these taxes the previous ten years since enacted in July 2001 has been somewhat similar, and that Maher was off by over $2 trillion or 75 percent.

Even if we were to take pity on Maher and grant him a little intellectual leeway given that he is (a) an entertainment type, and (b) a liberal, being off $2 trillion is inexcusable.  If he really doesn't know he's that wrong, why do his HBO bosses keep him on TV?  And if he does know he's that wrong, but still says it, why do his HBO bosses keep him on TV?


Oh, and if you felt like I was taking an unfair shot at Maher by suggesting that his ratings survival demands upon the ignorance of his audience, consider the fact that they applauded his outrageous falsehood.  I stand affirmed.

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

I have been catching some of the French Open tennis tournament when I can. I notice that one of the sponsors is Perrier bottled water. That takes me back a few decades when the French company was THE name in bottled water. Liberal elites loved it. It was almost always the brand I would receive whenever I asked for bottled or sparkling water on a plane trip.


Fast forward a few years. Bottled water of all kinds has now been available to the "masses" for quite some time. It is not just the elite few who get to enjoy it. The response from liberal elites? Bottled water is bad for us and our environment. It is another corporate ripoff. Of course.



What they fail to reveal is that they are just jealous that the availability of bottled water has moved beyond the liberal elite to us mere mortal WalMart folks. This would not be an issue if this product was still limited to the domain of world aristocracy and political elites. Then it would still be fashionable. Make it available to us WalMart folks, though, and it becomes a big concern of the liberal elite and their many useful idiots.


Liberty and free markets open up to ordinary citizens goods and services that were once limited only to the most affluent. Salt used to be available only to monarchs and their courts. Automobiles used to be out of the reach of middle class citizens. On it goes. That is the miracle of competitive innovation.


This is welcome news to most of us, but it seems to always be bad news to liberal elites.

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 07:30 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Sunday, June 05 2011

Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people. - Proverbs 14:34

Katharine Lee Bates, author of "America the Beautiful," stated:

We must match the greatness of our country with the goodness of personal godly living. If only we could couple the daring of the Pilgrims with the moral teachings of Moses, we would have something in this country that no one could ever take from us.

Whenever we sing this patriotic hymn, we are reminded that America owes its birth to the living, vital, and dynamic will of God. Our Founding Fathers declared this over and over. Sadly, it is all too easy to recognize the need today for a return to this historical national dependence upon God as well as a renewed pride in our great nation.



Katharine Bates, a teacher and head of the English department at Wellesly College in Massachusetts, wrote the original lines of this poem in 1893 while teaching summer school in Colorado Springs, Colorado, where the Rocky Mountains and Pike's Peak especially inspired her.

O beautiful for spacious skies, for amber waves of grain, for purple mountain majesties above the fruited plain! America! America! God shed His grace on thee, and crown thy good with brotherhood from sea to shining sea!


O beautiful for pilgrim feet whose stern impassion'd stress a thoroughfare for freedom beat across the wilderness. America! America! God mend thine ev'ry flaw, confirm thy soul in self-control, thy liberty in law.


O beautiful for heroes prov'd in liberating strife, who more than self their country loved, and mercy more than life. America! America! May God thy gold refine, till all success be nobleness, and ev'ry gain divine.


O beautiful for patriot dream that sees beyond the years, thine alabaster cities gleam, undimmed by human tears. America! America! God shed His grace on thee, and crown thy good with brotherhood from sea to shining sea.

Give thanks to God for the noble heritage and the many beauties of our great country He has entrusted to us.

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 06:00 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Saturday, June 04 2011

Here we go again. The perfect solution to America's massive debt problem: transfer more wealth from the private sector to the government.

The debate over deficit reduction comes at an unusual moment in American economic history. While the middle class is in rapid decline and poverty is increasing, the wealthiest people in our country and largest corporations are doing phenomenally well.


Over the last several decades almost all new income created in this country has gone to the top 1 percent, who now earn more income than the bottom 50 percent. Further, the United States now has the most unequal distribution of wealth of any major country with the top 400 individuals owning more wealth than the bottom 150 million.


As Vermont's senator and a member of the Budget Committee, I will not support a plan to reduce the deficit that does not call for shared sacrifice. At least 50 percent of any deficit reduction plan must come from increased revenue from the wealthy and large corporations


Yeah, there's the ticket, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I.-Vt). Let's allow the government to rake in more private property so they can shepherd it as efficiently as they have done these past few decades.


Of course more will be taken from the targets you enumerate, Sen. Sanders, because those you keep sending to the poorhouse do not have anything with which to pay you. Who do you think have been floating your bloated bureaucracy to this point? It ain't those paying little to no taxes!


A few dirty little secrets here, occupants living in the land of left-believe:


  1. You propped up the very corporations and executives you now declare as "enemies of the state." This government insisted upon bailing out those responsible for this fiscal disaster instead of letting a free market work its magic. Yes, there would have been a lot of pain to go around, but that's what "shared sacrifice" is all about. But you could not belly up and take on that kind of responsibility, Sen. Sanders, because it would not have bought you the reelection votes you need to keep your job.
  2. Government taxation, regulation, and other interference in the private sector make it certain that fewer citizens can get into competitive business. It is YOUR policies, Sen. Sanders, along with your non-independent cronies, that protects the very corporations you pretend to demonize.
  3. Your socialist proposal will tax the middle class you pretend to want to save and even the poorer classes who are paying no taxes. How? Economic reality makes the answer plain: Resources that are now being used to provide incomes and to sustain what little GDP growth we have will be transferred to your bureaucracy; therefore, there will be fewer job creation and even less economic growth. But, hey, that's what socialism is all about.


How about implementing these ideas before whipping productive Americans?

  1. Cut out foreign aid & U.N. dues.
  2. Reduce this bloated bureaucracy by getting rid of redundant departments, commissions, czars, boards, ad nauseum.
  3. Reduce the Federal workforce.
  4. Reduce Presidential trips that are nothing more than vacations & photo ops. (News flash! There are interactive meeting sites on the net).
  5. Knock off privileged Congressional travel. They can board a passenger plane like normal ("the little") people.
  6. Replace the federal income tax with the Fair Tax.
  7. Stop funding museums, public radio and television, stupid studies like the sex habits of African males, and the like.

"The problem with socialism is that socialist governments always run out of other people's money." Maggie Thatcher

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." Thomas Jefferson

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 04:50 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Saturday, June 04 2011

I am in shock and awe! Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) is alarmed over government spending!


OK, pick yourself up off the floor now and take a look at what has Ms. Pelosi sounding like a budget hawk.



Since the U.S. Justice Department (DOJ) is refusing to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) hired attorneys to do the job.


San Fran Nan is not for this, but needs to skirt the gay agenda issue in order to appeal to a wider variety of Americans, so she is citing the use of private attorneys a "burden on taxpayers." She has demanded the cost estimates and the monitoring of the attorneys' fees.


Call me a bit cynical, but I cannot give San Fran Nan much credence as a Congressperson concerned with spending. She is still certain, for example, that unemployment benefits stimulate the economy.


Nevertheless, I am in favor of reining in spending, so how about this Republican solution? Instead of new spending, take the defense costs out of the DOJ budget. It is, after all, their job anyway to defend the DOMA. Think San Fran Nan is onboard with that idea? Well, the nickname would offer a clue to that answer.

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 09:49 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Saturday, June 04 2011

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D.-Fla.) on undocumented immigrants:

"We have 12 million undocumented immigrants in this country that are part of the backbone of our economy and this is not only a reality but a necessity. And that it would be harmful--the Republican solution that I've seen in the last three years is that we should just pack them all up and ship them back to their own countries and that in fact it should be a crime and we should arrest them all."

Unbelievable! Remember, as a member of the U.S. Congress, Ms. Schultz is called a "lawmaker."



Guess what? Illegal immigration is ALREADY a crime, not some Republican proposal. Over the years, illegal immigrants have ALREADY been deported.


Undocumented immigrants are the "backbone of our economy?" There are some organizations that beg to differ with the Representative. They are a major part of our economy only because "lawmakers" like Ms. Schultz impede efforts to enforce reasonable laws, thus making it possible for certain employers to skirt the laws and hire illegal immigrants. They do so because it is a hidden market where workers receive lower wages and no benefits. Now Ms. Schultz's political party despises this, but allow it to go on at the same time. It categorically hurts American workers:


"Shocking Pew Study: Foreign Workers Gain All New Jobs As Native Workers Continue To Lose"

"Foreign Worker Timeout"


There are bills in Congress that address the illegal immigration issue, but Ms. Schultz chooses to merely dismiss them all with her partisan, cursory comment.


Only in the land of left-believe.


Bonus lib-quotes:


Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D.-NJ) on pro-life protestors at a Planned Parenthood rally, 3/25/11:

These people don't deserve the freedoms in the Constitution. But we'll give it to them anyway.

Former federal Judge Vaughn Walker, on announcing that he is gay, but it had no influence on his decision to strike down California's marriage-protection amendment, 4/7/11:

I don't think it's relevant.

Sen. Charles Schumer (D.-NY) telling fellow Democrats how the Democrat Party wanted them to describe Republicans to reporters - unaware that reporters were listening as he said it, 3/29/11:

I always use the word extreme. That is what the caucus instructed me to use this week.

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 07:46 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, June 02 2011

Few conservatives are more well-respected than Indiana Congressman Mike Pence.  There was great hope amongst several in the Republican Party who desperately seek a return to conservative principles, that Pence would lead the charge as the party's 2012 presidential nominee.



But when Pence decided not to run, the country's loss was Indiana's gain, as the Congressman has announced his candidacy for Indiana's open Governor seat in the coming election.


On Thursday's show, Congressman Mike Pence joined Peter to talk about the state of the country, the value of conservative thought, and his vision for Indiana.


Hear the full interview here.

Posted by: Anna Anderson AT 05:08 pm   |  Permalink   |  1 Comment  |  Email
Thursday, June 02 2011

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


In case you were under the impression that you'd seen it all, I present to you this mind-boggling story out of Canada:

A Toronto couple raising their 4-month-old without identifying the child as a boy or a girl have created a media firestorm in Canada, where some have likened the scenario to a "bizarre lab experiment" that seeks to undo thousands of years of social evolution.


Kathy Witterick, 38, and David Stocker, 39, are raising their third child, Storm, to be free of societal norms regarding gender. Is Storm male or female? The parents won't say, so no one knows except Storm's older brothers, Jazz and Kio, as well as a close family friend and two midwives who helped deliver the baby, according to the Toronto Star.

Hey, I've got an idea!  Let's see if we can get a bunch of media attention by wrecking our kid's life!  Beyond the absurdity of this story, beyond the arguments about gender roles and biological reality, don't miss the extraordinary selfishness exhibited by these parents.



For whatever reason they have decided that they need to be pioneers into a new age of social engineering.  Whether they want money, fame, attention, or whether they really think that they are taking a bold step towards a brave new world, it doesn't change the reality that they are failing at their most primary task: caring for their child.


That the parents are "shunning media attention" is a moot point.  Behavior like this is naturally going to attract media attention.  There will be the obligatory interviews that will eventually be granted after enough controversy has stirred.  There will be the book deal and the made-for-TV-Lifetime movie that will be made about their brave struggle.  There will be the media firestorm when it comes time for Storm to go to a bathroom at school.  There will be the intrepid journalist that talks to kids who might have caught a glimpse of Storm in the shower.


Plenty of parents accidentally wreck their kids' lives by their actions.  This pair deserves every ounce of scorn that is coming on them for intentionally setting out to accomplish that end.  So what do the "experts" think?

Clinton Anderson, director of the American Psychological Association's Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Concerns Office, told that while the organization supports gender nondiscrimination, there is no research available regarding potential harms or benefits to raising a so-called genderless child.


"I don't think the APA has any basis for concluding one way or the other on that issue," Anderson said. "In the short term, in the long term, there's really just no basis for saying. This is not an area of research that exists, to my knowledge."

While it does surprise me that no one in the transgender movement has thought of this before, and demanded we spend tax dollars on researching it, maybe the fact that we don't have any data on it is because it's such a stupid idea?  Not everyone thinks so, of course:

Other mental health professionals contacted by said they saw several advantages to the atypical scenario, including true self-determination for Storm.


"The child has self-determination as to what its interests may be in life, the goals for that child and what direction the child wants to go in as far as all avenues in life, as well as sexuality," said Jeff Gadere, a clinical psychologist and contributor to "They're banking on the child being genetically predisposed to its sexuality, as well as its station in life."


A potential downside, Gadere said, could occur when the child looks to its parents for guidance in areas of self-discipline, education and other topics associated with gender. But overall, Gadere sees little potential for psychological or emotional damage to the child.

Little potential for damage?  A statement that should drain Gadere's clinic of its business and his HealthGuru website of its traffic.  If you can't see the immense damage that will come to a child whose life is going to be a carnival game for people to make guesses about his or her gender, for kids to tease him or her relentlessly, for him or her to struggle in forming long-lasting relationships and get married, then you shouldn't be running a should be in one.


American Family Association's Bryan Fischer put it well:

"That child is either a male or female, and it's a tragedy that his parents or her parents are apparently unwilling to base their approach on scientific and biological truth." 


Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:08 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, June 02 2011

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


The left's answer is to raise taxes.  If you're wondering what the question is, it doesn't matter.  The left's answer is the same.  Tornado damage?  Raise taxes.  Education needs more funds?  Raise taxes.  Deficit problems?  Raise taxes.  Global warming caused by man?  Raise taxes.


Of course the obstacle the left runs into is that the American people are already feeling overtaxed.  And when they look at the return they're getting on the amount of taxes they're paying, they get angry and retaliate at the ballot box. 


So the solution for the left doesn't become rethinking their only answer to every problem to see if there might be another way.  No, no...they are tried and true believers in jacking up your taxes.  The solution for them becomes finding ways to hide the taxes or convince us we're not really being taxed.  They talk about patriotism (seemingly the only time they're comfortable doing so), they talk about needing to make "investments" in our future, they talk about "the children." 


But sometimes they let the truth out of the bag.  Check this out:

John Bryson, President Obama's nominee to head the Commerce Department, told a University of California Berkeley audience in 2010 that a cap and trade system was a good way to hide a carbon tax from the public.



Bryson, formerly the CEO of Edison International, said that a carbon tax was the new "third rail" of politics because politicians wouldn't want to tax energy directly.


"I think it's still unlikely there'll be a carbon tax bill because I think in the end a very high percentage of the members of Congress think it's kind of the third rail to support a tax, even if it's a carbon tax," Bryson said.


"Greenhouse gas legislation, either with a tax or with cap and trade - which is a more complicated way of getting at it but it has the advantage of politically sort of hiding the fact that you have a tax - but that's what you're trying to do," he added.

For years now, conservatives have been telling the country that the cap and trade system was nothing but an energy tax.  In fact, they dubbed it a "cap and tax" system.  The left was incredulous.  I even got emails on my little radio show from folks who said I was misleading - that the name was "trade" not "tax."


So this admission will likely bring an admission and apology from the left, right?  That, or Barack Obama will excoriate Mr. Bryson and "un-nominate" him.  Keep your eyes open...I'm sure it's coming any time now.

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

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


Many are speculating (still) about Sarah Palin's plans for 2012.  ?Will she or won't she' is the question of the hour.  Her bus trip through the Northeast is only stirring up more predictions.  For her part, Palin has said that she has the desire, but family considerations is what's keeping her from jumping in with both feet.


If you thought Mitch Daniels' family had reason to veto a run, Palin's family has 20 million times as much reason.  And that's why you should expect to see plenty of attacks on the Palin family in the coming days.  The left despises this woman and fears her.  Theirs is an unnatural and bizarre hatred that was previously reserved only for George W. Bush.  For whatever reason, Palin causes them to lose all control of their sensibilities, and their already lacking tolerance gives way to vile abhorrence.  Thus, they will do anything they can to keep her out of this race...even if it means attacking a Downs Syndrome baby.



This isn't the first time (remember the disgusting Trig bashing done by the mainstream liberal blog Wonkette), but it is the most recent.  Pornographer and uber-leftist Larry Flynt has chimed in with Trig-hatred of his own.

It's hard to keep him focused on this subject, or any subject. His conversation skids about. He doubts Barack Obama would cheat on his wife because: "You ever looked at her? If he ever cheated on her she'd kick his ass. You know they may be black but they've got a very stable family." Then he says, apropos of nothing: "Sarah Palin is the dumbest thing. But I made a fortune off of her. [He made a porn film called Nailin' Palin, based on her]... She did a disservice to every woman in America. She knew from the first month of pregnancy that kid was going to be Down's Syndrome. It's brain dead. A virtual vegetable. She carries it to all these different political events against abortion, she did it just because she didn't want to say she'd had an abortion. How long is it going to live? Another 12, 15 years? Doesn't even know it's in this world. So what kind of compassionate conservative is she? I don't think anybody will want her near the White House." I am so thrown by the unpleasantness of all this I don't even interject.

And to be honest, I am so thrown by the stupidity of that rant, I don't even know what to say.


Remember when conservatives were lectured to keep Chelsea Clinton out of their rhetorical crosshairs?  Gee, a double standard on the left?  Who would have thunk it?


Palin has shown in the past she is like the Energizer Bunny.  She has weathered more attacks than most men ever dream of facing in politics, and just keeps going.  But the left has sadly learned where to hit her - and as the previous nonsense just proved, they lack the self-respect or decency to resist doing it.  Whether you want her to run or not, pray for the Palin family.  The real haters in our culture have zeroed in on their targets.

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

Wow! In just two days' time, the economic reports have been - shall I say? - not pretty. Here is a sampling:

"Private Sector Adds Fewer Jobs Than Expected in May"

38,000 jobs were added, but the forecast was for 175,000 jobs. MarketWatch reports that the goods-producing sector lost 10,000 jobs in May, including 9,000 lost in manufacturing. The service sector picked up 48,000 jobs; remember McDonald's hiring binge? Hey, it's a start, but don't forget that those living in the land of left-believe continue to assault McDonalds and others in the fast-food sector. They don't want them hiring, either.


"Housing in double-dip decline as prices fall again"

Of significant note in this article: "Economists have said that a healthy labor market could help cure these ills, but the labor market has been struggling, as well." Uh. see above headline.


"Latest ?soft patch' catches economists off-guard"

Irwin Kellner's belief is that a 2% annual rate of economic growth over the current quarter and the next two is about the best we can expect.



"U.S. Consumer Sentiment Unexpectedly Falls to Six-Month Low"

Consumer finances are being squeezed by rising food and energy costs.

This one came in as I was writing this article:

"ISM manufacturing index drops to 53.5% in May"

This is a greater decrease than expected.

I was going to hold off on my comments until the weekend, but after receiving this morning's "Uncommon Wisdom" comments, I decided to post immediately.


First, please note that I am not making any specific recommendation to buy or sell any security. The articles are for information purposes only. If you use any type of investment advisor/broker, I advise you to consult with him/her for specific recommendations suitable to your overall situation. If you make all or part of your own investment decisions, I advise you to conduct your own research before making any decisions.


In his article, Tony Sagami submits that some experienced investment professionals are pointing to the U.S. fiscal insanity:

Legendary Wall Street investor Stanley Druckenmiller called QE2 a fraud: "There is a phony buyer of $19 billion per week of Treasury Bonds." The phony buyer he refers to is the U.S. government.


Outspoken guru Jim Rogers said he plans to short sell U.S. bonds with both hands and thinks you should too: "If any of you have bonds, I would urge you to go home and sell them. If any of you are bond portfolio managers, I would get another job if I were you, I would think about becoming a farmer."


Hey, my father was a vegetable farmer, and I doubt that anybody on Wall Street could have kept up with him.


Lastly, municipal bond expert Meredith Whitney, called "one of the 50 most powerful women in business" by Fortune magazine, sees the United States in financial ruin with 50 to 100 cities defaulting on their debt in the next year.

If that's not enough, Tony refers to the Chinese view of the American economy:

Last month Yu Yongding, an adviser to the Chinese central bank, said China should stop buying Treasuries because the United States could default.


Financial reality is catching up to the United States, and our government's Ponzi scheme of printing fake money to pay real bills is about to collapse.

Just imagine having to live off borrowed money and then waking up to the reality that you have no more lenders.


People who have worked hard and played by the rules stand to get smacked hard in this economic environment, yet our governments want to fiddle. That would not be so bad, except while they go on fiddling, they keep spending trillions of dollars and piling up more debt at the same time.


As I wrote above, do not make any personal financial moves without consulting your own advisor, if you use one, and/or considering the risk involved.


At the same time, remain aware of what is going on. Continue to let your elected officials know what is happening and continue to hold them appropriately accountable. And above all, continue to trust in the everlasting mercy of God, doing good works so that everyone will give Him the glory.

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 07:44 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, June 01 2011

From education reform to the nation's "toughest abortion laws" to the unprecedented walkout by Democrats, the most recent session of the Indiana legislature was historic.  



On Wednesday's show, Peter was joined by Representative Mike Karickhoff who gave a first hand account of his freshman year, and what's on the horizon.


You can listen to the full interview here.

Posted by: Anna Anderson AT 05:09 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, June 01 2011

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


Like most families, ours is on a pretty tight budget these days.  We divide up our monthly income into various categories: church, bills, gas money, groceries, charitable gifts, etc.  Every so often, something unexpected happens.  As an example, a couple months ago, we realized that two of our van tires had holes in them and needed to be replaced.


It wasn't cheap.  And given that we had to fix it, we had to make some adjustments in that month's budget.  As I recall, we cut back on groceries that month, as well as a few other things.  That's nothing new to the vast majority of folks who have to find a way to pay for unexpected crises that occur - from tires to hospital trips.



It makes you wonder what parallel universe many of our leftist journalists live in when it comes to reporting on the government budget.  Take for instance, the incredulous question posed by CBS's Harry Smith to House Majority Leader Eric Cantor on the Early Show:

"One of the things you said earlier this week is that emergency funding should be offset by cuts to the budget deficit. Do you stand by that?"

Smith just couldn't fathom that Republicans would expect the government to do what you and I have to do any time a crisis arises.  He couldn't understand why Republicans wouldn't be okay with just opening up the printing presses and running off some more paper bills to pay for this unexpected tragedy.


Of course, this was the same show that Harry decided to investigate whether the Tea Party was losing its influence.  And what objective voice did he bring in to analyze the question with him?  Head of the Democratic National Committee Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, of course! 


As maddening as this nonsense becomes, it provides critical evidence to continue to highlight in showing common sense Americans the difference between the two sides of the aisle.  Our debt is preparing to bury us.  Democrats and liberals have no ideas beyond racking up more.  They cannot be trusted with your money.  Don't take my word for it, just listen to them...and spread the word.
Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:08 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, June 01 2011

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


Over the Memorial Day weekend, I stayed pretty isolated from the news.  But I caught just enough to see a few different prognosticators giving their take on why they felt Obama was in good shape for his re-election campaign in 2012.  One of them - and I honestly can't remember who it was since it was mainly "weekend scrubs" on the various channels - suggested that Obama's best strategy would be to campaign not as the savior of our domestic world (gee, I wonder why), but rather as a commander-in-chief!


Isn't that something: the anti-war president's best campaign strategy is to run as a war president?  And that's supposed to demonstrate how strong his chances of re-election are?  Like I said...weekend scrubs.



That argument isn't totally new.  After the killing of Osama bin Laden, thanks to Obama's continuation of the very Bush era terror fighting strategies he campaigned against, many suggested that Obama was unbeatable.  The suggestion was that Obama had stripped from Republicans the one area that they dominated Democrats: national defense.  Obama would now be the choice of those who were military-minded.


Unfortunately, Gallup reveals, someone forgot to tell the military:

U.S. military veterans and those currently on active military duty are less likely to approve of President Obama's job performance than are Americans of comparable ages who are not in the military.


Thirty-seven percent of all active-duty military personnel and veterans surveyed approved of the job Obama is doing during the January 2010 to April 2011 time frame. That compares with 48% of nonveterans interviewed during the same period.

So strap on that flak jacket and hop in the tank, Mr. Obama.  Perhaps Mr. Dukakis will drive it for you as you wave to the adoring troops.

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

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


As the American south continues to dig out from their devastation, it's no surprise to see churches doing the good work of rebuilding people's homes and lives.  It's also no surprise to see the church of global warming seeking to exploit the natural disaster with some fear mongering - all with the purpose of usurping more of people's money and resources for the goal of consolidating and aggrandizing more power in the state.


The latest example of this comes from Newsweek's "science editor" Sharon Begley.  Noel Sheppard of Newsbusters notes:

On Saturday she penned another breathless doozy with the Hitchcockian sub-headline "In a world of climate change, freak storms are the new normal. Why we're unprepared for the harrowing future":

Even those who deny the existence of global climate change are having trouble dismissing the evidence of the last year. In the U.S. alone, nearly 1,000 tornadoes have ripped across the heartland, killing more than 500 people and inflicting $9 billion in damage. The Midwest suffered the wettest April in 116 years, forcing the Mississippi to flood thousands of square miles, even as drought-plagued Texas suffered the driest month in a century. Worldwide, the litany of weather's extremes has reached biblical proportions. The 2010 heat wave in Russia killed an estimated 15,000 people. Floods in Australia and Pakistan killed 2,000 and left large swaths of each country under water. A months-long drought in China has devastated millions of acres of farmland. And the temperature keeps rising: 2010 was the hottest year on earth since weather records began.


From these and other extreme-weather events, one lesson is sinking in with terrifying certainty. The stable climate of the last 12,000 years is gone.


The climate has been stable for the last 12,000 years? Yeah, that Little Ice Age between the 16th and 19th centuries was the picture of stability.

Not to mention the intentionally outrageous hyperbole of considering what we've seen equal to "biblical proportions."  No one wants to contradict this overreach because no one wants to be seen diminishing the tragedy that has occurred and the suffering that is occurring.  But biblical proportions would include plagues of locust, decade long droughts and global floods.  But this is actually the precise imagery the warmers want to convey because they want you to believe that is what's coming if you don't give them more of your freedom.  And that's why Begley kept going:

Picture California a few decades from now, a place so hot and arid the state's trademark orange and lemon trees have been replaced with olive trees that can handle the new climate. Alternating floods and droughts have made it impossible for the reservoirs to capture enough drinking water. The picturesque Highway 1, sections of which are already periodically being washed out by storm surges and mudslides, will have to be rerouted inland, possibly through a mountain.

No crisis will go by unexploited.  No exaggeration brings shame.  No eventuality is too outrageous.  Not for the Warmers.  Oh, and no fact will stand in their way.  While Begley said:

Scientists disagree about whether climate change will bring more intense or frequent tornadoes, but there is wide consensus that the 2 degrees Fahrenheit of global warming of the last century is behind the rise in sea levels, more intense hurricanes, more heat waves, and more droughts and deluges.

Sheppard points out:

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the entire rise in global temperatures between 1850 and 2005 was 0.76 degrees Celsius. That's 1.37 degrees Fahrenheit, meaning that Begley overstated the increase by almost 50 percent.

And again, while Begley said:

Because of the CO2 that has already been emitted, we're on track for an additional 5 degrees of warming...New York, which is looking at an average temperature increase of up to 3 degrees Fahrenheit by 2020, is planning to paint 3 million square feet of roofs white, to reflect sunlight and thus reduce urban heat-island effects.

Sheppard counters:

It took 155 years for temperatures to rise 1.37 degrees Fahrenheit. If we continued at this pace it would take 565 years for us to rise another five degrees.


Yet this so-called "science editor" claimed New York could see its temperatures increase by as much as three degrees in only nineteen years.

If you're wondering why so many of us resist the Warmers and their fact-challenged religion of global warming, here's another example.
Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:06 pm   |  Permalink   |  1 Comment  |  Email
click between 3-5 pm ET