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

a service of Attaboy Productions, Inc.

Sunday, July 31 2011

I was just sending messages to my Senators when I ran across Sen. Richard Lugar's (D-Ind) statement of support for the Boehner Plan. I read this:

According to analysis by retired Senator and budget expert Judd Gregg (R-NH), the federal government borrows 41 cents to every $1.00 spent. Payments to Social Security, fighting forces in the military, interest on payments on debt and covering 85 percent of Medicare would consume most of the 59 cents that could be covered by revenue. Gregg believes there may be enough to cover air traffic controllers and critical elements of the Department of Homeland Security, but that the rest of government would have to shut down and other federal payments would need stop. (Gregg's analysis appeared July 25 in The Hill newspaper.)


Yikes! The government BORROWS 41 cents for EVERY dollar spent!?


What's wrong with this picture?


About everything. In order to spend a buck, our government has to borrow 41% of it? How is any fiscal entity supposed to operate with a financial picture like that? I think that this is why normal, everyday people cannot pay credit card debt with a credit card. That leads to a financial black hole.


This once grand nation has been overrun with economic imbeciles. and I'm not talking only about the guys and gals living in the beltway, even though there are plenty of them there, too. I'm talking about the folks who demonstrate for their own special interest projects and then go to the voting polls.


There is no way that we can pull the debt lever every time our government pays a bill. That's insane! It is a recipe for complete, utter collapse.


They may be my American neighbors, but I really do not like those folks who live in the land of left-believe.
Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 02:08 pm   |  Permalink   |  1 Comment  |  Email
Sunday, July 31 2011

"No harm befalls the righteous, but the wicked have their fill of trouble. The Lord detests lying lips, but He delights in men who are truthful." - Proverbs 12:21-22


The debt ceiling controversy - some say crisis - is generating a lot of attention. It should. Unfortunately, many in leadership, media, and other positions of responsibility generate a lot of distractions and focus on precisely the wrong issues. They strive to convince us that this is a moral issue but fail to indicate any source whatsoever for their moral authority. Without such a source, it remains folly to attach any issue to morality. Consequently, those in positions of power can continue their grand deceptions.


There was a time in America when the source of moral authority was openly recognized, and His instructions were used as a reference for those seeking to conquer the ills of a failing society. William Bross was a highly successful journalist. He was co-publisher of the Chicago Tribune in the latter 1800s. Interviewed about his success, Mr. Bross gave straightforward replies.


Q. What maxims have had a strong influence on your life and helped to your success? A. "The Proverbs of Solomon and other Scriptures. They were quoted a thousand times by my honored father and caused an effort to do my duty each day, under a constant sense of obligation to my Savior and fellow man."


Q. What do you consider essential elements of success for a young man entering upon such a profession as yours? A. "Sterling, unflinching integrity in all matters, public and private. Let everyone do his whole duty, both to God and man. Let him follow earnestly the teachings of the Scriptures and eschew infidelity in all its forms."


Q. What, in your observation, have been the chief causes of the numerous failures in the life of business and professional men? A. "Want of integrity, careless of the truth, reckless in thought and expression, lack of trust in God, and a disregard for the teachings of His Holy Word, bad company, and bad morals in any of their phases."


Notice any differences between his worldview and that of many of those in equivalent positions today? Does this put the origin any of today's crises, including America's financial plight, into a completely comprehensible perspective? I think so.


Sovereign Lord, with sensationalist headlines swirling all around us, guide our senses back to Your everlasting mercy. In You, and You alone, do we find permanent solutions to the human problems around. We have created our own messes, yet You are willing to extend Your hand of grace and carry us back into complete fellowship with You. Thank You for Your overwhelming love that You pour out even upon the most stubborn children. May we humble ourselves before God and put forth renewed effort to do our duty each day, "under a constant sense of obligation to my Savior and fellow man." In the name of Christ our Lord we pray. Amen.

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 06:00 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Saturday, July 30 2011

Liberals the world over are consistent, if nothing else. If anything can be done to soften the consequences of criminal behavior at the expense of innocent citizens, they'll do it:


Local councils that govern life in the United Kingdom seem overly frightened of liability lawsuits - even from criminals who might get hurt while committing crimes. London's Daily Telegraph and the Surrey Mirror reported in February that police in the counties of Kent and Surrey had been advising homeowners and merchants to avoid using wire mesh on windows because burglars could seriously gouge themselves while climbing through. Also, electrical engineer David Bishop said police seemed especially concerned that burglars could be electrocuted if they broke into his workshop and thus advised him to post a warning sign outside that could be seen in the dark.

Is it too difficult to figure out why public social problems continue to increase?

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 11:51 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Saturday, July 30 2011

Boehner's plan is not a compromise. It was written for the tea party, not the American people. Ds will not vote for it.

I've been thinking why Sen. Reid would not think that T.E.A. Party participants are Americans:



They don't burn the American flag.

They treat the American flag with respect.

They keep their clothes on at rallies and protests.

Some dress up as American Founders and other heroes.

They keep talking about the Constitution... and know something of what it says & means!

They vehemently oppose higher tax rates and more government regulation.

Many are not ashamed to pray to God in public.

They believe in free market opportunities, not big government bailouts to big corporations.

They want smaller government and less federal spending.

They want a balanced budget.

They work for a living.


In short, T.E.A. Party members look nothing like Sen. Reid's constituents. No wonder he doesn't think they are Americans!

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 12:15 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Saturday, July 30 2011

Liberals must have a special fascination with hypocrisy since they engage in it so much. Recently, first lady Michelle Obama ordered a typical fast-food meal: burger, fries, chocolate shake, and diet Coke. No big deal. Americans order menu items like this multiple times over.


As the Philly Daily News observes, though, it must be a big deal:

SOME DAY, right-wing ideologues are going to choke on their hatred of Michelle Obama.

The latest line of attack against the first lady was facilitated by the Washington Post, which breathlessly reported a week ago that she had ordered a hamburger, french fries, a chocolate shake and a Diet Coke at a D.C. restaurant: 1,700 calories, the report calculated (then later corrected its estimate to 1,500.) The investigative reporter was not able to learn whether the first lady actually ate the whole thing or maybe shared it, but what's the difference?

The editorialists are right on one count: it should be no big deal for the first lady to order a meal like this. Just like it should be no big deal for any other American to order a meal like this.


The reality, though, is that it is a big deal. Ms. Obama is on a very visible crusade to, as the article tells us, get "children to eat what's good for them." After all, this used to be "a staple of responsible parenting," the article quips.


Right on both accounts. The difference? The really big difference? First lady Obama is not merely "educating" us about the negative impact of poor eating habits; she is seeking to impose dietary restrictions upon ordinary Americans, since we cannot be trusted to make regime-approved decisions on our own, through the coercive power of federal government. She has already succeeded in the arena of public schools:

The Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, a $4.5 billion measure, provides more free school meals to the pool, and gives the government more power to decide what foods can offered in those meals, as well as in school vending machines and fundraisers during school hours.

Recognize the difference yet? As one of those responsible parents, I did make my children "eat what's good for them." But I didn't go around making everyone else's children "eat what's good for them." Ms. Obama, her husband, and a caving Congress do. And liberals like the Philly Daily News applaud them.


So... when the anti-fast food first lady buys a typical fast food meal, it is a big deal. It is a failure to act as she demands everyone to act. It is visible hypocrisy.


But here is what makes this OK to those living in the land of left-believe: obviously, the lure of something like burgers and fries is too overwhelming for even someone with the devotion, zeal, and spunk of the first lady. If she cannot help but to succumb to the allure of fast food, then none of us are safe. So government must save us by driving those evil businesses out of business (setting aside that last May McDonald's was the number one hiring company in America). Had fast food items already been obliterated from restaurant menus, then our brave, crusading first lady would not have fallen prey to this terrible temptation.


To those living in the land of left-believe, hypocrisy is embraced as just another reason for them to impose their "good intentions" and wishful thinking onto us all through their coercive, draconian legislation.

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 10:43 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, July 29 2011

You may have heard that the California state legislature recently passed a bill requiring all their public school textbooks from kindergarten through 12th grade to emphasize "gay history" in the United States.

SB 48 creates numerous problems for children in California. Setting aside the cost to a virtually bankrupt state in changing all their textbooks in order to elevate the historically irrelevant, SB 48 also places its liberal values above those of traditional families. (Apparently you can legislate morality or in this instance, immorality.)

SB 48 forces hundreds of thousands of children to study materials that will reinforce the belief that their families' traditional values are wrong. It forces schools to use curriculum that portrays lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender behaviors as the moral equivalent to traditional family relationships.  SB 48 does not allow parents to protect their children by opting them out of classes using curriculum promoting homosexuality.

The homosexual demands groups that backed the bill knew that this legislation was a lot bigger than it appeared. Had Massachusetts or Rhode Island pulled a politically correct stunt like this, it would have been written off as fringe liberalism run amok. Yet, for decades it has been known that the standards put in place in two states; Texas and California, can drive the content of textbooks for all 50 states. Due to their size, many textbook companies adopt the standards of these two states for all their curricula rather than expensively printing dozens of different versions of the same textbook for use in various states.

This politicized history revisionism in California could be prevented if a group of parents in Sacramento can gather enough signatures to put this matter on a ballot referendum to repeal the law. Stop 48 is attempting to gather 500,000 signatures from California voters in less than 90 days in order to put the issue before voters. It is believed that even the most liberal of Californians may draw the line and say "no" to the homosexual demands groups when it comes to indoctrinating children.   If you have family or friends in the Golden State, you may want to send them to this web site:

Posted by: Micah Clark AT 05:15 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, July 29 2011

When children go off to college and become of age it is fairly common for them to rebel against their roots or explore other ideas and philosophies, even if temporarily. Interestingly, it seems as though, in spite of the radical politics of his parents throughout his childhood, Barack Obama never once rejected those influences. For example, we have no admissions of his attending meetings of Students in Free Enterprise (SIFE), Campus Crusade for Christ, Fellowship of Christian Athletes, (FCA) and unlike Hillary Clinton, he was never a part of the College Republicans.

Talk show host Laura Ingraham has often played the audio clip of Barack Obama reading his book Dreams of My Father, in which he proudly admits that while in college he intentionally sought out as friends, "politically active black students, Marxist professors and structural feminists."

Now there is another disturbing set of revelations about the youthful dabbling of our president . . . which wasn't all that long ago. President Obama recently indicated a group of homosexual activists that he may have experimented with homosexuality, or "gay rights" when he was in college. (The Predisent said that he "experiented with gay rights" but gave no clear explanation of what he meant.)   Given the haphazard and troublesome father figures in his life, and what we know about same-sex attraction disorders, this is really not all that surprising, nor all that politically damaging.  However, this was not his only startling new revelation.

In the same talk the President stated that homosexuality was just a phase he went through, "like my goth phase." (Goth, which is short for gothic, is a subculture inspired by punk rock and distinguished by black clothing, hair, nail polish, body piercing and a fascination with death and sado-masochistic bondage and in some cases vampires. If you recall the bizarre look of "musician" Marilyn Manson, he would likely fit the Goth mold.)

What is clear, though about three years too late, is that there is a lifelong pattern of consistently extreme liberal influences, associations, and behaviors in the life of this leader. It is also a reminder of the power of the media to shape, or distort an image of a politician to hide their negatives or to over emphasize what may concern voters. As we move closer to the 2012 election this is media reality we should keep in mind.

Posted by: Micah Clark AT 05:00 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, July 29 2011

The rise of the TEA Party has certainly been an interesting political and historic event over the last couple of years. Although polls and surveys looking at this phenomenon have shown that around two-thirds of TEA Party activists are social conservatives, the movement has also reinvigorated the philosophy of Libertarianism.

A Libertarian philosophy of economics seems to have an appeal to many Christians and people of faith, but in other areas it raises serious concerns in its view of human nature and an orderly society. The Christian Anti-Defamation Commission has an interesting article that is worth your reading which asks the question, "Christianity and Libertarianism: Do they belong together?"

Posted by: Micah Clark AT 02:30 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, July 28 2011

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


GLSEN, the Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network, is a subversive organization that is seeking to worm its way into elementary and high schools around the country to spread homosexual propaganda under the guise of stopping "bullying."  We've pointed out some of their outrageous and disgusting behavior (including the sick sex conferences they have sponsored) in the past, as well as pointed out that far from ending bullying, GLSEN exists to make Christian kids and those from traditional morality homes the targets of discrimination.


Nice to see that our tax dollars are now going to be used to help them spread their deception and hate:

A homosexual advocacy group is getting taxpayer money to increase the percentage of schools that set up "safe spaces" for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) youth.



The Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network (GLSEN) will receive $285,000 annually for five years to partner with 20 targeted school districts across the country to help keep LBGT students safe and healthy.  The grant money is coming from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, through its Department of Adolescent and School Health (DASH).

Over a quarter of a million dollars every year for a radical sexual group to indoctrinate kids.  No wonder we've got a debt problem in this country.  But let's be sure to note exactly what this money is going to be used for, because undoubtedly the left will tell us it's all to make kids "safe" (as though encouraging risky sexual experimentation into dangerous behavior like homosexuality makes kids safe):

The program centers on GLSEN's "Safe Space Kit," which includes stickers identifying offices or places within the school building where students will find "an adult's unwavering support" for their safety. Each kit contains ten "Safe Space" stickers.

Oh, great...stickers!  How safe that will make everyone.  Look Johnny, you can feel good because there's a safe sticker!  What a load of bull.  First of all, every adult employed by a school should be offering "unwavering support" for the safety of children.  Think about that.  Are students to assume that the teachers and adults who don't get the lovely sticker don't offer them such "unwavering" support? 


Anyone with a brain sees through this: the sticker is part of a propaganda effort to fool administrators and school boards into believing this is a legitimate and benign safety program.  It's not.

The kit includes two posters and a 42-page "Guide to Being an Ally to LGBT Students." Among other things, the guide offers specific strategies for supporting LGBT students, including how to educate students about anti-LGBT bias and teaching respect for all people.


The kit also explains how to "advocate for change inside the school."

Bingo!  And there's the catch.  This is about indoctrination, as it always is with GLSEN, not safety.  The safety angle is the hook and the foot in the door.  The GLSEN activists then pour out of the Trojan Horse and set about their real business.  And what is that "real business" you ask:

Social conservatives have attacked the Safe Space Kits for providing a list of sexually graphic books.  According to Focus on the Family, one of the books recommended for grades 7-12 titled Rainbow Boy includes a description of high school boys looking at male pornography.  Another book, What If Someone I Know is Gay, explains that "sometimes it does take a sexual and/or emotional experience for someone to understand and recognize what their true feelings are."

Yes, just the message of safety you want your kid to learn, isn't it?  If you see GLSEN roll into your school district, start screaming from the rafters.  Any school corporation that has the well being or best interest of its students in mind will not let GLSEN within 100 yards of the front door.

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

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


The Tea Party has its newest, and most unexpected, member.  No, he's not outwardly acknowledging that he's joined the club, and most likely, he would vehemently deny and disparage any notion that he inadvertently did.  But if Chris Matthews really believes what he eloquently (a relative term when discussing the staff at MSNBC) stated on his program the other night in a debt ceiling riff, Matthews belongs out at the rally in a Paul Revere outfit.


Watch the video to see for yourself.  Here's the transcript:


CHRIS MATTHEWS: Why doesn't the American people, why don't we have a big debate about what percentage of our economy we want the federal government to spend and are we willing to pay for it? Some sort of big picture discussion. Okay. The aging of our population requires us more spending on healthcare for people over 65. Do we want to meet that commitment or not? Do we want to meet a portion of it? Do we want to help with education at the federal level? Do we want to do real infrastructure spending? Do we want to cut down our overseas military operations? When are we going to make a lot of serious, households make those decisions every day. Republicans like to say the household, the household. The average household decides can we afford to buy new shoes for the kids? Can we afford to go to the movies this week? What kind of vacation can we take? Can we travel, or do we have to stay in the neighborhood? People make these decisions. Why doesn't the federal government decide what it's going to spend money on and then decide it's going to pay for it? [...]


Well I grew up with parents who had that conversation every week, and that's how we lived. And that's how we got to today. Middle class parents from aspiring cultures make those decisions all the time. Ezra, your thoughts. I don't know why can't we as a country - you don't get steak, you don't go to nightclubs, you don't go on expensive vacations, you give the kids educations.

I am aghast.  Surely Matthews' guests were sitting there in shock as they listened to him bring up and support the Tea Party/conservative argument that if family's and working class citizens have to balance their checkbooks and make necessary cuts and sacrifices, spending less than maybe they want to spend to make ends meet, the government should do it too.


This, after all, is what the Tea Party has been all about.  Maybe Matthews is unaware of that reality since he and his colleagues have spent the last couple years assuming it was their job to demonize and smear these common sense patriots as racists and violence-inciters.  But it was a truly jaw-dropping moment hearing Chris pontificate like he was aboard the Sarah Palin Tea Party Express!


Noel Sheppard also pointed out what was, quite revealingly, not part of Matthews' family budget argument:

In reality, this is exactly the "big debate" America has been having for over two years, and people like Matthews have been heaping scorn on those in the center of it.  The family household argument is exactly what members of this movement have been saying all along: if families have to cut expenses to balance their budgets, so should the government.


More telling, Matthews didn't say that when his parents were discussing their finances "every week," somewhere in the conversation was the need for Dad to get another job to "raise revenues."  Quite the contrary, it was about "can we afford to buy new shoes for the kids, " or "go to the movies this week," or "can we travel, or do we have to stay in the neighborhood?"  No "maybe Daddy should work more hours or get another job so that we can afford our current lifestyle."

The old adage about the wayward squirrel finding a nut or the broken clock being right is perhaps appropriate here.  After all, this is simple common sense...the backbone of conservative thinking and policies.  And look Chris - you don't have to be a racist or a hater to come to those conclusions!  Amazing.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:08 pm   |  Permalink   |  1 Comment  |  Email
Thursday, July 28 2011

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


It almost seems surreal to say this every time another state enacts the official "undefinition of marriage," but last weekend, men began legally wedding men and women began legally marrying women in New York.  To an outside observer, this simply seems like another domino to fall in the slow but steady march towards sexual anarchy in our culture.



I don't blame anyone for coming to the conclusion that this steady decline into moral oblivion seems inevitable.  I don't agree, but I get why someone feels that way.  They are being made to feel that way, after all.  Constant media sycophancy for the cause adds the feeling of conspicuousness to anyone who would pause and say, "I don't think that's right."  School indoctrination by radical leftist sexual groups like GLSEN are confusing kids from Kindergarten age that to have moral qualms with sexual depravity is to be a bigot and hater.  The push to breakdown any and all moral standards for sexual conduct and marital relationships has become the entertainment glitterati's pet project - giving them a sense of meaning to their lives that are otherwise bathed in shallow superficiality.


It all seems overwhelming.  But we are never to grow weary of doing good.  And regardless of what our backwards and corrupt culture teaches (remember, that's the culture that we are to be "in but not of," the one that we are to "not conform to" but "be transformed by the renewing of our minds"), it is good and it is right to warn people away from sinful behavior.  It is not loving to encourage or condone destructive choices that harm a person physically and spiritually.


I truly believe that regardless of any poll, the vast majority of Americans, when truly pressed on the issue would agree there is something wrong with homosexuality and there is something wrong with our society putting its stamp of approval on it.  What we are losing then, is the PR battle.  But maybe that's because we haven't been applying the right strategy.


We've been fighting the battle on the grounds laid out for us by the small, but vocal percentage of those who are seeking a radical cultural revolution.  We have been bullied into silence, and have allowed the true bigots and haters redefine those terms and stand them on their head.  If we continue with this failed strategy of resisting wrong, then yes, our slide into cultural chaos is guaranteed.  But we don't have to.


I was encouraged by the relentlessly determined words of Brian S. Brown, the president of the National Organization for Marriage, regarding the advent of "same-sex marriage" in New York this last weekend:

Same-sex marriage comes to New York on Sunday. Whom will it impact other than the couples involved? The answer is: almost everyone. The New York legislature did not create a category of marriage called "gay marriage," but instead redefined marriage for everyone. That means that anyone who doesn't go along with this new politically inspired understanding of the historic institution of marriage will be treated under the law as the equivalent of a racist. Already, town clerks with deeply held religious beliefs about marriage have been told they will be fired if they refuse to sanction gay marriages. Some have already been forced to quit. We know from the experience in other states that professionals with strongly held moral beliefs about marriage will be threatened with loss of their professional licenses ? and thus their livelihood ? if they resist. Christian counselors will be put out of business unless they violate their religious principles and condone gay marriage. Wedding professionals who don't want to be involved in gay weddings will be sanctioned. Most troubling, children as young as kindergartners will be taught in school that gay marriage is the same as traditional marriage ? and parents will be powerless to do anything about it. In short, the consequences to society will be profound.


But this is far from over. People all across the state are rallying to restore marriage by putting a constitutional amendment on the ballot. Thousands are attending marches throughout the state on Sunday, and volunteering in droves at We are determined to let the people of New York have the final say on marriage, just as voters in 31 other states have been able to do.

The people should have a voice.  But indoctrinated, misled, or bullied people will not always make the right decision.  And on this issue, there is the principle of right and wrong at play.  There is a violation of Natural Law and Moral Order going on.  And there is, as Brown pointed out, a dangerous new era of anti-Christian persecution that we are poised to encounter if we continue trekking down this morally confused path. 


It's time to be bold.  It's time to be unashamed.  It's time to employ a cultural surge, and start speaking truth to sin.
Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:07 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, July 28 2011

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


Now this is a real hoot.  We've enjoyed the timeless antic s of leftist comedian Paul Krugman before, but this one shows why he is among the country's most prolific entertainers.  From his blog:

Watching our system deal with the debt ceiling crisis ? a wholly self-inflicted crisis, which may nonetheless have disastrous consequences ? it's increasingly obvious that what we're looking at is the destructive influence of a cult that has really poisoned our political system.


And no, I don't mean the fanaticism of the right. Well, OK, that too. But my feeling about those people is that they are what they are; you might as well denounce wolves for being carnivores. Crazy is what they do and what they are.



No, the cult that I see as reflecting a true moral failure is the cult of balance, of centrism.

So what do most news reports say? They portray it as a situation in which both sides are equally partisan, equally intransigent ? because news reports always do that.


What all this means is that there is no penalty for extremism; no way for most voters, who get their information on the fly rather than doing careful study of the issues, to understand what's really going on...And yes, I think this is a moral issue.

So much ignorance to digest in four small paragraphs.  First, let's marvel at the open-mindedness and seriousness with which Krugman deals with those who don't agree with him.  Rather than confronting their arguments or explaining why his side is better, he opts to call them, "crazy."  Only on the left is the idea of needing to keep a balanced checkbook deemed too crazy to even consider.


Secondly, notice that the once laudable and praiseworthy characteristics of "balance and centrism" have now become "cultish" to leftists like Krugman.  Perhaps this means they will dispense with their long-term strategy of redefining the political spectrum through college classrooms and media repetition to one where conservative thought is "far right," moderate thought becomes known as "conservative," liberal thought becomes the sophisticated "center," and left-wing socialism becomes mainstream "liberal."  I guess that strategy is just taking too long, so Krugman has just decided to trash conservatives as "crazy" and centrists as "cults."  Nice.


Thirdly, and perhaps the most hilarious part of this analysis (if that's what they call it these days), is Krugman's assertion that news reports are reporting on this debt debate in a "balanced way."  The folks at Newsbusters have been chronicling and recording media reports on the issue for weeks.  Here's what they found:

The take for weeks has been that taxes must be raised to solve this problem and that it is the Republicans - and, in particular, Tea Party freshmen in the House - that are refusing to "compromise."


A new Media Research Center study on this issue found that ABC, CBS, and NBC have consistently cast the GOP as the villains in this debate.

So we see a new liberal effort to redefine the baseline of understanding.  We've actually seen this strategy employed by the left in judging Fox News to be "far right."  If you report both sides of an issue, you are "far right."  If you report the liberal talking points, you are "balanced" (see CNN).  But here Krugman is declaring that's not even good enough.  Thus, he believes the media should go beyond just reporting the liberal talking points.


And for them not to do so is nothing short of immoral!  When it comes to the practice of sawing kids' heads off when they're in the womb, Krugman doesn't believe morality should enter the discussion.  But even thinking about reporting a conservative perspective in the news is the most egregious violation of decency and morality that it can't be allowed.  Morality demands the censorship of all conservative thought.


Who is crazy?

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:06 pm   |  Permalink   |  1 Comment  |  Email
Wednesday, July 27 2011

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


I think it's important to consider what would be going on in Washington, D.C. right now - particularly with this debt limit issue - if the Republicans had not come to power in historic fashion in the House of Representatives.  Think for a minute what would have occurred if Nancy Pelosi would have still wielded the gavel.


It is a frightening thought - considering that Obama and Democrat leaders first pushed for an automatic debt ceiling increase (meaning, we would just borrow more money without any spending cuts, without any austerity measures at all) with no hesitation.  It was only Boehner and House Republicans that prevented that highway to Greece from marking our nation's path.


That reality cannot and should not be lost on American voters in the lead-up to 2012.  It's important also to keep a watchful eye on the contrast between locations run by liberals and those run by conservatives.  We've pointed to conservative states like Indiana, Wisconsin and Texas - states leading the nation in economic health, vitality, and job creation.  Now, let's consider the opposite: states run by liberals.


In the middle of a budget deficit and fiscal mess that rivals that of Washington, D.C., the state of California (firmly under the thumb of liberal policies for decades) has a new governor to deal with the situation.  And just what has liberal Governor Jerry Brown just done?


Following through on a campaign promise, Gov. Jerry Brown signed a law Monday easing access to privately funded financial aid for undocumented college students. He also signaled that he was likely to back a more controversial measure allowing those students to seek state-funded tuition aid in the future.

Assemblyman Gil Cedillo (D-Los Angeles), author of the private financial aid measure, described it as an important but incremental step toward expanding opportunities for deserving students who were brought to the U.S. illegally through no choice of their own. Cedillo is pressing ahead with a more expansive measure that would make certain undocumented students eligible for the state's Cal Grants and other forms of state tuition aid.

Brown said he was "positively inclined" to back that bill but would not make a decision until it crosses his desk.

"I'm committed to expanding opportunity wherever I can find it, and certainly these kinds of bills promote a goal of a more inclusive California and a more educated California," Brown told reporters after the bill-signing ceremony Monday.

In a state riddled with debt and financial worries, Brown takes a step to open up more state tax dollars to go towards funding the education of illegal immigrants.  They can't pay their bills, so the liberal governor thinks the solution is to take on more bills.


There's the contrast, America.  Choose wisely.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:09 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, July 27 2011

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


Media critic Brent Bozell has written a nice column that talks about conservative commentator Laura Ingraham's new book, "Of Thee I Zing."  The book is an attack on the cultural malaise we are experiencing as we drift away from morality and towards decadence.  Actually, we aren't drifting that way...we're already there.


Bozell writes,

Ingraham's willingness to mix it up on the culture is refreshing and was apparent during her book interview on NBC's "Today," where she underlined to Matt Lauer that Today's "own" Summer Concert Series included vile artists like woman-battering singer Chris Brown and F-bomb-dropping "artists" Enrique Iglesias and Cee-Lo. How big are these cultural icons? Ingraham and her collaborator on the book, Catholic TV journalist Raymond Arroyo, were amazed at what they thought must be the new homelessness on the streets of New York, but then realized people were camping out two nights early to acquire a choice spot to witness Chris Brown perform on NBC.   



Brown is vile. His "music" includes usage of all the mandatory filthy language along with the N word, which vile "musicians" like Brown can use with impunity. There is also the perfunctory misogyny in some of his top songs like "Look at Me Now." Here's a little sampler, which requires a lot of bleeping: "Lil n---a bigger than gorilla / ?Cause I'm killing every n---a that try to be on my s--- / Better cuff your chick if you with her, I can get her / And she accidentally slip and fall on my d--k."


"Better cuff your chick?" Does he mean put your woman in handcuffs, or "cuff" her as in beat her? The website Urban Dictionary suggests it means "For females: that man in your life that knows how to hold you down." Brown should know. He confessed in 2009 to physically beating his girlfriend, the pop star Rihanna. And yet, Ingraham lamented, pop stars like this are adored by crowds and honored like royalty by the TV networks.


Ingraham also singled out Enrique Iglesias, the son of Spanish singer Julio Iglesias. She notes the father registered a monster hit with "To All The Girls I've Loved Before," which wasn't exactly an ode to monogamy. The son has now updated the message in today's culture with a song called "Tonight I'm F---ing You." The lyrics are completely oxymoronic: "Please excuse me, I don't mean to be rude, but tonight I'm f---ing you." If a man said that to a new female acquaintance, she might have to call the police, or at least a couple of older brothers.

He also addresses Ingraham's treatment of the bizarre movement within the country (particularly evident in the younger generation) known as SBNR.  The acronym stands for "Spiritual but not religious," meaning that the person steers clear of orthodox religious views, and opts for a more do-it-yourself blend of religion...a moral smorgasbord, if you will.


Having not read Ingraham's book, I don't know exactly what she says about it.  But my point on this movement has always been a hearty laugh.  In their effort to avoid religious dogma and "organized religious" orthodoxy, they think they are making themselves more distinguished, enlightened and sophisticated.  Actually what they are doing is adopting the dogma and organized orthodoxy of the oldest religion in existence: humanism.  Man reasons, man devises truth, man is his own god.


But this yuppie thinking can't be surprising from a culture that now idolizes thugs like Chris Brown.  That was the point of Bozell's column, and I hope is the point of Ingraham's promising book.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:08 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, July 27 2011

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


I couldn't believe that Glenn Beck actually said it.  Right there on national television, the conservative radio host and media entrepreneur spewed such vile hatred against liberal Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, I almost had to scrub from my websites that I had ever appeared on the same stage with him.  If you haven't heard the comments, Beck announced that he couldn't stand her so much that he wanted to, "F--- the s--- out of" her.  In other words, Beck was saying he wanted to rape her.


He went on to expand his hatred to a wider swath of the liberal landscape by saying: "I wish all liberals who supported this gay crap were f---ing dead."



Oh, that didn't happen.  Well, not exactly.  Before I explain what I mean, let me point out that you don't have to be a follower of the mainstream media's disdain for all things conservative to know what would have happened to Beck and his career if he had ever said something like that.  Columnist Doug Giles imagines if any conservative or Tea Partier had crossed such a line:

Do you think that would make the evening news? Do you think he would get fired from his job? Do you think that all conservatives far and wide would have to profusely apologize and go through sensitivity training for the next eight millennia? The answer to those tres questions would be: duh. You bet they would.


Do you think Matt Lauer would do a hit on that diatribe come Monday morning? Do you think the Tea Party darling would have to forfeit his fair perch with the movement? Do you think idiot boy would get a visit from the local police department for uttering such hateful speech against a group of people? The answers to those questions would be . yes, yes and heck yes, he would.


Also, can you imagine if a faction from Focus on the Family showed up at the private business of a liberal with whom they vehemently disagreed, disrupted that workplace, and then strafed offices with buckets of glitter while blaring "Jesus Freak" in the background?


Do you think Rachel Maddow would go mad cow on that ditty come 9:00 p.m. the next day? Do you think the Focus freaks would have trespassing charges pressed against them? Do you think the belligerent Christian vandals would get canned from their jobs at Focus?


I'm a thinkin' ... yes. Why, yes, they certainly would, and pretty dang quickly, mind you, like, so fast it would make your head spin.


And lastly, can you imagine what would happen if Don Wildmon, sick with the flu, somehow snuck into Obama's personal campaign headquarters and licked doorknobs, keypads, coffee cups and telephone receivers in the hopes of getting Obama severely ill in order to derail an important event and then was actually stupid enough to write about this germ warfare against the prez?


Would that make the news? Would that make people look at the American Family Association and say, "You dudes are some sick and twisted monkeys"? Here, again, I'm guessing bingo.


There's no way in Hades that conservatives or Christians could get away with that kind of violent rhetoric and criminal activity without the media and the cops landing on their chest with both boots. But do you know who can get away with that kind of bullcrap? Gay activists, that's who.

Giles goes on the point out that each of those examples of outrageously vile hatred directed at a political opponent actually occurred:

Yep, this past week Dan Savage (who is obviously a bubble off level) he would love to "f--- the sh-t" out of Rick Santorum. That's the same Dan Savage who, sick with the flu, phlegmed Gary Bauer's phones during his bid for the White House in 2000 and bragged about it.



In addition, homosexual vandals blaring Lady Gaga music blew into the private business of Michele Bachmann's husband, raised all kinds of hell and then dumped glitter in his offices and were dumb enough to film it (but nary a media peep nor one arrest).


The lesson is clear, little children: If you wanna be a vile vandal but don't want to be harangued by the media and would like to skate when you should be fined or imprisoned, you might want to consider homosexuality because they can obviously do the aforementioned without any repercussions.

It's outrageous.  And if the mainstream media won't make a deal out of it, we will.  We should be demanding to know why this kind of anti-Christian, anti-conservative bigotry is acceptable to the left.  We should be demanding that someone on the left explain why "well-respected" Democrat Senators, as well as innumerable liberal media types, and yes, even the President of the United States continue aligning themselves with, and heaping praise upon Dan Savage and his fellow sexual anarchists.


How can liberals who support this vile filth maintain any shred of credibility when it comes to the idea or notion of tolerance?  If bigotry and persecution is to be routed out of our society, let's start with where it fulminates: the homosexual left.

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

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


One of the major reasons I want to see Texas Governor Rick Perry enter the presidential race is because I would love to see the debate between he and Barack Obama should it occur.  What better contrast could there be for the American people than the guy who has presided over the destruction of the job market in America (Obama) and the guy who has gotten his state government out of the way of his people enough to lead the nation's states in job creation (Perry)?


Along those lines, it just boggles the mind how the evidence continues to amass showing how much wiser and more economically profitable the conservative ideology is, and yet how many people (even those who are suffering thanks to liberal policies) continue to bury their heads in the sand.


It wasn't that long ago that Wisconsin teachers were making fools of themselves, and liberals were rallying to the state in protest against the "job destroying" conservative mindset of Governor Scott Walker.  They lost, and Walker won.  Guess who else has won:


Bucking a lackluster hiring trend nationally, Wisconsin added an estimated 12,900 private-sector jobs from May to June - the largest single-month gain since September 2003.

This "bucking of the national trend" is happening in Indiana and Texas as well.  Notice anything about the governments of those states?  They are run by conservative majorities.  Now, go compare that to Illinois, New York, California - states run by liberal majorities.  Any questions?


Oh, but this wasn't all the news worth reporting from this story.  Check this out:

The state had a net total of 9,500 new jobs in the month, because a decline in government employment offset some of the gains in the private sector. Nationally, Walker said, 18,000 new jobs were created last month - 57,000 gained in the private sector minus a drop of 39,000 in government payrolls.


"It's incredibly important to put that in perspective," Walker said. "To have 9,500 net new jobs in the state at a time when the country saw just 18,000 net new jobs all across the country is incredibly good news, and it's driven by the rebirth of tourism in the state."

"Decline in government employment" is what brought down the higher employment numbers.  But shrinking government is a sure sign that it will be followed in the months to come by a growing private sector.  So there's even a silver lining in the negatives of this report!  Keep in mind that the private sector is the engine of the economy - it creates wealth.  Government employment doesn't create anything - it drains the wealth created by the private sector.  That isn't to say that no government job is important or worthy of pay.  It simply means that you can't have a viable economy if your government sector is large and your private sector is small.without a healthy private sector, there would be no money left to pay the government folks.


Conservative leaders like Walker get that.  It's why, if you look at those numbers closely, you will notice that Wisconsin (the state that was supposedly destroying the "working man" just a few months ago according to liberals) accounted for over half of all US jobs created in June.  Wow.


The lessons for the American people in anticipation of the 2012 election are as clear as they can possibly be.  Those people who choose to ignore it deserve what they get.
Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:06 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, July 26 2011

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


A few days ago, Republican House Leader John Boehner suggested that President Obama had essentially made his re-election the main concern he is bringing to the debt ceiling debates.  That has been, in Boehner's eyes, distracting and unhelpful.  Obama's team has, of course, denied such allegations, pointing to the fact that Obama cancelled a couple fund raising events to help "work out a plan."


But recent events indicates that the President is indeed thinking about his re-election.  And it appears that he realizes there is something worse than his Party giving in to the Republicans on spending cuts with no tax increases.  First, here's what's been happening:

Democrats and Republicans urgently pieced together competing plans Monday to prevent a first-ever government default next week.


Once again, I feel it necessary to point out that there would not be any government default next week.  We have plenty of money to prevent a default.  What we would not be able to pay for would be extraneous programs of a bloated government monstrosity that we've created.  But let's not get bogged down with that point again.

House Speaker John Boehner forged ahead with a plan to raise the current $14.3 trillion debt ceiling by about $1 trillion, along with commensurate spending cuts. That would require lawmakers to go through the painful process again next spring with an even larger debt and deficit package.


...In the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid was set to reveal a $2.7 trillion package of spending cuts to accompany a debt hike big enough to avoid another vote before 2013.

Whoa.  What gives, Harry?  Just a few days ago, the Democrats were doing their fit throwing routine to about Republican plans to cut spending but not raise taxes.  All the leading Democrat minds were talking about how this deal couldn't be done unless the Republicans would temper their spending cut demands with some "compromise" on taking more money from the country's job creators.  But now Harry wants 2.7 trillion in cuts with no tax increases?  Now, obviously Harry's plan has been exposed to be full of gimmicks and budgetary tricks.  But that's not the point.


What happened here?  Boehner's short term plan happened, that's what.

Boehner was set to meet with his chamber's Republicans to discuss his plan in detail. Aides described it as a two-step process, with an immediate $1.2 trillion in cuts and spending caps coupled with a $900 billion debt ceiling increase.


A new congressional panel would be charged with producing nearly $2 trillion in additional cuts and another increase in the debt ceiling to be voted on next year and a second increase in the debt limit would have to be voted on next year, conditioned on congressional approval of the additional cuts.


GOP officials said Democrat Reid warmed to the idea in private talks on Sunday.


But after meeting with Obama Sunday evening, Reid instead called Boehner's proposal "a nonstarter in the Senate and with the president" because it would permit only a short-term increase of the sort that has already been rejected by Democrats. Boehner's office rejected that description.

Reid had "warmed to the idea" of a short term deal, but then after meeting with Obama all of a sudden had a change of heart.  And not just any change of heart.  The man went out and crafted a deal that he would have crowed about being "draconian" just a few short weeks ago. 


What all that says to me is that the idea of a short term deal that would see the issue re-opened next year frightens President Obama more than giving in to Republicans on all their major demands.  But why?  Does he care that much about a long term fix?  Of course not.  Remember his first plan was to not fix anything, but just raise the ceiling to allow more borrowing.  If there is anything Mr. Obama is not, it's being overly concerned with the country's financial health.


Mr. Obama is remembering the Tea Parties and the town hall meetings and what they did to his party in 2010.  He recognizes that his healthcare bill cost his party historic losses at the polls in 2010.  And he knows that re-opening this budget deal in 2012 will seal his fate as a candidate.  He is on the wrong side of this issue.  He knows he doesn't have the support of the American people.  He knows he is toast if the election is about the economy.  He doesn't have the chops, he doesn't have the record, and he doesn't have the swagger.


Obama is thinking about his re-election, which is precisely why Harry Reid (who most likely was not thinking about the election since he is good for another 6 years) was warming to a short term idea pre-Obama meeting, and is now crafting a pretend cut-happy plan to avoid that idea post-Obama meeting.


For those that still suffer under the delusion that Mr. Obama is a different kind of politician, see if you can find a different shade of glasses to put on...the rose-color isn't becoming.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:09 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, July 26 2011

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


These two stories have to be related.  First, in the midst of Democrats in Washington beginning to realize that the American people are not with them, President Obama hasn't gotten the big picture.  Keep in mind, this is a party that has proven itself so incredibly irresponsible that it has not produced a budget since 2009...even when it controlled every apparatus of elected federal government. 


In this debt ceiling negotiation, it has been more of the same: Democrats have readily criticized Republicans with the tired approaches of "they want to kill the elderly," "they want to gamble your Social Security away," or "they want to give tax breaks to Big Oil."  But there are increasingly clear signs the American people aren't buying it.  And why would they?  People know that there is a deficit crisis of epic proportions.  They also realize that our government is borrowing 43 cents for every dollar it spends.



And what have the Democrats suggested doing?  Borrowing even more so they can spend even more.  The American people put the kibosh on that by sending in an historic hoard of conservative Republicans last November, who have successfully ground this spend-a-thon to a halt.  So what was the Democrats' Plan B?  Raise taxes.  Republicans wisely dug in their heels, and wisely started spreading the word to the people.


Obama blustered and threatened.  Republicans wisely held their ground.  Obama said he would "take his case to the American people."  Republicans wisely said, "be our guest."  Obama set a "deadline" for action.  Republicans wisely yawned and ignored it.  And as news is breaking that Democrats in Congress were blocking the obstinate and bumbling president who wouldn't know leadership if it came up and introduced itself to him from high level negotiations, Obama goes out and gives a speech:

President Barack Obama is reiterating his call for a deficit-cutting plan that cuts spending and that also increases tax revenue by making the wealthy and corporations pay more to help stabilize the long-term debt...Obama said the wealthy and big corporations have to "pay their fair share, too." And he alluded to the difficulty of cutting a deal, saying "compromise is becoming a dirty word."

Oh my.  First of all, someone should ask Mr. Obama what is a "fair share?"  Given that "the wealthy" are already shouldering nearly three-fourths of the American tax burden, how does the president define that word "fair?"  Secondly, compromise isn't a dirty word, Mr. President.  It's just that Democrats like yourself have refused to offer any plan to compromise with!  You can't compromise when only one side is putting forward a plan, and the other side just tries to demagogue it to win popularity points.


Again, as we are learning that Senator Reid has begun to crack and cave on this whole deal to the determined Republicans, it appears that some of the Democrats are starting to get that they have lost this debate.  But Obama hasn't.  And that explains this other story pretty well:


Rasmussen Reports has issued a report that Obama's approval index is nearly a record low.  The jig is up on Obama.
Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:08 pm   |  Permalink   |  1 Comment  |  Email
Tuesday, July 26 2011

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


John Boehner reportedly told conservative House members before entering negotiations with Senate Democrat leader Harry Reid not to worry, that he would remain firm.  Based on what we have seen from Republicans in the past, you can forgive me for taking that assurance lightly.


Watching Boehner's response to Obama's desperate attempt to use the bully-pulpit to get Americans to rally behind his non-existent plan for dealing with the debt, perhaps Mr. Boehner has earned a bit of confidence from conservatives and common sense Americans.



Boehner may not be the most passionate or inspiring speaker, but his words were peppered with a common sense appeal that Obama's rhetoric was sorely and obviously lacking.  While Obama appeared detached from reality and desperate, Boehner appeared confident and assured that he and House Republicans were acting in the best interest of the American people.


And despite facing the headwinds of an Obama-loving mainstream media, there is good reason for Republicans to feel confident.  Yuval Levin explains why:

As the details of the Boehner bill become clearer, it's increasingly apparent that the bill is just what the moment calls for: significant cuts achieved through statutory sequestration caps, no tax increase, no backsliding on entitlement reform or implicit acceptance of Obamacare, a path to another process that could lead to more cuts without tax increases, and the setting of a precedent that from now on increases in the debt ceiling must be accompanied by proportional spending cuts. It's far from perfect, of course?meaningful entitlement reform is the only way to really address the debt problem, and even short of that some more significant discretionary cuts would be good?but Republicans don't control Washington, and given their limited formal power, an end to this process that looks something like this bill would be pretty remarkable.


Even the Reid bill, though its cuts are less real, would be a better conclusion than has seemed plausible throughout much of this process, and there is nothing particularly important about a "short-term" rather than a "long-term" increase, provided a long-term one maintains the one-for-one ratio of spending cuts to debt-ceiling increase. Something between the two bills, which is now perhaps the most that Democrats can hope for, would be an extraordinary win for Republicans.


But frankly, it's not clear Reid can even get his bill through the Senate. If Boehner can get his through the House, the Senate would have to take up that bill (perhaps with modest amendments) and Republicans would set themselves up for a pretty stunning victory. Either way, if the Boehner bill passes then things will have turned fairly dramatically in favor of the Republicans, and the Democrats will have no one to blame but themselves, and above all the president.

And in the long run, that means an extraordinary win for America.  Frankly, I am seriously becoming a fan of the Boehner plan.  Not because I think it solves the problem, but because it puts the debate center stage for the 2012 presidential campaign.  It puts the debate in front of the eyes and ears of the American people at a time that they are most likely to be paying attention. 


That would be the biggest victory for conservatives yet, and the biggest threat to the disastrous course Obama and the Democrats have determined for our country.


Who knew that we would end up having John Boehner to thank for it?

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:07 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, July 26 2011

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


Bill Maher may be one of the most foul and offensive liberals in the country, but he's also a great weapon for conservatives to use in depicting just how illogical and hypocritical the left is.  And in this last week's edition of Real Time on HBO, Maher didn't disappoint us.


As always, Maher heavily stacked the deck against conservative/libertarian thought.  I am not sure why he thinks this is going to work.  The presence of one conservative on the panel is enough to make Maher and his posse look foolish - see Ann Coulter's spectacular performance last week in the same circumstance.



This week it was Reason TV's Nick Gillespie, a professing libertarian, who appeared.  And when the topic turned to global warming, Maher's hypocrisy got roasted.


After citing an anecdotal piece of evidence about how "shared sacrifice" could save the globe from impending incineration, Gillespie decided to see just how "shared" Maher wanted that "sacrifice."  Like all liberals, Maher is worried just enough about global warming to want you to change your life...but not worried enough to change his:

GILLESPIE: It's always great when somebody else is going to sacrifice because how many cars do you own?


MAHER: I own two.


GILLESPIE: Okay, so would you give up both of them?


MAHER: Both cars?




MAHER: Why would I have to give up both cars?


GILLESPIE: Would you give up your TV show? What's the carbon footprint of this show? Maybe, can the world do without it?

Maher looked like a deer in the headlights.  And Gillespie didn't even bring up Maher's large Los Angeles home.  Can you imagine how large this man's carbon footprint must be when you factor that in, along with the production and powering of a weekly television show?  Sacrifice for thee, but not for me.


And evidently not content to leave his implosion of the Warmer position at the tip of his hypocrisy, Maher actually validated Rush Limbaugh's point this last week about liberals citing the heat index rather than the temperature when talking about this summer's heat wave.


In his monologue, Maher stated:

BILL MAHER: No, I know why you're happy. It's because you're indoors. It's hot outside. Not as hot here as it a lot of places in the country. Do you know that 29 states are under what they call a heat advisory? When I was a kid this used to be called, "Get the f--k inside."


But, I mean, they're triple-digit temperatures. It was 123 in Minnesota. How far is Al Gore going to take this global warming hoax? A hundred?

123 was the heat index recorded this last week in Hutchinson, MN.  But heat index is the temperature, after the impact of humidity.  Seems like that's a fairly significant point, don't you think, Bill?  But I'm sure Rush appreciates the validation.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:06 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Monday, July 25 2011

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


Barack Obama had no record, but got elected riding a wave of media-created, and self-perpetuated fantasy about who he was and what he could and would do.  Needless to say, gazing across the tattered landscape of the once proud American economy, the fantasy has ended with a miserable thud.


As a result, the great Obamessiah is having to settle for the decades-old strategy of Democrats to scare people into voting for them.  No issue is too important not to demagogue.  And that appears to be the one area where this president is actually competent:

At a hastily convened news conference Friday evening, President Obama offered his explanation of why debt negotiations with House Speaker John Boehner fizzled, and he once again raised the specter of entitlement checks not going out if the debt ceiling isn't raised soon.



"Well, when it comes to all the checks, not just Social Security -- veterans, people with disabilities -- about 70 million checks are sent out each month -- if we default then we're going to have to make adjustments.  And I'm already consulting with (Treasury) Secretary (Tim) Geithner in terms of what the consequences would be," Obama said.


"We should not even be in that kind of scenario.  And if Congress -- and in particular, the House Republicans -- are not willing to make sure that we avoid default, then I think it's fair to say that they would have to take responsibility for whatever problems arise in those payments."


In the next breath, Obama said he's "not interested in finger-pointing and I'm not interested in blame, but I just want the facts to speak for themselves."

Nothing new here.  This, after all, is the same guy who wanted the country to focus on the change necessary for tomorrow, while spending his entire campaign and first two years in office focusing on George Bush.  The fact that he says he doesn't want to finger point, while being in the middle of finger-pointing, while hilariously instructive about who this guy is, isn't the real issue.


The real issue is the nonsense about withholding checks when there will be absolutely no reason for doing so.  The government, as we've explained numerous times on the radio show to this point, will have more than enough money, even without a debt ceiling raise, to pay its debt interest (meaning, no default), pay Social Security, Medicare, Veterans and Military obligations.  What we won't be able to pay for is Amtrak and other government programs. 


But notice that our Demagogue-in-Chief doesn't mention that truth.  No, this is classic scare tactics, trying to convince millions of American seniors that they could go belly-up if the evil Republicans get their way.  At least we've put to rest this nonsense about Obama being a "different kind" of politician.someone who transcends our "politics of the past."  What rubbish.  He's the same old, tired partisan hack we've been used to for years, willing to lie, cheat, and scam to get what he wants: more power.


And if you want to see just how pathetic he'll go, check this out:

Obama said he's getting letters from people who tell him they have to skip meals at the end of each month, as well as from senior citizens on Social Security "who are hanging on by a thread.  Folks who have severe disabilities who are desperate every single month to try to figure out how they're going to make ends meet." He also mentioned federal contractors "who have to wonder are they going to be able to get paid and what does that do in terms of their payrolls."


Obama said a "huge" number of people would be affected by a government default: "(I)magine what that does to the economy, when suddenly 70 million checks are put at risk.  I mean, if you're a business out there, that is not going to be good for economic growth.  And that's the number one concern of the American people."

No, the number one concern of the American people is how to get November 2012 to get here sooner.  Because the American people know by now that is going to be about the only way we start solving our problems.


What this verbal temper tantrum says to me is that if Obama found it politically plausible, don't put it past him to actually choose default and choose to not send out Social Security payments.  If he can blame it on the Republicans and benefit politically, he'll do it...even if that means people really do suffer needlessly.  They aren't what's important to him.  That much is clear.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:08 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Monday, July 25 2011

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


It didn't take the liberal media types too long to peg the evil terrorist who massacred children in Norway as the prototypical "Christian fundamentalist" who was inspired to these acts by his faith.  Too bad Barack and Eric Holder aren't quick to tell everyone how we need to not rush to judgment on this one.  If only the killer's name would have been Muhammed al-Shalaki, and he would have been shouting, "Allahu Akbar" through the midst of the attack.  Then we would have gotten some much needed temperance from these libs.


The Atlantic was one of the first to pounce on the news, titling their report, "The Christian Extremist Suspect in Norway's Massacre."  Rosie O'Donnell (aka, Ms. "Radical Christianity is just as threatening as Radical Islam") must be thrilled.  Of course, the story doesn't actually reveal any evidence that ties the actions of Anders Behring Breivik to any "fundamentalist Christian" doctrine.  Huh...imagine that.



What we do seem to know about Breivik at this point is that he was a Freemason, Rome-leaning, Protestant (by free-will) who self-identified as a conservative and was vehemently anti-Muslim.  How all that conglomerates into being inspired to commit mass murder by a "fundamentalist Christian" faith is not clear.  But I'm guessing, these folks on the left have desperately wanted some story like this to tie to "radical Christians" that they don't even care.


Mollie at the GetReligion blog explained what's happening here very well:

Now it's certainly true that the New York Times printed that a jihad group had claimed responsibility for the attack. An attack that, based on the evidence we have thus far, they didn't actually commit. And certainly some parts of the blogosphere were either too trusting of this report or too eager to believe that this attack fit into the mold of Muslim terrorism as opposed to anti-government terrorism.


But now the media are committing an equal and opposite rush to judgment. It is certainly true that a police chief said that this man was a "Christian fundamentalist." But at this point, I've seen precisely zero evidence that he was one, much less that he has in any way claimed it as a motivation for what he did. Maybe that will happen. Maybe he is right now telling police that his interpretation of a particular book of the Bible means that you shoot up 80-plus kids on an island. I don't know.


Until such time as we learn that, though, this seems more like an attempt to force the shooter's motivation into something equivalent to Islamist terror. Again, maybe it is. Maybe we will discover a trove of writings about how Jesus commands his followers to kill a bunch of kids. I don't know. But we certainly don't have that now.


I think we can safely say, as Mother Jones does, that the shooter was "obsessed with the impact of Islam on Norwegian society." That's precisely what I picked up when I read the many dozens of pages of internet comments.


The media have an unfortunate history of taking people who claim political motivations, be they anti-government Timothy McVeigh or anti-abortion Eric Rudolph, and call them "Christian" terrorists. Even if these same people vehemently deny that their acts had anything to do with their (lack of) religious views.

This is an excellent point.  While the leftist media are quick to act puzzled at the suggestion there is a relationship between Muslim radicals and the Muslim faith, despite the fact that the perpetrator shouts "god (Allah) is great" while committing the atrocity, they are giddy at suggesting a relationship between anti-government or politically motivated radicals and the fact that 50 years earlier they competed in a Bible Bowl competition.


Why the difference?  And furthermore, this notion of "Christian fundamentalist" terror can be obliterated by simply asking a question: what part of Jesus' fundamental teachings even comes close to encouraging this kind of slaughter?  Try to find one.  It's impossible.  And that tells us all we need to know about what was NOT the cause of this horrific attack in Norway.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:07 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Monday, July 25 2011

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


I know it gets frustrating.  It really does.  As a conservative, you sit there and argue, and reason, and think, and explain, and re-explain, and yet the liberal you have engaged just seems immune to any rational thought whatsoever.


We've all been there.  It doesn't matter if you take them by the hand and show them around an Indian reservation - the best depiction of a totally government planned and operated community, completely devoid of any individual liberty and autonomy.  They still will favor more government planning, less freedom in public policy.



It doesn't matter if you show them examples of polygamists using the exact same arguments that the homosexual crowd has been using to gain cultural acceptance of their behavior.  Liberals will still tell you that it's just speculation and slippery slope conjecture.


It doesn't matter if you show them how every time we have seriously reduced the American tax burden across the board, the American economy has roared to life.  Liberals will keep telling you that economic strength lies in targeted heavy taxes on the rich and redistributive programs.


It doesn't matter if you point to, personally endorse, champion, and put up posters in your house of great thinkers like Allen West, Star Parker, Herman Cain, Alan Keyes, Thomas Sowell or Walter Williams.  Liberals will still tell you that you're obviously racist - and then will attempt to tell you that those black people you love aren't really black because they don't believe things liberals believe (WHO is the racist?).


The same thing can be said about global warming, domestic oil exploration, Social Security, Medicare, national defense...every issue there is.  The evidence simply doesn't matter.


This straightforward video explains why.  Watch it.  It's 120 seconds long.  Liberals don't care about whether policies work.  They care only that supporting a certain policy makes them feel good.  Global Warming is a perfect example.  They know that human carbon emission is a miniscule amount, and so even if we all became pioneers, the impact it would have on the environment would be nil.  It doesn't matter to them.  They support Global Warming policies because it makes them feel better.


And I would add one more point to this video.  It makes them feel better, sure.  But it also gives them more control.  It's where several neo-Marxists use liberalism to advance their cause under the guise of compassion.  Liberals may be maddening, but they're not difficult to understand.

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

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee:

"I am particularly sensitive to the fact that only this president, only this president, only this one has received the kind attacks and disagreements and inability to work. Only this one. Read between the lines. What is different about this president that should put him in a position that he should not receive the same kind of respectful treatment of when it is necessary to raise the debt limit in order to pay our bills, something required by both statute and the 14th amendment?"


A national, public debate on America's fiscal crisis is... well... it can only be racist. Of course! That's the ticket!

"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can't pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies...Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that 'the buck stops here'. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."

Now there's a load of some serious "debt ceiling" abuse some racist is giving the president!


The origin? Why, none other than Sen. Barack Hussein Obama dishing it out to the president (hint: the Obamasiah has not been a Senator and President simultaneously).


Which is the real Lib-Quote of the week? I'll leave that for you to decide.

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 08:00 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Sunday, July 24 2011

Unemployment notching up to 9.2%.


Spending in excess of $1.2 trillion over revenue.


Businesses hamstrung over increased regulation and uncertain tax law changes.


Costly Obamacare implementation, with additional fees and taxes, scheduled in the next few months.


The housing market still in a shambles with foreclosure overhead still sitting off the market.



Major financial institutions - the ones "too big to fail," remember - reporting significant earnings as they plow their taxpayer bailout money into investments and speculations.


American taxpayers having the privilege of accepting a buyout of Chrysler at a $1.3 billion loss.


The American government approaching a crisis - according to the administration - as the debt ceiling limit is reached.


All this and more is causing liberals to be incensed. Why?

"Obama's approval rating among liberals has dropped to the lowest point in his presidency, and roughly one in four Americans who disapprove of him say they feel that way because he has not been liberal enough, a new high for that measure," CNN Polling Director Keating Holland said.

You have read it right... President Obama is not liberal enough!


Liberalism has not wrecked this once great nation completely yet, so liberals are angered. Here is what passes for their solution from their leadership:

"The debt ceiling issue must be resolved without devastating cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, which help millions of American families every day, including millions of Latino seniors and children," said Congressional Hispanic Caucus Chairman Charles Gonzalez. "It's time to find a balanced plan to grow the economy, create jobs, lower the deficit, protect Social Security and Medicare benefits and avoid an unprecedented default crisis."

There already exists a wonderful, tried and true "balanced plan" out there. It is called the American free market. This powerful engine creates jobs (actually, it creates productive entrepreneurialism that results in job growth), lowers the deficit, avoids default, protects the Social Security and Medicare promises we have already been forced to fund, and grows a remarkable economy.


Never forget what the complete liberal economic picture looks like:


Bankrupt entire industries like coal.


Create so-called "alternative" and "sustainable" energies like ethanol that increases the demand for corn and takes more energy to produce than it provides.


Raise taxes on successful, productive individuals and corporations.


Shift the consequences of irresponsible lifestyles onto the backs of Americans who live frugally and responsibly.


They are certainly right: President Obama has not been liberal enough. Why? Because Americans are awakening to the reality of liberalism's devastating cost and are saying they will not stand for it. When liberals are forced to expose what liberalism is and what it does, it fails every time.


Mr. Obama is not liberal enough, and we have Americans to thank for that.

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 07:38 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Sunday, July 24 2011

"I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing." - John 15:5

As America's space shuttle program ended this week, I have been thinking about America's space exploration program. I am one of those many Americans alive when it began. I was a bit young to fully appreciate the wonder and magnificence of it all. I was 6 years old when the Soviets achieved the first manned orbit. Throughout America's great achievements, I was usually annoyed with the television programming interruptions that would report live a new space event. But then, that's an illustration of the difference between immaturity and maturity. When we remain immature, we fail to recognize the difference between the trivial and the significant.



Looking back, however, I am in awe of not only the technological accomplishments of the "Space Race," and the courage and sacrifices of those who made them happen, but I remain in awe of the steadfast faith shared by those involved in the space program. In spite of evangelical atheists, like the late Carl Sagan, who pounded their pulpits with the message that science and Christianity were incompatible and completely at odds, our astronauts testified to a different story altogether.


During the Apollo 8 mission, the first mission to circle the moon, crewmembers Frank Borman, James Lovell, and William Anders read the creation account from the book of Genesis to an international audience. The second man to step foot on the moon, Buzz Aldrin, brought with him on the mission a small communion set given him by his church. Following the first lunar landing on July 20, 1969, he radioed, "Houston, this is Eagle. I would like to request a few moments of silence. I would like to invite each person listening in. to contemplate for a moment the events of the last few hours, and to give thanks in his own individual way." During the radio silence, Aldrin took the communion elements and read (not over the air because of atheists' legal challenges following the Apollo 8 mission) John 15:5.


Prior to the Apollo lunar mission program, Colonel John Glenn became the first American to orbit Earth. Fulfilling America's political and scientific hopes and dreams as declared by President John F. Kennedy, Colonel Glenn returned to Earth as virtually every American's hero. At the age of 77, he entered space once again as a member of the crew aboard the space shuttle Discovery. Looking out the shuttle windows and observing the heavens and the Earth, he said, "To look out at this kind of creation out here and not believe in God is to me impossible. It just strengthens my faith. I wish there were words to describe what it's like."


Creator God, while we contemplate in wonder and amazement the works of Your hands, let us stand in even greater awe that the Creator of the universe cares for us so much that You came to save us. As Your branches, let us humbly draw life from You and bloom in accordance with Your will. Not only have You led men into space and sustained them there, You draw us into Your loving service here on the planet that You created for life. Thank You for Your blessings in times of plenty and in times of need. In the name of Christ our Lord we pray. Amen.

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

A good friend sent me a video the other day from a WSB-TV investigative report.


I hope you take the time to view the video; it's only about 3 minutes.


In a nutshell, WSB-TV of Atlanta, Georgia, exposes a multi-million dollar taxpayer funded - yes, American taxpayer - initiative to repair and upkeep Islamic Mosques overseas. In addition to making over mosques using American taxpayer dollars, some Imams (Islamic religious leaders) are provided computer equipment and internet access from funding provided by our State Department.



Meanwhile, back in the land of the free and the home of the brave, our political leadership blabs on endlessly about how Social Security and infrastructure and police forces and fire protection will crumble if we dare cut federal spending a dime. They tell us nothing about the taxpayer's money they use to fund America's enemies like there's no tomorrow.


Certainly even those from the left who peruse Liberty Tree will agree that this is a wasteful, abusive use of American tax dollars. If you disagree, I would love to hear your thoughts on this one. I naturally assume that those from the conservative side of the tracks think that this is a horrible waste, but if you think otherwise, I'd love to hear your reasoning, too. It just seems to me that we would have an ideological bipartisan agreement on this one.


If you think that there are better ways to spend our tax dollars, consider contacting your Congressional leaders. Here is the text I used; feel free to use and/or edit as you wish.


Dear Sen. / Rep. <insert name here>,


I was recently sent a video of an investigative news report from WSB TV, Atlanta, that revealed the spending of millions of American taxpayer dollars by our State Department toward the repair and rehabilitation of Islamic mosques overseas. The report went on to reveal additional spending in some areas toward internet and computer equipment for Imams. Here is the link for this report:


This is a criminally wasteful abuse of taxpayer funds at any time, but especially now as Americans face unprecedented levels of deficit spending and resultant debt which puts our entire way of life in danger.


I would appreciate it if my Congressmen in both Houses would expose these kinds of spending abuse and then take actionable steps to stop them. Putting an end to wasteful and fraudulent use of our tax dollars such as this may not completely solve America's fiscal crisis, but it at least makes more sense to eliminate these kinds of budget items before putting Social security, military and veterans' budgets, infrastructure, border security, and other vital needs on the fiscal chopping block.




Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 06:00 am   |  Permalink   |  1 Comment  |  Email
Saturday, July 23 2011

I was reflecting today upon the news of the space shuttle Atlantis return to earth that perhaps it is completely appropriate that the end of the era of American space exploration has occurred with a Democrat in the White House. After all, American dominance in space exploration was kicked off by a Democrat in the White House:

President Kennedy told cheering Texans Wednesday at this new center of manned space flight that the united States gladly accepts the challenge of sending man to the Moon and "We intend to win." Before a sun-drenched crowd of 50,000 in the Rice University football stadium, Kennedy said the nation's hopes for peace and security rest on its gaining world leadership in space. He clearly emphasized his determination to press the U.S. space program until it can reach the Moon with a rocket.


"We choose to go to the Moon in this decade, not because that will be easy, but because it will be hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one we intend to win," Kennedy said.


One Democrat presided over a nation he sought to motivate to great achievement and the shining glory of American exceptionalism (a term derided and despised by those on the left today).


One Democrat presides over a nation that he seeks to drive into the ditch of mediocrity and irrelevance.


Interestingly, the British Daily Telegraph's Deputy Editor, Benedict Brogan, sees this more plainly than our own fearless leaders:

The moment the wheels of Atlantis touched the ground earlier, it ended and our ambitions suddenly look earth-bound. It's also a moment freighted with symbolism for America and its sense of self. You don't have to read The Right Stuff to know that the manned space flight programme was a way for the US to assert its confidence and demonstrate its will to do anything required to be number one. In those days it was about beating the Soviets, and so those pressures don't exist now in the same way. But with the idea of American exceptionalism under review and the US losing its mojo, we should not underestimate the capacity for this moment to be a blow to American morale.

Yes, it is completely appropriate that this has taken place with a Democrat in the White House.

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 11:06 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Saturday, July 23 2011

Congratulations, fellow taxpaying American citizens! We have just had the privilege of selling off our government investment in Chrysler. Remember? That investment that was forced upon Americans who did not think that this was a good investment (if they did, then Chrysler could have gotten private funding galore) by our federal government who believes that the American auto industry needs to be ravaged by outrageous mileage efficiency standards.



Yes, congratulations, because our investment was just ended with a $1.3 billion loss!

The U.S government has sold its shares in Chrysler LLC at a likely loss of $1.3 billion in taxpayer money, the Treasury Department said Thursday, announcing the end of a controversial investment that resurrected the troubled auto company.


Italian automaker Fiat SpA, which has run the company since it emerged from bankruptcy protection in June 2009, purchased the U.S. government's remaining 98,000 shares in the auto company for $560 million.

Yep, our financial-genius-in-chief and his economic policy wizards have really given us something to cheer about.


In the world of financial investments, risk and losses are inevitable. But they can be managed.


However, they cannot be managed when the investment choice presented is theft and extortion. You take your losses or the broken legs. It's that simple.


"With today's closing, the U.S. government has exited its investment in Chrysler at least six years earlier than expected," said Tim Massad, assistant secretary for financial stability.


"This is a major accomplishment and further evidence of the success of the administration's actions to assist the U.S. auto industry, which helped save a million jobs during the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression."


Losing more than a billion dollars of taxpayer money is "a major accomplishment?" Let's see... Italian automaker Fiat gets to buy up remaining Chrysler shares from the government at a discount (let us note that Chrysler is not an American auto company anymore); Chrysler executives no doubt received bonuses for the turnaround; union executives get to bask in the glory of their power; and a few Americans get to keep a few jobs out of the generosity - coerced though it was - and expense of their neighbors.


And the American taxpayer gets a one point three billion dollar money pit! Makes you want to write to your Congressperson to see if the government would take over your retirement plan, too, doesn't it?

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 07:05 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Saturday, July 23 2011

As the temperatures rise in this summer (yes, summer) heat wave, so does the warmers' rhetoric. Indeed, the venerable British Broadcasting Corporation - the good ol' BBC - is so convinced by the summer (yes, summer) heat wave that they now choose to limit broadcast time for global warming skeptics.

Because BBC believes skeptics' views "differ from mainline scientific opinion," the network plans to reduce airtime to the "minority" views. The Global Warming Policy Foundation, a think tank that serves to challenge the costly environmental policies countering a possibly fabricated problem, describes the attack on skeptics as "using the 'science-is-settled' mantra as a smokescreen to silence critics of climate taxes and green policies." Coming from a government-funded network, the political agenda the network is trying to push should be making the same headlines the News of the World scandal has created.


Can't you just feel the journalistic excellence oozing out of every BBC pore?


As surprising as this may sound, I want to give the warmers a helping hand here. Warmers the world over - well, at least the northern hemisphere part of the world right now - have been given a fantastic opportunity to make a difference to the environment about which they express so much concern.


Here's your chance, liberals in general and warmers in particular: shut off your air conditioning.


Yes! Shut it down entirely. After all, electric power grids are struggling to keep up with demand, and your heroic efforts will ease the strain on those grids and reduce the amount of carbon dioxide emissions created to produce those little electrons we excite with the flick of a switch.  In fact, just shut down your entire piece of the electric power grid altogether to really convince us of your earnestness. If our grand president here in America hadn't gotten so distracted by other trivial matters, he would have had time to bankrupt the coal industry by now, resulting in no power anyway except for the necessary elite.


So show your stuff, warmers. Give us a glimpse of the life you propose to impose on everyone. Lead by example instead of by judicial law. Doing anything less might be considered hypocritical and, just maybe, a lot of hot air.

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 06:00 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Saturday, July 23 2011

As you know, AFA of Indiana was not a supporter of the Indy Pride homosexual parade and festival on the streets of Indianapolis last month. We had serious concerns about an event in which homosexuality was celebrated and all sort of lewd behaviors were on display at booths and on the streets of our state capitol.

Unfortunately, many mainstream businesses were supporters and sponsors of this controversial event. You can see the list of sponsors and vendors who gave money to Indy Pride at these two links:

One of the supporters of this hedonistic and vile event was our bank, Fifth Third. (PNC Bank was also a sponsor.) Last week, I sent the following letter to the corporate executives of Fifth Third letting them know that after more than ten years we would be changing banks. Since many of you have expressed shock at the behavior of this event and disppontment with various companies supporting it, I thought that you might find our letter of interest.

July 14, 2011

Dear Mr.Kabat,

I want to take this opportunity to thank Fifth Third Bank for your sponsorship of the recent tobacco festival in Indianapolis, IN. As you know tobacco smokers make up 21.3% of the US population, yet smokers are routinely discriminated against by society. Smokers have existed in all cultures and countries for centuries, yet each year we see their freedom to express themselves restricted due to the intolerance of others. I appreciate that Fifth Third's dedication to diversity includes those who smoke.

I am sure that you are now wondering what this letter is about since Fifth Third has not sponsored any event promoting tobacco use. No responsible corporation today would want to contribute to a behavior that cuts the lives of others short through higher risks of cancer, emphysema, heart attack and other health risks.

As a customer of Fifth Third for over a decade I know that you would not embrace such irresponsible corporate community action as a tobacco festival. This is why I was so very disappointed to learn that Fifth Third was a sponsor of a similarly risky and controversial event on June 11th known as the Indy Pride festival on the streets of Indianapolis. (See attached pictures for actual examples from the Indy Pride parade.)

Much like smokers, those who engage in homosexual behaviors also place themselves at enormous risks. The Centers for Disease Control recently noted that although they represent just 2% of the population, "63% of the reported primary and secondary syphilis cases are among men who have sex with men." ( The CDC has also noted that "Men who have sex with men are 17 times more likely to develop anal cancer than heterosexual men." (

The Centers for Disease Control also notes that homosexuals still account for 57% of all new HIV infections. In fact, the same CDC fact sheet on HIV ( notes that homosexuals are "up to 86 times more likely to be diagnosed with HIV as heterosexuals. The American Journal of Epidemiology has concluded that a 20-year-old man engaging in homosexual behavior has a 50% likelihood of having AIDS or HIV by the age of 55. A 2002 CDC report found that three-quarters of the homosexual men studied were unaware that they were HIV positive.

Among women, the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association reports "lesbians have the richest concentration of risk factors for breast cancer than any [other] subset of women in the world." Numerous studies have found that women engaging in homosexual behavior have significantly higher risks of psychological disorders, domestic violence, binge drinking, drug abuse tobacco use, certain STD's, and obesity than heterosexual women.

I understand that in this age of moral relativism it is not popular to discern the moral ramifications of homosexuality or to question the political agenda of homosexual activists. Homosexuals have the freedom to live as they choose, but they do not have a right to the dollars generated from Fifth Third's customers.

I think that by any objective measure of common sense, Fifth Third should be more cautious concerning with whom the bank aligns and supports. For example, included among the vendors, participants and sponsors of Indy Pride are some highly controversial entities. They include:

- The Great Lakes Leather Bondage and S&M society;
- Several adult businesses, (with adult only web sites) selling pornography, sexual items and devices;
- A vendor calling for the legalization of drugs;
- The Indiana Socialist Party;
- The Kinsey Institute (Doing a study of homosexuals and alcohol abuse);
- Numerous cross-dressing or transvestite advocacy groups;
- Groups that promote bigotry against Christians and Catholics;
- Dozens of homosexual marriage and political advocacy groups;
- Various homosexual nightclubs, bars and gyms;
- Abortion advocates including Planned Parenthood of Indiana.

It is our understanding that Fifth Third Bank has been a vender and a sponsor at other homosexual pride events in Columbus and Cincinnati, Ohio with similar themes, risky sexual messages, and controversial political agendas. For this reason, AFA of Indiana will be closing our account with Fifth Third Bank in Indianapolis and urging our supporters in Indiana with 5/3rd accounts to do the same.

There is a difference between supporting diversity of opinion and celebrating perversity of behavior.  There is a difference between responsible social action and undermining the values that uphold a strong society, healthy families and our core institutions.   I would encourage you to review the "diversity" policies of Fifth Third Bank and to be more discerning in the agendas, values and behaviors that the bank embraces with its sponsorships and social spending.

Micah Clark
Executive Director

Posted by: Micah Clark AT 06:00 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, July 22 2011

A Memphis, TN man was convicted this week to serve more than 15 years in a federal prison after pleading guilty to a sex crime. Michael Chest has been sentenced for coercing a 15-year-old girl from Marion, Indiana into a relationship with him. This led the couple to Memphis where the 33-year-old Chest forced the Indiana girl into prostitution. The girl was finally able to get away risking physical violence from Chest to make a call from a bus station to her mother last fall, who called the authorities.

Unfortunately, this is not that unusual of a situation in our sex-saturated society. It is estimated that somewhere between 100,000 and 300,000 youths are sexually exploited and trafficked for profits in the United States every year. (More than 300,000 cases of female sex trafficking have been reported in the US.)

Human trafficking is a horrific worldwide problem that includes slave and child labor as well as sex trafficking. The United Nations reports that 2 million children are currently prostituted in the commercial sex trade. Millions more children (and adults) are in forced labor or forced military situations. Here is how the web site, describes sex trafficking:

Sex trafficking is the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, or obtaining of a person for the purpose of a commercial sex act which involves force, fraud, or coercion, or in which the person involved has not attained 18 years of age. The specific forms of exploitative activity from which sex trafficking generates enormous profits are the prostitution of women and children and the filming of those acts of prostitution ? i.e. pornography. This modern form of involuntary servitude involves the use of force, fraud, or coercion to compel a person to perform a commercial sex act ? a sex act for which anything of value is exchanged. There are strong links between pornography and sex trafficking.

(The site, quotes a study of 854 women in prostitution finding that half (49%) reported having pornography made of them while they were in prostitution. Viewers have no way of distinguishing between voluntary adult film actors and prostitutes or trafficking victims.)

Governments, law enforcement and numerous private groups are working to combat the problem of human trafficking, and to raise awareness of this modern slave trade. However, it appears that such efforts are still lagging behind the evil demand for this ghastly crime.

There are several good resources on the issue of human trafficking. One starting place is through the Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families division found here:

To report information about a potential human trafficking situation you can call the National Human Trafficking Resource Center (NHTRC) Hotline at 1-888-373-7888.

Posted by: Micah Clark AT 05:06 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, July 22 2011

Pinch me to see if I'm dreaming. The left still detests evangelical Christians don't they? OK, that's what I thought. Imagine my disbelief when this article popped up on the screen:

In what seemed more like a Sunday church service than a Capitol Hill press conference, Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y., called out for his fellow lawmakers and all Americans to do "the Lord's work" as a solution to fixing the debt ceiling.


"These are not political questions," Rangel asserted. "These are moral questions."


The raspy-voiced congressman urged spiritual leaders to highlight the role federal programs including Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security play in protecting the vulnerable, sick and poor despite Washington's concern about the $14.3 trillion deficit.



While lawmakers from both parties are asking what President Obama is going to do about the debt ceiling, Rangel continues to ask, "what would Jesus do?"

It's not that difficult a question to answer. Observe pretty much anything a liberal Congressperson does and do the opposite. That's what Jesus would do.


Jesus would not go into debt, and He certainly would not extort His beloved countrymen into trillions of dollars of debt using government power. Jesus would insist that His fellow citizens "love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind." Jesus would tell us not to commit adultery and any other sexual sin. Jesus would tell us to fast (abstain from eating for specified periods of time) and pray. Jesus would tell us that He is "the way and the truth and the life," and that those who love Him will obey what He commands. Jesus would tell us that He was crucified to death for our sin, buried, and returned to life in a demonstration of the absolute power that breaks the bondage of sin and death.


I'm not quite certain that you think Jesus would do, Mr. Rangel, because you do not appear to know much of what He taught and did. Nevertheless, what Jesus would do is not difficult to figure out at all, since He makes it plain enough in His Word.


What Jesus would have us do is to love the Lord our God and our neighbor. That's called responsibility, Mr. Rangel, a commodity that is sadly lacking among those living in the land of left-believe.

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 03:48 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, July 22 2011

I want to thank all those who visited the AFA of Indiana web site in the last week. Although not a scientific survey of Hoosier attitudes, over 840 people visited our site to vote on whom they would like to win Indiana's US Senate race next year.  

Nearly 8 out of 10 wanted someone other than Senator Lugar. The poll found that 76% chose State Treasurer Richard Mourdock; 22% chose Sen. Richard Lugar and 2% chose Rep. Joe Donnelly (D).

Posted by: Micah Clark AT 03:43 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, July 22 2011

There are always a series of news stories that appear around the filing dates for campaign finance reporting deadlines. These stories and reports generate a lot of conversation among political junkies. I've had several of these conversations with my peers and various candidates' because it can be an indication of certain candidate's political strength. We have talked about the massive war chest of Senator Lugar and the strong showing from the Pence for Governor campaign, which raised $1.6 million in just 60 days. Yet, for most of the general public properly going about their daily lives, these reports likely mean very little. The public is probably right too, since today's dollars are different than next year's votes.

One tidbit that is interesting is the amount of money that President Barack Obama has raised from Hoosiers, for his 2012 re-election. Keeping in mind that donations under $200 do not need to be reported, the President has raised a reportable $154,196 from Hoosier donors. This is not an enormous amount. Former State Rep. Jackie Walorski raised over $229,000 for her 2nd District Congressional race. What is interesting about the Obama for President figure is that it exceeds the amount raised in Indiana for all the Republican presidential hopefuls combined. In 2008 Senator Obama raised $4.35 million from Hoosiers, more than twice the amount that Sen. John McCain raised here.

By the way, some people believe that Indiana is not in contention in 2012. Obama narrowly won Indiana with 49.9% of the vote in 2008. Indiana had not gone for a Democrat presidential candidate in 44 years. However, President Obama has already reported raising $46 million, compared to Mitt Romney, his closest financial competitor on the GOP side, who raised $18.3 million in the same reporting period. Many are predicting that President Obama will raise a jaw-dropping $1 Billion to get re-elected. It seems as though, if the President needs our electoral votes to win re-election, he will certainly have the financial ability to wage a strong political campaign again in Indiana next fall.

Posted by: Micah Clark AT 10:37 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, July 22 2011

Remember when the ever brilliant Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), then Speaker of the House, proudly told Americans that "we have to pass the [healthcare] bill so that you can find out what is in it"?



Americans are certainly finding out what is in this monstrosity legislation known as Obamacare:

Tucked away in the President's health care law that passed in 2010 is a 2.3-percent excise tax on medical devices. This tax, set to take effect in 2013, was included to help pay for the new health care law. Singling out medical device makers to pay for the President's government-run health care law and will punish our state. One Indiana manufacturer, Cook Medical of Bloomington, estimates that the tax will cost the company $15 million to $20 million per year.

So let me get this completely straight: liberals at all levels of federal government tell us that they must rescue us from runaway healthcare costs that keep a growing number of Americans from obtaining needed healthcare so they pass a monolithic bill includes taxes and fees which inevitably raise healthcare costs.


We are quite clearly "finding out" what is in the healthcare bill.


"Hi! I'm from the government, and I'm here to help you."

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 09:02 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, July 21 2011

"World" magazine recently reported (subscription required for complete online access) that the legalization of same-sex in New York threatens the rights of those who oppose it:

For the estimated 42,600 same-sex couples in New York, the new law brings changes to their state taxes and healthcare benefits, as well as their access to adoption and inheritance laws. But what will it mean for churches and ministries in the state, or for Christian professionals and business owners who may not be comfortable offering their services to same-sex couples for moral and religious reasons?

The article reveals that provisions to protect churches, parachurch ministries, religious nonprofits, clergy, and employees were written into the bill. It also notes that none of these provisions protect the religious liberties and rights of individual professionals and business owners who wish to decline to offer their services to homosexual couples.


Even those beneath the "religious umbrella" may be less protected that they would like to believe. In spite of the conscience provision, there are "huge gaping holes" in the language of the law... Gay couples will take offense if they are not offered the same services traditional couples receive, and the same well-funded activists who pushed the same-sex marriage bill into law will continue to make their case in the courts and in the statehouses.

It naturally follows that the religious provision "compromises" were accepted by the sexual anarchists because they have every intent to overthrow them in time. The immediate necessity was to have a homosexual marriage bill they could operate from, and they obtained that. Compromise tends to work for the immoralists.


I have a couple of ideas for the evangelical Christian response. First, recognize that there will be honest, hard-working Christians and their businesses harassed by intolerant homosexual activists. We should recognize the pressures they face and support them. When they face charges and penalties for "civil rights" infractions, we should do everything in our reasonable power to support their businesses. I know that not every Christian can support every Christian business, but we should educate ourselves on which businesses uphold Christian beliefs and seek to honor as many with our business as we can. At the same time, we should avoid doing business as much as possible with those who advocate in favor of the homosexual agenda. It may not be possible to avoid every one, but that doesn't mean that we must capitulate entirely.


Second, a logical conclusion of the homosexual activist anti-Christian agenda is that evangelical, born-again Christians will face jail or prison sentences. If this is the case, we should strive to swell what we are told are already bloated prison populations. Since liberals fear evangelical Christians more than drug users, drug pushers, rapists, armed robbers, and murderers, they will make room for their newest detainees by releasing these other criminals. Let those living in the land of left-believe figure out how to coexist with their new neighbors and deal with the consequences of their actions.


In the meantime, prisons filled with evangelical, born-again Christians will become the safest places in the world.

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 05:09 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, July 21 2011

Computers and the Internet have changed the face of the world in very short order. They have impacted how we communicate, shop, work and entertain ourselves, just to name a few areas. There are a lot of good things about this innovative revolution. Technology is a morally neutral item itself. It can be used for great good in areas such as public safety, information access, business production and speedy communication or it can be a great evil in the hands of hackers and pornographers.

Has this impacted the backbone of our society? The answer seems to be yes when it comes to "social networking," but it's not often a positive impact. A recent study from Loyola University indicates that Facebook is now cited as playing a role in 20% of all divorces. That number may actually be low. The same study found that Facebook is the number one destination source for online evidence in divorce matters and, in 50% of divorces, it is the primary evidence source.

In another study by the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, divorce lawyers believed that about 80% of those in a divorce situation are using Facebook or some kind of social networking to communicate with affairs. Two-thirds of attorneys in this survey said that Facebook was the "primary source" of evidence.

Those statistics represent not just evidence of infidelity with an old boyfriend or girlfriend, but other legal battles involving child custody and the misbehavior of a parent evidenced by a photo snapped at a party, for example, which winds up on Facebook. Divorce is usually but one short step in a long battle. It legally ends a marriage, but seldom brings an end to the conflict between parents.

In January, online analysts with Neilson Ratings found that 135 million Americans used Facebook that month, accounting for nearly 70% of the country's Internet users. The average time an Internet user spends on Facebook is seven hours a month. This is far longer than less than 30 minutes that the average monthly user will spend on Amazon, for example. (This is why AFA of Indiana and I each have a fairly active Facebook page, and it is why we are looking at the ability for you to share these emails on that site.)

I'd like to see a study of relationships that begin on Facebook and check those failure rates when reality sets in and life is no longer the same as it was when the newly reunited Facebook couple were in high school or college. (Guess what? There probably was a reason why you were not a couple then, or why it didn't work out, which you have both forgotten all these years later. The greener grass notion is almost always a myth.)

America's divorce rate has not increased with the advent of Facebook and social networking, (it remains at a consistently high rate) but there's no denial that as communication changes, Facebook plays a role now in starting and ending relationships. It is a warning to users to be very careful about the dangers social networking, which is a world full of fantasy in which people can appear however they wish regardless of the realities of life. It is a reminder to always protect and invest in your marriage, and to limit your time in the world brought to you on a wire, a modem and a telephone jack.

Posted by: Micah Clark AT 05:06 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, July 21 2011

During the health care debate last year there were concerns raised by many people in regard to the political agenda of various seniors groups, most notably the AARP (American Association of Retired People).

There are alternative organizations which are not associated with the liberal causes that AARP lobbies toward or aligns itself with that have seen a lot of growth since AARP endorsed Obamacare and other causes. Those groups include United Seniors Association, Focus Over 50 and one called United Christian Seniors Association whose web site you may want to check out. United Christian Seniors includes many of the same benefits that AARP offers and they have programs and services for anyone over 50. You can learn more about this group at:

Posted by: Micah Clark AT 04:14 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, July 21 2011

Under Indiana's part-time legislature (which AFA-IN strongly supports over a full-time one) there is not much that happens between May and November in legislative policy. The lone exception is the process of Summer Study Committees. Each year about a dozen of these bi-partisan interim committees are organized. Legislators are assigned to various committees based upon their interests and experience in certain issues. This year those committees include Education, Natural Resources, Economic Development, Employment, Criminal Code, Child Care, Criminal law and Sentencing, State Tax and Financing, Charity Gaming and Insurance.

The purpose of these committees is for further study of issues that came up during the legislative session. The claim is that this allows legislators to look more in depth at issues. However, I guess it depends upon the legislator as to how they use their summer and their elected power.

Recently, Representative Charlie Brown (D-Gary) went after the CEO of Walgreens drug stores in an official letter reprimanding the company. When he was checking out at the cash register, a Walgreens employee offered to up-sell him a candy bar with his purchases. Rep. Brown went off on her and asked why she would offer him something as non-nutritious as candy. She told him that it was store policy to suggestive sell items (as is likely the case for retail stores everywhere.) This apparently irritated the legislator to the point of actually writing the Walgreens CEO.

As reported in the Indianapolis Star, Rep. Brown wrote in his letter, "The interruption of a sales transaction in order to offer a tempting but exceptionally unhealthy candy bar serves only to undermine the difficult task before us in attempting to aid Hoosiers in making better decisions related to their health." "For heaven's sake, why candy? I can only surmise that such items carry a large profit motive."

Oh no . . . it's the evil profit motive again used upon us sheep!

Rep. Brown is an interesting character with whom I agree on very little, including the candy policies at Walgreens. Yet, there was a remarkable report recently finding that adult obesity rates have increased in 16 states last year (including Indiana) with 12 states now reporting at least 30% of their populations as obese.

Indiana's adult obesity rate is 29.1%, an increase of 60% over the last fifteen years. Our childhood obesity rate is 14.6% placing us at #15 for adults and #27 among children in the state rankings. Only one state in the nation, Colorado, has an adult obesity rate of less than 20%, but just barely at 19.8%.

Only one state in the nation, Colorado has an adult obesity rate below 20% ? at 19.8%. Mississippi ignominiously leads the fat pack with a 34.4% rate of obesity. No states showed a decrease since the previous year. Four years ago, according to the report "F for Fat", only one state had an obesity rate over 30%. Twenty years ago, no state had an obesity rate above 15%. Today, two-out-of-three (38 states total) have an adult obesity rate over 25%. According to the report, the state with the lowest adult obesity rate today, would have been the state with the highest rate in 1995.

Rep. Brown may have a point about a lack of nutrition in candy, but I think our health problems go a whole lot farther than the occasional candy bar from Walgreens.

Posted by: Micah Clark AT 10:09 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, July 20 2011

This spring, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America recently posted what they call their service numbers for 2009 on their web site. Some of the numbers are quite revealing by comparison. Although they present themselves as a center for a wide array of women's issues, prenatal care (a big part of many, perhaps most women's lives at some point) is virtually non-existent. Adoption information fares even worse. In fact, 97.6 % of pregnant women going to Planned Parenthood were sold abortion services, compared to only 2.4% of pregnant women who received non-abortion services.

These non-abortive health care services to pregnant women have been declining over the previous three years.

Posted by: Micah Clark AT 05:08 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, July 20 2011

A news report printed today concerning the political battle surrounding the debt limit issue states:

Administration officials, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and others say the result [failure to resolve the debt limit] could be a default that inflicts serious harm on the economy.

No kidding! Sadly, what these money geniuses fail to divulge is that serious harm has already been inflicted on our economy as they keep racing to fund increased spending on borrowed dollars.


Political and media hyperbole and hubris have convinced too many Americans that the only reason that more spending cannot be propped up by more borrowing is that the government is not taking enough away yet from those who do generate income. Thanks to all this harmful spin, a civil war has erupted in which one segment of Americans are motivated by vote-buying politicians to become envious and bitter toward "the wealthy" instead of collaborating to actually solve the economic concerns facing us.


At this rate, we can expect a hard landing. I call it a crash.

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 05:05 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, July 20 2011

Signs of significant economic challenges continue to appear. Yesterday, tech bellwether Cisco announced plans to cut about 6,500 jobs in efforts to lower costs. Bookstore operator Borders Group declared that it has no choice but to liquidate and close 399 stores after failing to find a buyer. Borders was the second largest U.S. bookstore operator.



A little bit of good news was injected into the economic mix yesterday: IBM reported net income of $3.00 per share, an increase of nearly 15%. In spite of this better news, analysts had expected IBM to report earnings of $3.02 per share.


These are major corporations that are indicating continuing trouble in this post-recession economy. It will be interesting to see what develops as we proceed into this session of quarterly earnings reports. Perhaps these early reports will turn out to be anomalies, but I do not see how workforce reductions will be helping last year's "summer of recovery" anytime soon.

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 05:00 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, July 19 2011

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


The media has been going after Michele Bachmann pretty fiercely recently because she's a Christian.  That is, she apparently believes that people who engage in homosexuality are sinning, and that a person can find freedom and deliverance from sin.  This pretty mainstream Christian thought has been played up by the media elites as outrageous and scandalous, while most of us believers sit around and look at each other saying, "Uh...really?"  That's kinda been the whole basis of Christianity for the last 2000 years, after all.


Nonetheless, there was an extra sprinkling of stupidity offered on the subject by former Clinton aide-turned-CNN analyst Paul Begala the other night on Anderson Cooper's program.  After referring to this "theory" that people can change their behavior from sinning to not sinning as "crackpot" NINE TIMES, Begala concluded it was time for a Christian witch hunt:


BEGALA: She should be asked about this theory. She's a candidate for president. One out of 10 Americans is gay. She should be asked if she wants to lead a country where at least 10 percent of us are gay or lesbian, does she believe in this crackpot, bigoted theory that somehow there's something to be repaired in our brothers and sisters and sons and daughters who happen to be born gay?

Hey, where are all the "religious test" folks on the left?  You know, the ones that say how no candidate should be forced to answer religious questions when they might reveal to a religious country that the candidate isn't so religious?  Where are they to be consistent here and hammer Begala for suggesting that Bachmann be rejected on the basis of her Christian beliefs?  It's sort of like Chris Matthews wanting to question every Republican candidate as to whether they believe in a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation account.  Selective religious test exemptions, I guess.


But beyond that, I think Bachmann should speak about this.  I think she could do the country a favor by pointing out that her beliefs are directly in line with what Scripture teaches and millions of Americans believe about homosexuality.  I think she should call out media types like Begala and Diane Sawyer for what is clearly a Christophobic attitude that is attempting to demonize mainstream Christian belief in the culture.  Now's the time to have this out.  So I say to Michele, "meet Paul in the town square on this one."


Meanwhile, Begala demonstrates what a shill he is for the political cause of sexual anarchy by throwing out the 10% figure that has been debunked for over a decade.  Even homosexualist publications laugh about how they have been using that figure from the start to "create an impression of numerousness" when in fact the true number isn't anywhere close to that.  Mike Bates explains:

That figure, long used by activists, has been debunked repeatedly over the years.  Obviously, no one can say with certainty what the actual numbers are, but one analysis that gathered data from four recent national and two state-level population-based surveys concluded that about 1.7 percent of the population are lesbian or gay.  Another 1.8 percent of the population identify as bisexual.


The research came last April from the UCLA School of Law's Williams Institute, which defines itself as "a leading think tank dedicated to the field of sexual orientation and gender identity-related law and public policy."  

To be honest, the reason the number is hard to nail down is because people often change their sexual behavior.  Someone who is experimenting with homosexuality today may decide to walk away from the behavior tomorrow.  That should tell us something: homosexuality is what a person does, not who a person is.  But don't expect someone like Begala or anyone in the mainstream press to point that out.  It implodes the cultural revolution the sexual revolutionaries are attempting.


Attempting and securing with the help of anti-Christian talking heads like Begala.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:09 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, July 19 2011

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


Barack Obama looks really bad.  And it doesn't have anything to do with the economy, actually.  It has everything to do with exploiting the death of his own mother for political gain.


And it's not just me that is saying this.  The New York Times' Kevin Sack has commented that this revelation, "reflects badly on Barack Obama and how he misled people in his campaign for Obama-care."

Book Challenges Obama on Mother's Deathbed Fight


During his presidential campaign and subsequent battle over a health care law, Mr. Obama quieted crowds with the story of his mother's fight with her insurer over whether her cancer was a pre-existing condition that disqualified her from coverage.



In offering the story as an argument for ending pre-existing condition exclusions by health insurers, the president left the clear impression that his mother's fight was over health benefits for medical expenses.


But in "A Singular Woman: The Untold Story of Barack Obama's Mother," author Janny Scott quotes from correspondence from the president's mother to assert that the 1995 dispute concerned a Cigna disability insurance policy and that her actual health insurer had apparently reimbursed most of her medical expenses without argument.


Ms. Scott took a leave from her job as a reporter for The New York Times to write the book and has not returned to the staff.


... "We have not reviewed the letters or other material on which the author bases her account," said Nicholas Papas, the (White House) spokesman. "The president has told this story based on his recollection of events that took place more than 15 years ago."


... "As Ms. Scott's account makes clear, the president's mother incurred several hundred dollars in monthly uncovered medical expenses that she was relying on insurance to pay," Mr. Papas said. "She first could not get a response from the insurance company, then was refused coverage. This personal history of the president's speaks powerfully to the impact of pre-existing condition limits on insurance protection from health care costs."


Disability insurance, which primarily replaces wages lost to illness, was never at issue in the legislative debate over the Affordable Care Act.

This is an astounding revelation.  It's not as though Barack Obama would have been unaware of this deception as he was telling it.  In other words, the man who is our president was willing to lie to the American people about the circumstances surrounding his own mom's death just to secure a political victory.  This may not shake the conviction of true ObamaCare supporters that the legislation was still important or needed.  But it should surely startle them into awareness of what kind of a guy we have in the White House.


In terms of political fallout, though it should be immense for an increasingly unpopular president, it will probably be minimal.  Because outside of the few news blogs that have covered this story, it has been surreptitiously smothered and ignored by the mainstream press.


Yes, that's the same mainstream press that blogger Tom Blumer reminds ran wall-to-wall coverage of the Bush Air National Guard myth back in 2004.  Before everyone figured out that Dan Rather and CBS (who broke the "story") had made up phony documents to hurt Bush, the media had a field day talking about how Bush ?misled' people into believing he was an active participant in the Air National Guard.  This fed into the "chickenhawk" meme that the Kerry campaign was trying to create, to juxtapose against the "John Kerry...War Hero" persona they put on.  The difference is that Bush never used his service as a reason to support his policies, so even if the smear had been true, it would still not have been on par with Obama's deception.


But he was Bush.  This is the Obamessiah.  The lack of news coverage for this stunner is appalling and inexcusable, but totally predictable.

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

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


One of the left's most effective political attacks on conservatives is on the issue of "compassion" for the poor.  It's how they continue to convince a duped public into supporting big-government policies.  To not do so would be cold-hearted after all.


Not an election goes by that you don't hear liberals bemoan conservatives wanting to cut off subsistence checks for the impoverished, take food off of kids lunch trays, or slash important food stamp programs that will make elderly people go hungry.  It's where the idea of a "bleeding heart" liberal comes from...this shameless demagoguery of the issue of poverty.



This attack is especially effective on Christians.  Christians understand part of their responsibility, given to them by Jesus, to be caring for the less fortunate.  What they sometimes fail to remember is that Jesus' command was to them personally, not to civil government policy.  Yet, liberals know exactly the right strings to play on the harp, talking about a need to "love thy neighbor" or "do for the least of these."  But, of course, common sense Christians who step back and look at the results of government planned social welfare policies could quickly conclude that embracing another federal government program for the poor is about as far away from "loving" that poor neighbor as you could imagine.  "Doing for the least of these" would actually be keeping the government planners as far away from them as possible.


Go and check out an Indian reservation and consider this is the epitome of a government-planned community.  The government liberals "take care" of the poor Indians there.  Would anyone want to put someone they care about on one of those reservations?  Exactly.


Yet for some reason, conservatives never effectively articulate that point.  Fearful of being seen as uncaring or insensitive, they cower to the liberal's increasing demands for more and more money to be spent on these many-times wasteful policies, that funnel money into large bureaucracies, growing the apparatus and power of government, but do very little to help anyone.


And on top of that, a new study has shed some very interesting light on just who is receiving all of this "love" from their neighbor taxpayers.  Take a look:

For decades, the U.S. Census Bureau has reported that over 30 million Americans were living in "poverty," but the bureau's definition of poverty differs widely from that held by most Americans. In fact, other government surveys show that most of the persons whom the government defines as "in poverty" are not poor in any ordinary sense of the term. The overwhelming majority of the poor have air conditioning, cable TV, and a host of other modern amenities. They are well housed, have an adequate and reasonably steady supply of food, and have met their other basic needs, including medical care. Some poor Americans do experience significant hardships, including temporary food shortages or inadequate housing, but these individuals are a minority within the overall poverty population. Poverty remains an issue of serious social concern, but accurate information about that problem is essential in crafting wise public policy. Exaggeration and misinformation about poverty obscure the nature, extent, and causes of real material deprivation, thereby hampering the development of well-targeted, effective programs to reduce the problem.

This is not to say that dealing with poverty isn't an issue.  It's not even to say that the way we deal with it can't be in some way connected to public policy.  But it is saying that if we're going to deal with it, let's be honest about it...and that means having a serious conversation about who really is in need of assistance.  That conversation will reveal to the American people once for all, that the point of the left's policies of social welfare isn't at all about helping people, but everything about creating dependence and controlling them.

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

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


As I've said many times on the show these last couple weeks, my wife and I are expecting the birth of our second daughter at any time.  I would say that makes me more cognizant and aware of outrages like what supposed, "plays one on TV" conservative David Brooks wrote in a recent column, but the truth is that I'd like to think that whether we were expecting or not, I would be equally infuriated by this stupidity.


This rather simple statement goes so far in explaining the state of our culture today, and how as we drift away from our moral center found in the Natural Law and Natural Lawgiver, we will continue to self-destruct as a culture.



David Brooks' recent piece "Death and Budgets" includes this flabbergasting line:

Life is not just breathing and existing as a self-enclosed skin bag. It's doing the activities with others you were put on earth to do.

Just stop and take that in for a minute.  I mean sure, we could comment on how this is what passes for "conservative thought" at the New York Times.  We could point out how those who continue to use Brooks as a model for who and what conservatives are will be eternally misrepresenting the large portion of Americans who really are conservative and wouldn't touch Brooks' beliefs with a 10 foot pole.  But I don't even want to get bogged down with the political.  Just think about the human side of these remarks, and what it says about Brooks, and the state of our culture that people can actually think this way about life.


Wesley J. Smith comments about it at First Things:

How can anyone in good conscience and with love in their hearts for their fellow man call anyone a mere "self-enclosed bag of skin," as if their lives were no more important than a purse? Awful.  I hope he is merely thoughtless in his choice of words.  But imagine the hurt of being a person with quadriplegia and reading those words.  As my friend Bob Salamanca, who died of ALS, once despairingly said about such advocacy, "They are pushing me out of the bright lit avenues and into the dark alley [of death]."  Moreover, we aren't what we can do, but who we are.


Brooks segues from disparaging people living with serious disabilities and long term morbidity into the promotion of what could be called a moral duty to die for those whose care costs a lot of money.

This is the reality that is coming to our culture as we continue to depart from our Judeo-Christian roots and embrace the philosophy of the socialist left.  They teach that life is nothing but a product...a mere machine part.  Everyone has their particular function in the great collective engine.  Life is valuable because of what it does: serving the collective.  Of course, stop and think this through: what happens to an engine part when it breaks?  Does it have any value left?  No.  It is taken to the mechanic (doctor) and if it can't be fixed, it is thrown away.


Thanks to the lies of the liberal left, our culture is starting to treat human life that way.  If it doesn't serve us, if it is a burden, if it doesn't have the means to pay for its care, we justify discarding it and casting it aside with the trash.  After all, it's just a self-enclosed skin bag.


Actually, no David.  You're wrong.  It's a human being made in the image of God.  That alone is what makes life valuable.  That alone is why it should be protected and revered.  That alone is what sets it above all other rights, all other beings, all other interests.  It's life.  The lies of the left aren't just crippling us as a society.  They are literally killing us.

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

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


Hanoi Jane isn't happy.  It seems her promotional appearance on QVC was cancelled due to "scheduling changes" according to the network, but according to the actress, due to political pressure from folks who don't like her.


See Jane's fury:

I was to have been on QVC today to introduce my book, "Prime Time," about aging and the life cycle. The network said they got a lot of calls yesterday criticizing me for my opposition to the Vietnam War and threatening to boycott the show if I was allowed to appear. I am, to say the least, deeply disappointed that QVC caved to this kind of insane pressure by some well funded and organized political extremist groups. And that they did it without talking to me first. I have never shied away from talking about this as I have nothing to hide. I could have pointed out that threats of boycotts are nothing new for me and have never prevented me from having best selling books and exercise DVDs, films, and a Broadway play. Most people don't buy into the far right lies. Many people have reached out to express how excited they were about my going onto QVC and hearing about my book.


Bottom line, this has gone on far too long, this spreading of lies about me! None of it is true. NONE OF IT! I love my country. I have never done anything to hurt my country or the men and women who have fought and continue to fight for us. I do not understand what the far right stands to gain by continuing with these myths. In this case, they denied a lot of people the chance to hear about a book that can help make life better, easier and more fulfilling. I am deeply grateful for all of the support I have been getting since this happened, including from my Vietnam Veterans friends.

There is much to digest there, indeed.  Some of my favorites:


"this kind of insane pressure by some well funded and organized political extremist groups."

I guess when you live by the extremist group, you die by the extremist group, eh Jane?  At least you weren't fired from your job, or fined, or evicted, or threatened, or demoted simply because of your convictions.  That is, of course, what is happening due to the actions of "extremist groups" on the left (like the homosexual lobby) that you whole heartedly support.


"Most people don't buy into the far right lies."

One must be "far right" to disagree with your traitorous actions, Ms. Fonda?  I beg to differ.  I have met many a Vietnam Vet who may not share my politics, but who has little use for your continued presence on their TV screens, held up as an "American success story."


"I have never done anything to hurt my country or the men and women who have fought and continue to fight for us."

Never, Jane?  I am glad that you find enough shame in your actions that you now try to bury them.  But honesty is necessary before any healing can take place.  And if we want honesty, let's remember what you did:

In 1972, during the Vietnam War, Fonda took a two-week trip to North Vietnam, where she was photographed sitting on an antiaircraft gun that North Vietnamese forces otherwise used for shooting at American planes.


When she returned from her sojourn in Vietnam, as Time Magazine reported at the time, she accused U.S. forces of deliberately trying to bomb and destroy dikes, whose destruction could have caused the death of many civilians.


"The outcry was joined by Actress-Activist Jane Fonda," Time reported in its August 7, 1972 edition. "Returning from a two-week trip to Hanoi, where among other things she interviewed several American prisoners of war, she presented a 20-minute film of the visit at a New York press conference that purported to show several recent bomb craters in dikes near Nam Sach, 40 miles southeast of Hanoi, and further damage near the provincial capital of Nam Dinh.


"Hardly a dispassionate witness," Time continued, she said: 'I believe in my heart, profoundly, that the dikes are being bombed on purpose.' From firsthand observation and from pictures shown her by the North Vietnamese, she concluded: Not only the dikes are being bombed, but hydraulic systems, sluice gates, pumping stations and dams as well. The worst damage is done by bombs that fall on both sides of the dikes, causing deep fissures that weaken the base of the dikes.'"

Pardon those of us who see these actions as "hurting" your country and those who fought for it.


"None of it is true.  NONE OF IT! ... I do not understand what the far right stands to gain by continuing with these myths."

Myths?  None of it is true?  As they say, Jane...a picture says 1,000 words:




Actions have consequences.  If you have truly sought forgiveness for your traitorous actions, hopefully you've found the inner peace you are promised.  But forgiveness does not mean that there are not long-term ramifications to what you did - the effects you may well encounter every day for the rest of your life.  That isn't the "far right's" fault.  It's not the Vietnam Vets' fault.  It's your own.  That you don't seem to see that goes a long way to explain why this issue continues to haunt you, Jane.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:08 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Monday, July 18 2011

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


The other day on the radio show when I was talking about the polygamist who is now using homosexualist arguments as he sues to end criminal prosecutions for those practicing the "alternative lifestyle" of polygamy, I mentioned again the ladder-rung approach the sexual anarchists are using.


It started off with soft pornographic images.  It progressed to Playboy and Hustler.  The free-love movement of the hippies told us to shed all our inhibitions and adopt an "anywhere, anyone, anytime" philosophy.  It moved to no-fault divorce.  And it has progressed from there to the point where we are now dealing with realities that once were laughed at as "silly speculation."



Even the Supreme Court case of Lawrence v. Texas, which outlawed criminal penalties against homosexual sodomy made clear that it was not condoning or accepting the lifestyle of homosexuality, nor opening the door to "gay marriage" or anything like that.  But, of course, that's exactly what it did.  Because the rung on the ladder that had to be secured before gay marriage, was the removal of sodomy penalties.  It's a dialectic, step-by-step, logical progression.


Don't believe me?  As we began dealing with the gay marriage issue, conservatives who have been sounding this warning bell since the sexual anarchy movement commenced, pointed out that the same arguments that are used to advance gay marriage can and will be used for any and every other form of "sexual expression."  And here we are.


I challenged my listeners - particularly those who believe that gay marriage should be legal - to explain how they would deny marriage rights to polygamists.  Not a single one has been able to.  There's a reason.


And how foolish are we if we believe that it's going to stop with the decriminalization of polygamy.  After that is accomplished, state sanctioned polygamist marriages will be demanded as a matter of equality and fairness.  Who are we to deny them that "right?"  And guess what?  It won't end there either.


When I mentioned the stages that will come after polygamy - bestiality, pedophilia - I had a few emailers take exception to that.  "We would never say okay to the crime of pedophilia!" they raged.  Really?  I can imagine getting a letter like that back 30 years ago saying, "We would never say okay to the crime of homosexuality!"  And here we are.


Once you tear the moral guideposts down, the line between right and wrong gets very blurry.  And if you don't think that could happen with pedophilia, take a look at this story going on right now in our country:

Green Mile actor Doug Hutchison and his teen bride Courtney Stodden have spoken out to defend their union in a hope of silencing the critics.


The  actor, 51, and the 16-year-old spoke to Good Morning America about how they fell in love and how they have approval of Courtney's parents. 


'The way we met was really beautiful,' Courtney told talk show host Lara Spencer. 


'My mother was managing my career. Her friend told my mother that he holding some workshops for acting. And I was very interested in acting. So what better way than to connect that way?'




When they realised the connection was there, Doug decided to talk to Courtney's parents, Krista and Alex, who had been monitoring their daughters contact with the star.


'I said, Krista, I don't know if you know this or not, but your daughter and I are falling in love.... If you and Alex have any misgivings whatsoever about this . I will respect you, and Courtney will respect you. And we will step back.'


'So [Krista] said, 'I can feel my daughter's love for you. I can feel it inside of my heart,' Hutchison said. 


'Uh-huh,' Courtney affirmed, 'inside of her soul.'


The teenager's parents gave their blessing and the couple married on June 21 in Las Vegas.

A 51 year old man and a 16 year old girl.  Oh, but Peter, the girl doesn't look 16...they got the parents''s obviously mutual and's obviously love!  Precisely.  When the moral guideposts come down, the lines are blurred.  Welcome to Sodom.
Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:07 pm   |  Permalink   |  1 Comment  |  Email
Monday, July 18 2011

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


Remember Joe the Plumber?  I've wondered a few times whatever happened to Joe.  And I've wondered if he ever dreams of encountering the president again and just asking him, "Hey man, how's that spreadin' the wealth around workin' out for ya?"


Michael Barry has written a great analysis of how Joe - the simple plumber that the media vetted and sought to personally destroy simply for asking a question that hurt their Obamessiah - and Barack's exchange now looks in the light of recent history:


As Obama explained it to Joe the Plumber, here's how our economy works:


[M]y attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody. If you've got a plumbing business, you're gonna be better off if you've got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you. And right now, everybody's so pinched that business is bad for everybody.  And I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody.


Or to translate, "You should thank me for taking your money, Joe."


Now, over the last 3 years, Obama has not in fact re-distributed Joe's wealth (such as it is).  Taxes on Joe haven't gone up. Instead, Obama (albeit, somewhat reluctantly) dodged the tax issue.  But he did transfer a lot of wealth to his political clients and the "folks." How did he do that?  By spending like crazy and running up a huge deficit.  Now he calls for shared sacrifice to fix that problem -- the deficit problem.  And so -- here comes the punch line -- we've finally gotten back to Joe: it's time for "shared sacrifice."  In this case, shared sacrifice means Obama's political clients will take a little less, and Joe, finally, will start paying more taxes.

That's a pretty important point to note.  Democrats may try to defend Obama by pointing out that, "Well, since he didn't increase taxes and he kept those dumb Bush tax cuts for the job creators in place, he didn't have the ?revenue' to spend and stimulate the economy."  But that's misleading.  No, Barack didn't take in more of your money.  But he borrowed it and spent it on your tab nonetheless.  So the great Keynesian government spending that was going to save the economy was done.  And it hasn't worked.

Bottom line: Obama increased (significantly) discretionary spending (and "tax spending" -- the $800 checks) at a time of declining revenues and increased entitlement obligations. This was a Keynesian gamble, and it failed. If it had worked, that is if Keynesianism made sense in this context, we would be in the midst of a recovery that would be erasing the deficit problem (see, e.g., Reagan). It didn't; it seems to have made things worse.




Joe was right and Obama was wrong.


Isn't that weird? Obama went to much better schools; what did they teach him there?  It really seems inescapable, at this point, that if the President had supported policies that encouraged Joe, rather than policies that spread the wealth around, we would be in much better shape. Instead, it's: shut up and eat your peas-time.

It's funny to me how the liberals always pretend that they are the party of the working man.  They lay claim to this title because they cater to the special interests of labor union leaders, and believe that entitles them to the undying affection of working people everywhere.  Of course, a large majority of working people in the United States recognize the destructive and corruptive powers that labor unions have sadly become, and therefore want no part of them.


Most working men are like Joe, and they are condescended to by uppity liberal elitists like Obama who think that we miserable, non Ivy League educated yuppies can't possibly run our lives without his central planning assistance. 


All evidence to the contrary, Professor.

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

"My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. I and my Father are one." - John 10:27-30


The family of Irving Berlin (Moses and Lena Lipkin Baline) fled their home in Russia in 1893 to escape the Jewish persecution revived by Tsar Nicholas II. Finding refuge in America, they settled in New York's Lower East Side. Throughout his childhood, Irving's mother would say, "God bless America" to indicate that without America, her family would have had no place to go and may have perished in the harsh anti-Semitism of that day.



As virtually everyone knows, Irving Berlin went on to become a prolific and beloved songwriter. Among his many compositions is his much-loved "God Bless America." Originally written in 1918, it was revised and brought to the public in 1938 when Kate Smith's manager asked if he had a patriotic song she could perform for the 20th anniversary of Armistice Day. The composition was an immediate sensation. It is still widely performed today and has been considered over the years as America's "unofficial" second national anthem.

While the storm clouds gather far across the sea,
Let us swear allegiance to a land that's free.
Let us all be grateful for a land so fair,
As we raise our voices in a solemn prayer:

God bless America, land that I love,
Stand beside her and guide her
Through the night with a light from above.
From the mountains, to the prairies,
To the oceans white with foam,
God bless America,
My home sweet home.

Yes, there was a time when immigrants fleeing persecution and financial depravity and even entertainers honored this proud nation by openly and unashamedly recognizing and the hand of God who blessed this land. No matter what the age, we need to remember that there is no difficulty that can steal us out of the hand of God.


Father, let us humble ourselves before You once more. Hear our prayers even through the shadows that would seek to remove Your glory from this nation You established. Let us once again hear Your voice so that we can follow You and never perish. May "God bless America" be more than a song's title or a convenient motto in times of crisis. May it, instead, be a belief and an ideology that permeates our life each moment of every day. In the name of Christ our Lord we pray. Amen.
Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 11:32 am   |  Permalink   |  1 Comment  |  Email
Saturday, July 16 2011

Liberals love to parade their wealthy friends who tell us that they are "not paying their fair share" in taxes. Names they drop include Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, George Soros, Marnie Thompson, and Jeffrey Hollender.


Additionally, some businesses resist industry deregulation, implying that they want more government involvement in their affairs.

Florida's interior designers begged the state House of Representatives to continue controlling them, with a theatrically ham-handed lobbying campaign challenging a deregulation bill. Designers righteously insisted that only "licensed professionals" (with a minimum six years of college and experience) could prevent the nausea Floridians would suffer from inappropriate color schemes (affecting "autonomic nervous system" and salivary glands). Also, poorly designed prison interiors could be turned into weapons by inmates. Furthermore, deregulation would contribute to "88,000 deaths" a year from flammable materials that would suddenly inundate the market in the absence of licensing. Said one designer, addressing the House committee members, "You (here in this chamber) don't even have correct seating."


It sounds all so altruistic: super-rich telling us they are not taxed enough and Florida interior designers expressing genuine concern about those who would suffer from inappropriate color schemes.


Yes, so altruistic and full of concern until we come to the final sentence of the above article: "If deregulation is successful, competition will increase, and lower fees are expected."


What the rich and those running successful businesses recognize is that government manipulations help them eliminate their competition. Taxes and regulations may cost those in place a bit, but it is a disproportionate burden on smaller competitors and startups. After all, it won't be Wal-Mart that goes under when mandated minimum wage increases. They can already afford to pay above the minimum wage. It is their small "Mom and Pop" competitor who will be buried by the increasing costs of taxes and regulations.


Little wonder that already rich folks and successful businesses welcome more government interference: they can afford what it takes to figure out loopholes and it keeps the little guys away.

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 07:00 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Saturday, July 16 2011

The legend of George Washington chopping down the cherry tree and then telling his father when confronted is well known. "I cannot tell a lie. I chopped down the tree."


Granted, this is one of the legends that grew up about George Washington, but it remained in place because people recognized his integrity. It is not a legend that Washington did not compromise his ideology by accepting a populist movement to enthrone him in some sort of American monarchy. Washington displayed integrity and his peers respected him greatly for it.


An editorial in the Sacramento Bee complains about President Obama's possible retreat from extremely high fuel efficiency standards for automobiles.

For more than two years, President Barack Obama has talked tough about the need to bolster fuel economy standards to reduce pollution and dependence on foreign oil.


Yet as Obama starts to mount a 2012 re-election campaign, there are disturbing signs he may cave on fuel economy standards to placate Detroit and improve his chances to win Michigan and other states in the general election.

Sadly, President Obama and many other liberal politicians willingly compromise their ideology in order to hide their motives from the public. This editorial is a case in point.


In response to the environmentalists push for the aggressive efficiency standard of 62 mpg, President Obama has told automakers and congressional leaders that he favors an ambitious standard of 56.2 mpg. Bottom line: the president's stated ideology is in favor of higher standards demanded by environmentalists.


The article goes on to observe that...

Yet things changed quickly in the days prior to the July 4 weekend. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood visited a General Motors plant in Detroit and made comments suggesting the administration was backing off from a 56.2-mpg standard.


"We are going to talk to our friends in the industry," LaHood said. "We are going to make sure we get it right for them and for what we believe is in the best interest of the country."

The reason for this ideological compromise? Mr. Obama needs auto industry votes. Higher mileage requirements mean higher costs and prices which translate into a likely slowdown in this economic environment. Higher unemployment figures will not bode well for his campaign. Bottom line: Mr. Obama's environmentalist ideology conflicts with his re-election efforts and must therefore be compromised.


The problem is that compromising this ideology will alienate those who seek no compromise. This means that Mr. Obama must inevitably tell a lie. If tosses out higher fuel efficiency standards in favor of auto industry votes, he has lied to the environmental faction of his party. If he suggests to the environmentalists that a stated compromise is necessary in order to secure his re-election so that he can then seek policy and regulation requiring the expensive standards that they want, then he lies to his supporters in the auto industry.


Sadly, instead of declaring that "I cannot tell a lie," our president today demonstrates over and over that he says, "I cannot tell a truth."

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 06:34 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Saturday, July 16 2011

President Obama speaking at a Republican House issues conference on January 29, 2010:

We're not gonna be able to do anything about any of this entitlements if what we do is characterize whatever proposals are put out there as, well, you know, that's the other party's being irresponsible, the other party's trying to hurt our senior citizens, that the other party is doing X, Y, Z, that's why I say if we're gonna frame these debates in ways that allow us to solve them, then we can't start off by figuring out, A, who's to blame, B, how can we make the American people afraid of the other side?

We have to attempt to interpret Obama-ese, but he seems to be suggesting to Republicans that it is in the best interest for all Americans if the political parties work together to resolve issues.



What a magnanimous President we have!


Until a few days ago. Scott Pelley of CBS asks President Obama about the status of Social Security payments if the debt ceiling is not raised. Mr. Obama answers:

This is not just a matter of Social Security checks. These are veterans checks, these are folks on disability and their checks. There are about 70 million checks that go out... I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on August 3rd if we haven't resolved this issue because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it.

Instead of working together with Republicans and their constituents to resolve the issue, he goes immediately to the liberal playbook to (a) figure out who's to blame and (b) attempt to make the American people afraid of the other side.


Liberal progress: the more things change, the more they remain the same.

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 06:00 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, July 15 2011

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


A couple days ago on the radio show I commented that whenever public displays of Christianity were assaulted in public, it was always liberals who were behind it.  While confused Republicans sometimes join in for one reason or another, you can be guaranteed that if the Bible is being dismissed publicly, you'll see liberals at the helm.


Right on cue, this from FoxNews:

The Freedom From Religious Foundation, which claims more than 16,000 members, including 700 in Texas, filed the federal lawsuit Wednesday in Houston, contending that Perry's actions violate the Constitution's Establishment Clause by "giving the appearance that the government prefers evangelical Christian religious beliefs over other religious beliefs and non-beliefs."



"We always say, beware prayer by pious politicians," said Annie Laurie Gaylor, who co-directs the group with her husband, Dan Barker, a former evangelical Christian minister who is now an atheist.


"Nothing fails like prayer," she said. "It's the ultimate political cop-out."


The lawsuit, which comes as Perry flirts with joining the field of GOP presidential contenders, notes that the plaintiffs are "nonbelievers who support the free exercise of religion, but strongly oppose the government establishment and endorsement of religion, including prayer and fasting, which are not only an ineffectual use of time and government resources, but which can be harmful or counterproductive as a substitute for reasoned action."

In what will be an interesting development, the body of former President and Father of the Nation George Washington will be exhumed to testify against such stupidity.  That, of course, would be the Washington who proclaimed such a day of prayer himself:

NOW THEREFORE, I do recommend and assign THURSDAY, the TWENTY-SIXTH 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 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 enable to establish Constitutions of government for our sasety 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 favours which He has 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.

I was amused when I saw that this was Annie Gaylor's silly organization that was behind this nonsense.  Because when Annie was on my radio show for a conversation a few years ago, she and George Washington got into another famous tangle.  It ended with her hanging up on me.  I rather enjoyed it.  You can watch the exchange here.


Any group calling itself the Freedom From Religion Foundation is obviously disinterested in preserving America's heritage.  And it's no surprise that they, as a left-wing group, are assailing the constitutional practice of elected officials invoking the blessing of the Almighty through prayer.


To arrive at their conclusions, they ignore and rewrite history, prey upon the very ignorance they breed, and represent a serious threat to the survival of our free institutions.  Why do I say that?  Because George Washington did:

Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens.


I wonder if Annie and company realize that by attempting to remove public recognition of religion and morality, they are committing an act that Washington called unpatriotic, and warned would lead to the collapse of our civilization?  Probably not. 


They probably want to sue his corpse for ever having suggested it.

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

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


Betty Ford's passing offered a time for reflection.  Betty Ford's funeral offered a time for irony.  Because Betty Ford's eulogizers, Democrat partisan reporter Cokie Roberts and former First Lady Rosalynn Carter offered a load of nonsense.



After beginning her comments by suggesting that Mrs. Ford most likely timed her demise to remind all of the bitter politicians (undoubtedly the Republicans) of the more dignified days in Washington (I'm not kidding, she really said that), Cokie Roberts launched into the main thrust of her remarks:

"She (Ford) wanted me to talk about being friends across the aisle, and how it made it easier to govern," Roberts said of the lady who long ago established her bona fides with the inside-the-beltway elite through her whole-hearted endorsement of the Equal Rights Amendment, abortion, marijuana use, pre-marital sex and so much more.


"Political wives were absolutely essential... They had the men over to sit down and have a drink and have dinner with each other and behave.  The women got them to be civil."

Good grief.  Michael Kimmitt over at American Thinker put this trash in the proper perspective, as he reminded the rational about the "civil" relationship between Betty Ford's husband Gerald, and Cokie's dad Rep. Hal Boggs:

Rep. Boggs took to the House floor in 1971 to eviscerate the FBI, condemning it for adopting "the tactics of the Soviet Union and Hitler's Gestapo."  An angry President Nixon, himself the recipient of much Democrat love, called Mr. Ford to complain.  "What's the matter with your opposite number?"


"He's nuts," Ford said of his dear friend.  "He's either drinking too much or he's taking some pills that are upsetting him mentally...When we were getting the program for this week, he was mumbling, he was almost incoherent.  It was very embarrassing...I hate to say this but we've got to be very careful what we tell him...everything that is classified."

Ah yes, sweet civility.  And speaking of civility, inviting Jimmy Carter's wife is certainly an excellent demonstration of true class.  As Kimmitt reminds:

Rosalynn's hubby Jimmy is even more nasty.  Long ago he cast aside the longstanding gentlemen's agreement observed by all of his predecessors to avoid criticism of Presidents who follow them.  In a quixotic campaign to vindicate his failed administration, he has interfered mightily in the business of every subsequent chief executive.  Not satisfied to condemn the George W. Bush's administration as the worst in history, he also lashed out at British Prime Minister Tony Blair as being "abominable" for supporting U.S. foreign policy.  For this display of chivalry, you get a "Peace Prize"?


Even liberal historian Douglas Brinkley found Carter's behavior "unprecedented."  "When you call someone the worst president, that's volatile.  Those are fighting words."

In other words, this is nothing but the usual liberal perspective on dignity and civility.  They are never guilty of lacking it, conservatives are never credited with having it.  It's a contagious malady of the that shuts off receptor cells within the brain, preventing the infected liberal from the ability to self-diagnose.  Cokie Roberts is one of this disease's most helpless victims:

Cokie also took off after members of the press who, unlike her employer, are not subsidized by our befuddled taxpayers.  "We give our microphones to the shrillest voices, and the most outlandish things to say are valued as opposed to people coming together and trying to get along," she said.


Come together?  Get along?  Such as when she said those who disagree with President Obama's policies don't like him because he's black?  Or when she wrote that Conservative Commentator Glenn Beck is a terrorist, "a traitor to the American values he professes to so loudly defend." Or comparing the effort to overturn Obamacare to "the first step toward the Civil War."  Or her sexist assertion that women are better than men.

Totally oblivious.  Totally clueless.  And as a consequence, they turned a memorial service for Betty Ford into a carnival service, pining away for the lost era of political civility and mutual respect that never existed in the first place.
Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:08 pm   |  Permalink   |  1 Comment  |  Email
Friday, July 15 2011

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


Several emails came into the show after Mitch McConnell's bizarre statement earlier this week that seemed to indicate Republican Senators were willing to raise the debt ceiling with a short term deal on spending cuts, and essentially wait until later to accomplish a real debt-fixing solution.  Many of the emails, understandably, were livid for what they saw as the foolishness of Republicans on display once again.


The points made by listeners were much like the ones I made live during the show, after the news of McConnell's statement broke:


1. Such a move would totally eliminate the major leverage Republicans have in using the debt ceiling as a motivator to get a spend-happy Obama to agree to spending cuts.


2. Even if Republican Senators support the idea, it would not pass the Republican House.but it would put far more pressure on House Republicans and hand a major public relations victory to Obama (you can hear the comments now: "Even Republican Senators agree to this move, but the radical tea party wackos in the House are holding America hostage").


3. Such a move would make Republicans totally culpable, along with the epically irresponsible Democrats, in "kicking the can down the road," when we are nearly at the end of the road as it stands now.


Thankfully, beyond just my inbox, following McConnell's statement, the reaction from the large conservative base of the Republican Party was immense.  McConnell attempted to walk those comments back and "re-explain" what he meant.  Many aren't buying it.


Rush Limbaugh suggested it was perhaps a trial balloon.  If it was, it got shot from the sky.  The Wall Street Journal editors believe it was a strategy to put the onus on Obama.  I'm just thankful that the reaction to the suggestion sent a pretty clear message to Republicans that such capitulation to the juveniles on the other side who have wrecked our financial house was not why they were sent to Washington.


I've said often that inside the beltway, it's a different world, and lawmakers can be misled into believing what is being expressed to them by media is what the people in the rest of the country feel.  Maybe that's what prompted Mitch's remarks.  Maybe it was just a mistake.  Maybe it was the beginning of Republican Wobbly Syndrome.  But common sense, tea party Americans did what they HAVE to do if we are to survive: they remained vigilant and sounded the alarm.


It seems Mitch got the message.  Here's what the Senate's top Republican just announced:

"I was truly hopeful that the President could be persuaded to view the upcoming debt limit vote as an opportunity to cut Washington spending and the debt that has ballooned since he took office, and to preserve entitlements at the same time. But in the end, he just wasn't interested in doing something of that magnitude that would pass. He really gave us three bad choices: higher taxes, smoke and mirrors, or default. And we refuse to accept any of them. Republicans not be reduced to being the tax collectors for the Obama economy. We won't be seduced into calling a bad deal a good deal. And we won't let the White House fool around with the full faith and credit of the United States. If the President wants to threaten seniors or veterans or rattle the world economy by pretending he can't pay our bills, he of course can do that. But he is not going to implicate Republicans in these efforts."

Well said, Senator.  Nice to see your backbone has returned.  I have a feeling it did because of the reaction from engaged American patriots.  Stay vigilant through the whole process.  We're counting on people like McConnell to finish this the right way. 


Let Obama threaten until the cows come home.  He's on the wrong side of this one, the American people know it (remember, barely over 20% want to see the debt ceiling raised), and Republicans will prove themselves worthy of the support the American people gave them in the 2010 elections if they hold firm.

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

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


Mr. Obama, shortly before throwing his hissy fit and storming out of debt ceiling negotiations with Republicans a couple days back, reportedly threatened Republicans that if they kept pushing him, he would "take his case to the American people."


I commented on the radio show that, of course, Mr. Obama already did that for two years, as he implemented his policies (and in some cases - ObamaCare - crammed them down the throats of citizens who sent every message possible that they didn't want it) with massive majorities in both houses of Congress.  And the American people rendered their verdict on "his case," by throwing his party out of office in historic numbers during the 2010 election cycle.



Thus, his threat is humorously empty.  Perhaps he thinks the perception of him and his job performance have changed since 2010.  If so, it only goes to demonstrate the unbridled arrogance of this administration.  Consider some realities that the American people are observing right now.  First, from the Chicago Sun-Times:

President Obama returns to Chicago on Aug. 3 to mark his 50th birthday with fund-raisers at the Aragon Ballroom, with tickets ranging from $50 a person to $35,800 per couple, which includes VIP seating at a "Birthday Concert" where celebs will be performing and a dinner with the president.

Anything seem odd about that?  August 3.  The day after the country will eclipse the debt ceiling, and Obama's team has hysterically warned us that the country will either default or that seniors will stop getting their Social Security checks, Mr. O is heading to Chicago to attend a $35,000 a couple birthday bash.  Think that's gonna be lost on "the American people" when Mr. Obama "makes his case?"


And perhaps the President hasn't heard the latest from Gallup:

Registered voters by a significant margin now say they are more likely to vote for the "Republican Party's candidate for president" than for President Barack Obama in the 2012 election, 47% to 39%. Preferences had been fairly evenly divided this year in this test of Obama's re-election prospects.

Taking your case to a group of people who are saying that they would prefer some faceless Republican manikin over the leadership you have provided might not be the best move, Mr. President.


In a famous Seinfeld episode, George is trying to get his fiancÚ Susan to break off the engagement.  His strategy is asking her to sign a prenuptial agreement.  When he implements that plan, she laughs hysterically, pointing out that he has nothing she'd want anyway, so, "Sure, give me the papers, I'll sign them." 


Given the popular realities that Mr. Obama seems blissfully unaware of, I advise Republicans to employ the Susan response the next time the president offers his "take his case to the American people" threat.  Just push back from the table, look at each other, bust up laughing and say, "Sure Barack, there's the door, go make your case."

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:06 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, July 15 2011

Conservatives have pointed out repeatedly and accurately for years now that each step taken by liberal sexual anarchists always leads to other, bigger steps. Peter observed in his article and on the air that even though homosexual activists have for years proclaimed that other sexual deviants could not legitimately use homosexual arguments to further their case, other sexual deviants are doing just that.


By definition, no homosexual advocate can oppose multiple partner marriages. My source for this conclusion is found in the very name that this group appropriates: gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered; in other words, GLBT.



The primary rationale for legitimizing same sex marriage goes something like this: homosexuality is a genetic trait inherited at birth. Therefore, to deny the legitimacy of a same sex relationship is to deny their inherent right to live as they were born to live. Consequently, same sex relationships must be formally recognized and imposed upon everyone.


So far, the lawsuits imposing same sex marriage upon normal Americans deal only with monogamous unions. Like all liberals, they must continue to hide their complete agenda. Nevertheless, the day will inevitably come when the "B" folks in the mix - bisexuals - will tire of being treated like "second-class" citizens and not afforded their full right to marry. Like homosexuality, bisexuality is argued to originate as a genetic trait; therefore, no one can deny who they are. As the word indicates, a bisexual enjoys sexual relationship with either gender. In order for them to fulfill their complete destiny, anything less than the normalization of bi-sex marriage will necessarily be a violation of their civil rights.


It is inevitable, and as such, legitimizing polygamy and any form of multiple partner marriage is the default position of homosexual advocates.

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 07:39 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, July 14 2011

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


I found it unbelievable a few weeks ago when Democrats like Dick Durbin invited a group of illegal immigrants to Capitol Hill for some hearings...and they actually showed.  That is perhaps the most compelling testimony for all that is wrong in Washington than anything I've heard in some time: the government (the people who write the laws) invite illegal immigrants (people who have broken the laws the government wrote) to come and visit.  And there was never a thought in the head of the illegals that going there would potentially put them at risk of being punished for breaking the law.  Obviously there was no reason to be concerned, as the whole point of the meeting was for Democrats like Durbin to honor them!


Anyway, it was along those lines that I sat in amazement a year or so ago when I heard that a reality TV show was about to start called "Sister Wives." 



It follows a man, Kody Brown, and his four wives and 16 children/stepchildren around.  Of course, Utah (the site of the show) has laws against polygamy.  And yet these people were going on TV to flout their practice of polygamy?!  Unreal.


The state of Utah decided to launch an "investigation" into the family and their behavior (how much of an investigation is needed here?  They are doing all this on national television!), and the Browns are fighting back.  Check this out from the New York Times:

I would like for all of the leftists and homosexualists who have scoffed at the idea that undefining marriage would not be used by other groups with bizarre sexual practices to gain acceptance and legality for themselves.  Pay close attention:


On Wednesday, the Browns are expected to file a lawsuit to challenge the polygamy law.

The lawsuit is not demanding that states recognize polygamous marriage. Instead, the lawsuit builds on a 2003 United States Supreme Court decision, Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down state sodomy laws as unconstitutional intrusions on the "intimate conduct" of consenting adults. It will ask the federal courts to tell states that they cannot punish polygamists for their own "intimate conduct" so long as they are not breaking other laws, like those regarding child abuse, incest or seeking multiple marriage licenses.

Now, wait a second.  Lawrence v. Texas...the sodomy case.  Now being used as justification to allow another kind of sexual deviancy?  But I thought that was all mindless speculation and silly slippery slope argument?  And yet, here we are.  Odd how that happens, isn't it?


When you pull up the moral guideposts that define the institution of marriage and provide the foundation points for family, don't think that you're going to be able to just arbitrarily throw them back down in the ground somewhere else.  If it's good enough for those who want to practice homosexuality, it's good enough for those who want to practice polygamy, it's good enough for those who want to practice beastiality, and mark my words, it will be argued soon that it's good enough for those who want to practice pedophilia. 


Undefining marriage and family is to open it up to whatever interpretation a person or group wants to apply.  That's big trouble.

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

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


Liberals continue their assault on Christianity in the United States, and those Democrats who claim the Christian faith continue standing idly by while the political party they fund and support facilitates it.  Shameful. 


This time, the organization (the group that previously went after Chick-fil-A for being "anti-gay"...for a great read on this saga, check out Michelle Malkin's post here) has gone after TOMS shoes (a company that donates a pair of shoes to underprivileged children for every pair that is purchased by a customer) simply because their founder, Blake Mycoskie agreed to speak at an event sponsored by Christian group Focus on the Family.



With flashes of Dr. Frank Turek being fired for merely holding personal Christian beliefs outside of the workplace, Mycoskie and TOMS were browbeat by and the radical left for even associating with an "anti-gay, anti-abortion" group like Focus.  Keep in mind Focus on the Family has taken a very pronounced step back from their political and cultural involvement in recent years since Dr. Dobson turned over the organization to Jim Daly.  But that doesn't stop the radicals on the left who don't think anyone should even speak to a Christian who doesn't see the world as they do.


From Christianity Today:

Mycoskie partnered with Focus on the Family for a "Style Your Sole" event with about 500 people on June 30... The partnership between Focus and TOMS prompted sites like Jezebel to question whether TOMS should partner with an "anti-gay, anti-choice group?" Ms. Magazine started a petition on that has received about 500 signatures, asking TOMS to drop its relationship with Focus. 


Here's what Mycoskie posted on his blog:


Had I known the full extent of Focus on the Family's beliefs, I would not have accepted the invitation to speak at their event. It was an oversight on my part and the company's part and one we regret. In the last 18 months we have presented at over 70 different engagements and we do our best to make sure we choose our engagements wisely, on this one we chose poorly.


Furthermore, contrary to what has been reported, Focus on the Family is not a TOMS giving partner.


So there is no misunderstanding created by this mistake, let me clearly state that both TOMS, and I as the founder, are passionate believers in equal human and civil rights for all. That belief is a core value of the company and of which we are most proud.

Focus on the Family was attempting to become a major TOMS distributor in Africa.  That will not be possible now.  Whether Mycoskie really feels as strongly as his statement reads is irrelevant to understanding what happened here.  The left hates Christianity so much that they would rather see the work of TOMS be limited (in other words, fewer poor kids get shoes) than to see anyone do business with, associate with, have a relationship with, or even speak to Christian believers.


For his part, Jim Daly (president of Focus) responded by saying:

Daly said Mycoskie's apology was an "unfortunate statement about the culture we live in, when an organization like ours is deemed unfit" over beliefs about marriage. "It's also a chilling statement about the future of the culture we live in," he said.

Chilling indeed.  The criminalization of Christianity (or at least significant portions of Christian doctrine) is coming.  And it's coming at the behest of the left.  Christians that continue empowering it with their votes for Democrats and liberal Republicans have this on their hands.

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

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


The great uniter strikes again:

President Barack Obama abruptly walked out of a stormy debt-limit meeting with congressional leaders Wednesday, a dramatic setback to the already shaky negotiations. 


"He shoved back and said ?I'll see you tomorrow' and walked out," House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) told reporters in the Capitol after the meeting.

On a day when the Moody's rating agency warned that American debt could be downgraded, the White House talks blew up amid a new round of sniping between Obama and Cantor, who are fast becoming bitter enemies.

When Cantor said the two sides were too far apart to get a deal that could pass the House by the Treasury Department's Aug. 2 deadline ? and that he would consider moving a short-term debt-limit increase alongside smaller spending cuts ? Obama began to lecture him.

"Eric, don't call my bluff," the president said, warning Cantor that he would take his case "to the American people."

Newsflash, Mr. Obama: you took your case to the American people for 2 years.  They gave you their response in the 2010 elections.  And if you haven't checked recently, no one out here is too enamored with your handling of the economy or grasp on fiscal responsibility.


It's interesting to me to watch the media do all they can to spin this exactly how you knew they would: the Republicans just aren't willing to compromise.  Wrong.  The Republicans have simply said there will be no tax increases.  It's the Democrats who have refused to even look at restructuring or reforming the giant insolvent anvils around the neck of the American economy: Medicare and Social Security.  It's the Democrats who refuse to budge, demanding tax increases on job creators.  But how many news reports have talked about the intransigent, inflexible Democrats who are threatening to plunge the country into a debt default?  How many?  Exactly.


So my take on this is let him do it, Mr. Cantor.  Let the man whose party has not produced a budget since 2009 (even when they had complete control of both houses and the White House) - one of the most stunningly irresponsible legacies of any U.S. Congress, let the man whose policies have led to staggering unemployment and an economic recovery that has ground to a halt, let the man who has racked up more debt than the first 40 presidents combined, let the man whose best idea is to tax job creators in the midst of fears over a double-dip recession, all to fuel his insatiable spending obsession...let that man take his case to the American people.  Then we can have a new man (or woman) in there after 2012 to do this the right way.


With the enormity of our problems in 2008, we desperately needed a leader to be elected president.  But instead we got a tragically unprepared juvenile who is proficient at trash-talk and taking his ball and going home when he doesn't get his way.  What an embarrassment.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:07 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, July 14 2011

Coming up next week, the Kokomo Area Tea Party is hosting its first ever "Vacation Liberty School."  Built on the model of Vacation Bible School, VLS will teach participating youth the principles of constitutionalism, free markets, individual liberty and rule of law that are foundational to American greatness.



The program is open to all youth, ages 10-15, and will take place over three nights.  From 6:30-8:30 on July 18-20, Vacation Liberty School will be letting kids learn by participating in games, activities and real life scenarios that bring these integral principles to life.  Victory Christian Academy is hosting the event.


On Thursday's show, Tea Party organizer Kenlyn Watson came in to talk about the event, and what parents can do to get their kids registered for free!  Hear the whole conversation here.

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

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


ABC World News Tonight launched a very provocative and concerning "investigation" on Monday, showing the depths to which they are willing to sink to get Obama re-elected.  It should serve as a correction to anyone who thought this election cycle was going to see less Obama sycophancy from the media:

DIANE SAWYER, HOST: Good evening. We begin tonight with an ABC News investigation. Tea Party powerhouse Michele Bachmann has rocketed to the top of the Republican pack. Tonight, a closer look at the business she and her husband own back home in Minnesota. An outside group filmed undercover video inside the Bachmann's Christian counseling center. Bachmann's husband has said he does not try to turn gay people straight. ABC's chief investigative correspondent Brian Ross is here with those tapes and to tell us what they show tonight. Brian.


BRIAN ROSS: Well, Diane, they are quite a couple, and we're learning a lot more about their views and how they've made their money.




ROSS (OFF CAMERA): Operating out of suburban Minneapolis, Dr. Bachmann runs a Christian counseling firm, co-owned with his wife, that at times, according to former patients, has tried to convert gay men into heterosexuals through prayer.


ANDREW RAMIREZ, FORMER PATIENT: His path for my therapy would be to read the Bible, and pray to God that I would no longer be gay.

There are two different aspects to this story.  First the hypocrisy.  Remember, this is the same mainstream media that would not cover the Obama-Bill Ayers connection, the Obama-Jeremiah Wright connection despite the fact that the former was a close friend who helped write Obama's best-selling book, and the latter was the minister that Obama took spiritual guidance from for 20 years.  They were both anti-American radicals, which doesn't look good for a presidential candidate, so the media ignored them as inconsequential, and blamed the McCain campaign and conservative media sources for "distracting" from the real issues.


Yet here is that same media "investigating" the clinic of the husband of a mere contender within the Republican primary, in a desperate attempt to find some way to convince Americans she is dangerous.  Pathetic.


The second aspect is the actual content.  They have drug up a man practicing homosexuality who is bitter (no surprise there) to say that a clinic where he chose to go to get "help" actually tried to offer the only kind of "help" a true Christian would provide to someone practicing what the Bible calls depravity.  The real scandal would be if Mr. Bachmann's Christian clinic didn't try to help Mr. Ramirez find deliverance from his sin.


ABC (and other media outlets like them) scoff at the idea that a person can "turn" from being gay.  They repeat homosexualist-christened phrases like "pray away the gay" to mock the idea of someone being delivered from the lusts of homosexuality.  Of course, they do this in flagrant ignorance of Scripture, where we read in 1 Corinthians, chapter 6, verses 9-11:

"Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."

Notice the operative phrases there: "men who have sex with men"... "that is what some of you were" ... "but you were the name of the Lord Jesus Christ."  Sounds kinda like "praying away the gay" in a non-slangish sense, doesn't it?  When ABC assaults the concept of deliverance from homosexuality, let's not ignore what they are doing: assaulting the truth of Scripture.  They are joining a rebellion against the belief that sin exists, that it must be lovingly addressed, and that we have a need to turn from it.  They are leading people into darkness.  And they think Mr. Bachmann's got the problem?  Bachmann should wear it as a badge of honor that an organization so backwards that it would contradict the authority of God is assailing him.


Further, this is an assault on all believers by ABC.  They are mocking the notion, and suggesting to the country that those of us who believe Jesus offers redemption from all sins, including homosexuality, are bizarre and odd.  Where they've been for the last 2000 years of Christianity, I guess I'm not sure.



And let's not forget the discrimination that ABC perpetuates against those who are ex-gay.  I have often said that this is the most discriminated against group in the country today.  And it's a desperate situation when the people who should be calling out that discrimination (the media) are the ones guilty of facilitating it.  I wonder if Diane Sawyer and Brian Ross will ever realize how backwards and hypocritical they are?  Actually they will...I just pray that it will be before they meet the One they are willfully using their high-profile platform to mock.


Buckle up believers, this is only going to get more and more routine as the movement to discriminate and criminalize Christianity gains momentum.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:09 pm   |  Permalink   |  2 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, July 13 2011

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


My column this week (that you can read here) is a spin-off of comments I made during my July 1st radio program.  In the column, just like on the show, I postulated that Independence Day is a conservative holiday far more than a liberal one, because modern American liberals do not agree with or embrace many of the tenets of the Declaration of Independence.  The proof of my position, oddly enough, is validated best by some of the comments I received after the column was published.



Derek from Houston, TX told me that I was full of it...but then wrote, "The truth is that those principles of the Declaration evolve."  Uh, in other words, Derek, on Independence Day you aren't celebrating the principles of the Declaration of Independence.  You are celebrating your modern interpretation of what you wish those principles were.  My point exactly.


Jules from Yankton, SD was a little more hostile.  He laid it out for me: "Get off your God kick, you ***hole.  The country is different now.  People are smarter.  We don't need some mystery monster in the sky to protect our rights.  We do that just fine by ourself (sic)."  Lovely.  Yes, those moron Founders who thought life, liberty and property were unalienable because they were gifts of the Almighty, under the protection of His divine providence just didn't understand how much better it works when you root those rights in the authority of government.  You know, like Communist China does.  Human rights are at such a higher premium there.


This was my whole point: there is an antipathy amongst liberals for the very principles at the heart of our nation's founding.  They resent them, they (in some cases) despise them, and they seek to overturn them.  That's not my choice.  It's theirs.  That's why I say, quite accurately, that Independence Day isn't a liberal holiday.


A local columnist from my area took issue with my assessment as well (imagine that).  Randy Obenchain wrote a piece in one of the local newspapers, the Kokomo Perspective, where he attempted a rebuttal.  With all due respect (and I'm about to get Randy in trouble with some of his friends, I think), Randy isn't much of a liberal.  I think he wants to be.  But he's not.  I've had enough conversations with him to know, and then reading this piece it's plainly obvious to anyone who understands political ideology to see, that he is a man slowly morphing into a conservative.  He's not there yet, but I think he will be eventually.


The title of his piece, was therefore misleading.  Entitled, "The Liberal Perspective on the Fourth of July," Randy wrote eloquently at times about the value of individual liberty, personal responsibility, the sanctity of life and respecting individual autonomy.  The problem for his thesis is that those are not goals or objectives of the modern left.  Let me give a couple specifics. 


Obenchain wrote, "If there is one thing I will forever say with the utmost certainty, it is that life begins in the womb."  Randy is to be applauded for acknowledging the obvious - something that his fellow Democrat party members refuse to do as they continue championing the slaughter of those lives.  In our personal conversations, it has always been the point I've pushed him on - how does someone who recognizes that abortion is murder (and Randy clearly does) possibly maintain membership in a political party that advocates it?  Nonetheless, you see immediately that Randy is not disproving, but rather validating my point about the principles of the Declaration.  That Declaration talks about the right of life being unalienable.  Randy agrees, but liberals don't.  He attempts to distract from that point by going on a bizarre tangent about how Republicans want to reform a government-run healthcare program for senior citizens that is insolvent and is already causing some seniors to be turned away from medical facilities.  Somehow he draws the untenable conclusion that advocating for reform like that is tantamount to wanting to kill seniors, and thus a violation of the "right to life."  Bizarre and unconvincing to say the least.  But again, I think Randy was just trying to distract from the point about life he was conceding to me.



Tackling the next principle of the Declaration that I put forth, "liberty and the pursuit of happiness," Mr. Obenchain writes, "I believe you have the right to believe what you wish to believe and pursue happiness in your own way."  He condemns the practice of "rely(ing) upon the government in the hopes of changing" someone else's behavior to fit his view of happiness.  Again, Randy, that's a great philosophy...but it's libertarian far more than it's liberal! 


From dietary restrictions to seat belts laws, motorcycle helmets, bicycle helmets, smoking bans, gun purchase and ownership restrictions, mandatory vaccines for your children, car emissions inspections, energy consumption regulations, incandescent light bulb bans, campaign contribution restrictions, bans on prayer at a public school graduation or football game, trash separation and recycling, healthcare limitations, the left is constantly seeking to control a person's behavior from the seat of government.


Randy later lauds the idea of freedom as the, "power or right to act, speak or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint."  Agreed.  Now take a gander at that abbreviated list above and tell me who is advocating hindrance and restraint! 


Reading Randy's words, I'm pretty convinced he gets what Independence Day is about...because he's advocating conservative and libertarian ideals!  Randy needs to pay a little closer attention to what the people he associates with politically believe.  The very principles he touts are the very ones the political ideology he oddly defends assails. 


Randy, liberals don't think like you.  They think like Derek from Houston and Jules from Yankton.  They think like the homosexual activists who got Dr. Frank Turek fired from his job because he believes in traditional marriage, or who fined Christian photographers because they expressed the rights of conscience and chose not to take pictures at a homosexual celebration.  They think like the college campus administrators who slap speech codes down on students to repress the freedom of expression.  They think like the city planners on the West Coast who ban McDonalds from giving toys in Happy Meals or the East Coast who ban restaurants from using salt.  Freedom destroying, government growing.  That's the liberal mindset, and it's totally antithetical to the principles of the Declaration of Independence.  It's why liberals are known as "Nanny-staters."


Liberals are not people who respect the unalienable right to life.  They are not people who respect the sovereign authority of God over all things.  They are not people who believe a person should be free to pursue whatever happiness is to him.  As they seek to create dependence in their quest to centrally plan more lives, they violate the very meaning of the word "independence."  Thus, they are not people who ?get' Independence Day.  If you do, don't look now, but you're far more conservative than you may want to admit.

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

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


More evidence of the freedom-destroying political correctness monster of the left devouring more of our sanity in its path has now surfaced in Denver.  If you ever needed a reason to home-school and keep your kids from the indoctrination centers that government schools are increasingly becoming, here's what's about to start happening in day care centers in Colorado (yes, you read that right...DAY CARE):

Day care centers in Colorado may have to meet new rules that regulate everything from the race of dolls to how much TV kids can watch.


According to documents obtained by 7NEWS, the changes being proposed by the Colorado Department of Human Services include:


*Children over 2 years old shall be served 1 percent, 2 percent or skim milk (unless directed in writing by a child's health care provider)


*Juice shall be limited to 4 to 6 ounces per day for children over 1 year of age and must be 100 percent juice


*TV and computer time shall be limited to 20 minutes per day unless its a special occasion


*Doll shall represent three races ...

Again, this isn't to say that kids should drink juice all day (although Cranapple never hurt's been on my training table since I was a youngster), or that they should sit in front of the TV and watch Mickey Mouse Clubhouse 24/7 (although the quiet trance that mouse can put my kid under is magical).  It's simply to point out the fact that such decisions should belong to the parents, not mandated by the state.  Do we really need our tax dollars spent on the research and the enforcement this will require?  This is the very definition of the "Nanny-state."


And don't even get me started on the dolls representing three different races.  It's bad enough that every modern cartoon is equipped with a multicultural diversity that requires a translator to even understand what the main character is saying half the time. 


This is the direction our liberal "betters" are taking us.  If you believe in freedom, personal autonomy and independence, you will resist it.  I, for one, do not want or need the state telling me how much juice I can give my daughter, how long I can let her watch TV or what race her Ken and Barbie dolls have to be. 


But if they want to wipe her bottom...

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

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


They're used to it with Joe Biden, but I'm guessing the Obama administration wasn't counting on their new Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta totally undermining the entire liberal anti-Bush line of logic with his first speech to our troops in Iraq.  But that's exactly what happened.  And someone's going to have to clean up after this one:

During his first visit to Iraq as defense secretary, Leon Panetta seemed to link America's presence in the country to the 9/11 attacks.


"The reason you guys are here is because on 9/11 the United States got attacked," Panetta said to American troops at Camp Victory in Baghdad Monday, as reported by the Washington Post. "And 3,000 Americans ? 3,000 not just Americans, 3,000 human beings, innocent human beings ? got killed because of al-Qaeda. And we've been fighting as a result of that."

Yes, if you are remembering that it was the standard Democrat line from about 2003 on that Bush tried to link 9/11 and Iraq to make an ill-advised case for war because he was a murderous tyrant, your memory isn't failing you.  That's exactly what they did.  John Kerry built a campaign around it, as did Barack Obama in 2008 to some degree.


Of course the justification for war in Iraq was never 9/11 but rather the fact that our intelligence said Saddam Hussein had (and was accumulating more) weapons of mass destruction that he could and would willingly hand to terror groups to use against us and our allies.  If anyone has connected Iraq and 9/11 publicly, that distinction now hilariously rests firmly with the Obama Administration!


Not surprisingly, Panetta was dispatched almost immediately to "clarify" his comments:

"I wasn't saying, you know, the invasion ? or going into the issues or the justification of that. It was more the fact that we really had to deal with al-Qaeda here, they developed a presence here and that tied in," he said.

Sure, Leon.  I mean, that's exactly what you question about it.  I believe this falls into the category known as "Oops."  I'm sure Vice President Biden is thankful that finally someone else has an entry into this file folder.

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

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


I told my wife I wouldn't watch it.  When another episode of ABC's interesting program "What Would You Do?" came on, my wife and I decided to stay tuned to see how normal Americans would react to the various moral dilemmas that were presented to them.  I admit to finding that stuff intriguing.  But right before a commercial break, they teased the next segment that would feature men dressed as women being harassed in a diner.  I told my wife I wasn't going to watch it because it would make me too mad.


She asked how I could know it would if I didn't watch it.  And I proceeded to tell her exactly what ABC would present: innocent, fragile and vulnerable drag queens being abused verbally by hostile heterosexuals.  The transgender crowd would be made into the victims of mistreatment and discrimination.  Maybe I was just a little on edge after having finished my interview that week of Dr. Frank Turek, a good and decent Christian man who was bullied by homosexuals and fired from his job simply because he held to traditional views on marriage (interestingly, I haven't seen that angle featured on ABC's show yet).  But from the other room, I heard enough of the segment to know I was right about the presentation of the scene.


Andrew Sullivan writes about it on ABC's website:

But not everyone is so enthusiastic about men who dress as women. Drag queens Jesse Volt and Mimi Imfurst have been performing as women for years, and while they love their adoring audiences, they also know the dark side of drag. On their way to shows, they say they are often the victims of ridicule and hatred from people on the street.



"Lots of people are just so uncomfortable with anyone who challenges gender stereotypes," Mimi says.

Gender stereotypes?  Are you kidding me?  It is a perfect indication of how warped our thinking has become by the scourge of political correctness that expecting a man to dress as a man or a woman to dress as a woman (or at least not to try to intentionally fool everyone into believing they're the opposite sex) is considered inappropriate "stereotyping."

Once inside, Jesse and Mimi are met immediately with fierce intolerance from the shop's waiter, also an actor, who is in on our scenario. He begins circulating around the cafe, making his opinions very clear to the customers.


"Watch out guys, the weirdos are here," the waiter says, "Don't worry, next time we won't let this happen."


At first the other customers don't pay much attention to Mimi and Jesse, despite their flashy outfits. However, they soon become hard to ignore as the waiter launches into a loud tirade directed straight at them.

I don't believe in loud tirades.  And I don't believe in mistreating anyone.  But you tell me: what do you see happening most often in the streets of American cities?  A.) Christians rioting in the streets dressed in their Sunday best, demanding transgenders be abused and mistreated, or B.) Gay pride parades where radical sexual anarchists engage in offensively grotesque displays while chanting and demanding the silencing of Christian fascists?  Anyone?


And yet, how does ABC decide to portray the situation?  "Fierce intolerance" directed at the drag queens, of course!  What about the "fierce intolerance" transgenders have to traditional morality and those who espouse Biblical sexuality?


The trouble with all of this continues to be the false choice that media elites who are 100% behind the sexual anarchy movement and 100% hostile to the Biblical worldview perpetuate.  You are either okay and accepting of drag queen cross-dressing, or you are intolerant (or a coward who won't confront the intolerant).  There is no distinction made for those of us who believe that cross-dressing is wrong, is a terrible example for children and indicative of someone whose confusion over their gender needs counseling, not celebration...but who would NEVER verbally abuse someone as a way of making our point.


ABC cleverly uses the acronym WWYD (What Would You Do?) to identify their show, an obvious rip-off of the popular WWJD (What Would Jesus Do?) slogan from a few years ago.  But it's actually instructive to ask what Jesus would do in this scenario provided by ABC.  He would surely not have been silent.  And yes, He might well have rebuked the hostile waiter by encouraging him to remember his own sins before casting the first stone.  But if His interaction with the prostitute (from which that famously exploited and misrepresented phrase is derived) is any indication, He would have, in love, commanded the cross-dressers to "go and sin no more." 


And that would have made the Hope of all mankind "intolerant" to ABC.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:09 pm   |  Permalink   |  1 Comment  |  Email
Tuesday, July 12 2011

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


I don't think Mitt Romney is going to end up with the Republican nomination.  I've been saying that for some time, and I know it is not what the political elites are saying.  I know he is constantly called the "front-runner."  I know that everyone talks about the massive amounts of money he has been able to raise and is still raising.  And they may end up being right.  But I still believe this is a year that the majority of Republicans are tired of the establishment and are hungry for a conservative nominee.


Only time will tell, but it appears that at least in Iowa, my theory may be holding up:


A new poll of Iowa Republicans released Sunday night suggested that Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) enjoys momentum in the race to win the state's caucuses.

Twenty-five percent of likely Republican caucusgoers said they would support Bachmann, the Tea Party favorite, as the GOP presidential nominee, surpassing former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R).


Romney and Bachmann were virtually tied, at 23-22 percent, respectively, in a mid-June edition of the Iowa Poll, published by the Des Moines Register. This new poll, conducted at the end of June for The Iowa Republican, suggests movement in favor of Bachmann, though it might not capture the immediate state of the race.

Yes, it is only one state, albeit an important one.  But keep in mind that Mitt Romney has been running for president, generating a massive network of workers, and fundraising for nearly 2 years.  Michele Bachmann has been in the race officially for a few weeks.  That is telling.


Some will point out that this surge by Bachmann ahead of Romney might be due to the fact that Romney has opted not to compete in the Iowa strawpoll.  It's a question of chicken and the egg.  I suppose it's possible that Romney's decision to forgo the event has rubbed Iowans the wrong way and they've decided to stop supporting him (though it is odd that convicted Romneyites would bolt to.Bachmann?).  But I think the higher degree of likelihood is that Bachmann's rise and Romney's slow fade is what prompted him to opt out of the strawpoll.


Having spent the money he's spent in this race, losing the strawpoll to an upstart Congresswoman would be a serious blow to his campaign.  I think that's why Romney is out of the event.  But I think that's the handwriting on the wall for Mitt.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:08 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, July 12 2011

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


I can't even count the number of times I've heard offended Democrats say to me things like, "So are you saying you can't be a Christian Democrat?"  For the record, I've never said anything like that.  I've said things like, "you can't be a secular humanist and a Christian."  And given that secular humanists now control the Democrat Party and shape its platform, direct its paths, and form its policy positions, I suppose a strong argument could be made that a rational Christian would not join such a group.  But my concern with the whole issue has always been this: the Democrat Party is the one you will always find assailing Biblical principle in the public square.  Sometimes Republicans will join them, but it's always Democrats.


Perhaps this story begins to explain why that is

Gallup asked 1,018 American adults [3] this question: "Which of the following statements comes closest to describing your views about the Bible -- the Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word, the Bible is the inspired word of God but not everything in it should be taken literally, or the Bible is an ancient book of fables, legends, history, and moral precepts recorded by man?"

Let me interject to say that I see a bit of confusing verbiage there.  There's ambiguity to the statement that "not everything should be taken literally," and I think that well-intentioned Christians could easily mistake what is meant by the question.  In fact, I'm not sure exactly what Gallup meant by the question.


Do they mean, "take the Bible literally" as in believe in Creation as a literal 6-day event, Jesus was actual man in the flesh who died a physical death and resurrected on the 3rd day, etc.?  Or do they mean, "take the Bible literally" in applying the Old Testament law code to our current day political environment?  There's a whale of a big difference between the two.  For the record, I probably would have answered the question by choosing the first option, that the Bible is the actual word of God.  But I also believe that there are parts of the Bible that are to be taken figuratively, that are poetry or visions rather than actual commands and events.


Understanding this, I know that it would be unwise to read too much into the difference in percentages of those answering either way.  It could be that a large portion of those that answered the second way, feel the first way but were confused.  However, there is no ambiguity about the last option: that the Bible is a man written book of fables and legends.  Those are the numbers I find worth reading and reporting.


And while only 17% of the American public chose that answer, check out the political ideology breakdown:

Seven percent of conservatives, 20 percent of moderates and 31 percent of liberals said that the Bible was an ancient book of fables, legends, history and moral precepts recorded by man.

Almost a third of every liberal in this country believes that the Bible is just a conglomeration of fairy tales.  And when you break it down by political party, it's equally concerning:

When divided by political party affiliation, 24 percent of Democrats, 21 percent of independents, and 6 percent of Republicans said the Bible was an ancient book of fables, legends, history and moral precepts recorded by man.

Almost a fourth of every Democrat in this country believes that the Bible is no more reliable or absolute than Poor Richard's Almanac.  Wow.


When I talk about the dangerous direction the Democrat Party and the left are leading this country, this has a lot to do with it.  When the people who make up those groups are so backwards and clueless about the source of absolute Truth, about the sovereignty of Scripture, and about the authority of the Bible, is it any wonder their ideas and proposals are so destructive for our civilization?

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:07 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, July 12 2011

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


Sarah appears to be keeping one foot in the White House door, as she remains coy about her political ambitions.  But this much is clear: if she gets involved, she's a major player, right away.  If for no other reason, it is her straight-forward candor and willingness to call out her opponents for their bad and dangerous ideas.  It's not that Romney or Gingrich don't do the same.  It's that they do it differently.  Palin has an approach that demands a response.  You're either with her or you're not...and she wants it that way.  Because if you're with her, she wants you to know what you're with, and if you're against her, she wants to know who you are so she can keep working on you.  In an era of wishy-washy mealy mouthed politicians that's refreshingly Reaganesque. 



In her most recent Facebook post (that the media can't help but cover hysterically), Palin spoke about the debt problem with a blunt honesty that is missing from the establishment class in Washington.  She wrote:

Back in January 2009, as governor of Alaska, I announced: "We also have to be mindful about the effect of the stimulus package on the national debt and the future economic health of the country. We won't achieve long-term stability if we continue borrowing massive sums from foreign countries and remain dependent on foreign sources of oil and gas." Then I urged President Obama to veto the stimulus bill because it was loaded with absolutely useless pork and unfunded mandates. Everyone knows my early and vocal opposition to that mother of all unfunded mandates known as Obamacare starting back in August 2009, and many recall my objections to the Federal Reserves' inflationary games with our currency known as QE2 from November 2010. It's a matter of public record that I did not go to Harvard Law School, but I can add.

That's something that not even her critics can (or even attempt) to take away from her.  When other Republicans were cowering a bit at the popularity and swagger of Obama, Palin was warning about his ignorant policies and what they would do.  She, the ignoramus from Wasilla, was right.  He, the "smartest president we've ever had" was wrong.  Huh.

The same "experts" who got us into this mess are now telling us that the only way out of our debt crisis is to "increase revenue," but not by creating more jobs and therefore a larger tax base; no, they want to "increase revenue" by raising taxes on job creators who are taxed enough already! As Margaret Thatcher said, "The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." That's where we are now. Hard working taxpayers have been big government's Sugar Daddy for far too long, and now we're out of sugar. We don't want big government, we can't afford it, and we are unwilling to pay for it.


This debt ceiling debate is the perfect time to do what must be done. We must cut. Yes, I'm for a balanced budget amendment and for enforceable spending caps. But first and foremost we must cut spending, not "strike a deal" that allows politicians to raise more debt! See, Washington is addicted to OPM - Other People's Money. And like any junkie, they will lie, steal, and cheat to fund their addiction. We must cut them off and cut government down to size.

Call me a sycophant if you want, but I love how this woman talks.  Palin is convincing because she is real.  No "handler" is going to tell someone to talk about taxpayers being Sugar Daddies and that the government is stuck on OPM.  That's brilliant.  And it's the flare that sets Sarah apart from others.  It is a stark contrast to the poll tested, Bill Ayers approved Obama-speak we've been getting for too long.  More and more Americans are gravitating towards the "give me someone who will say it like it is" mentality, and Palin is ready to do just that.


But it's more than just the way she speaks.  She, herself, writes in this post:

...leadership is so much more than oratory.

Yes it is.  It's about being willing to make tough choices and tackle real challenges rather than kick the can down the road hoping to hold together a political coalition long enough to get re-elected.  We don't need any more politicians in Washington.  In fact, we need to get rid of the ones we've got.  We need more statesmen.  We need more leaders.  We need more people like Palin.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:06 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Monday, July 11 2011

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


The old "political spectrum" description is that you start in the center where there are moderates.  Working left you have liberals, ultra-liberals and eventually communists.  Starting from the center and working right you have conservatives, reactionaries, and eventually fascists.  There's so much wrong with that description it's tough to know where to start.  I always teach that "spectrum" to my students at school with the addendum that it is a really poor way of understanding political ideologies.  And I also am careful to not include the "communist/fascist" extremes.  Why?  Because it's total bull.


If you want a good description of where the true fascists are, read Jonah Goldberg's book "Liberal Fascism."  You won't have anymore questions. 


Along those lines, I got to thinking after my interview last week with Dr. Frank Turek (the evangelical speaker who was fired from Cisco Systems simply because he has Christian beliefs), that we need a modern day Paul Revere to ride around the country everywhere liberal, homosexualist groups are gathering and proclaim to the citizenry, "The Fascists are Coming!" 


What else can be said of a belief system that touts "tolerance" but freely violates the rights of conscience for anyone they deem intolerant?  What can be said of those who would seek the firing of an individual not for what they do, but what they believe?  Yet that is exactly who these fascists of the left are...and we better wake up to it.


And it's important to remember that it's not just liberal homosexual groups persecuting believers.  It's other liberal groups as well.  Check out what Max Andrews had to say about the Turek situation:

Dr. Turek was hired by Cisco back in 2008 to train in leadership techniques and team building for their Remote Operations Services team. Dr. Turek "was fired as a vendor for his political and religious views, even though those views were never mentioned or expressed during his work at Cisco." What happened was one of the managers in Dr. Turek's program Googled Turek and noticed that he had authored a book, which advocated a particular position on marriage that this manager, a self-identified homosexual, disagreed with. A complaint was filed against Dr. Turek for not having values consistent with Cisco.

This whole situation is strikingly similar, perhaps even worse than the wrongful termination of NASA's JPL information technology specialist David Coppedge...


Coppedge was terminated for allegedly "pushing" intelligent design upon his coworkers.  JPL associated this with Coppedge's "religious beliefs" and so Coppedge sued on grounds of religious discrimination. (I suggest reading the articles listed for a full account). Cisco meets a sub-par standard of internal consistency and had a knee-jerk reaction to, well they didn't really know what it was they were reacting to.


Thought crimes have filtered down from academia into the workplace. Regardless of what you think of Dr. Turek's views, that he should be fired merely for having them is alarming, and everyone who values academic freedom should be watching this closely.

A few years ago, Ben Stein drew attention to the fascism inherent in the liberal science establishment.  Now we see it happening in the liberal entertainment and social elite establishment.  We see it happening in the halls of our government.  The fascists aren't just coming, friends.  They're here.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:09 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Monday, July 11 2011

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


When Republicans made a budget deal several months ago, many conservatives and Tea Partiers were understandably upset.  I took in a great number of emails saying, "They still don't get is that possible?!"  My response at the time was that I wasn't yet ready to declare a Republican cave.  The logic I gave was that by compromising on the budget at the time prevented a government "shutdown" - something that the media would have certainly blamed on the Republicans and that if history is any guide, enough people might have too.  In other words, Mr. Obama and the Democrats, while clearly clueless and untrustworthy when it comes to handling the economy, might have benefited politically from Republicans digging in their heels at that time.  But by compromising, the Republicans took away Mr. Obama's leverage as the "debt ceiling problem" loomed on the horizon.



And here we are.  Republicans have demanded drastic spending cuts to even consider hiking the debt ceiling.  And Mr. Obama is in a very difficult position.  If he doesn't go along with them, the public perception of his leadership is shot.  If he does go along with them, the public perception of his leadership is shot.


Not that this is all about politics.  Our country is clearly on an unsustainable fiscal course, marked out for us by years of foolishness from both parties, but primarily the Democrats who have gotten elected promising more and more dollars to more and more groups.  Now it's time to pay the piper, and we're realizing our bank account has been bled dry...and so has our kids' bank account of money they haven't even made yet...and the same with our grandkids.  Rectifying that - or at least putting ourselves on the path to rectify that - is of first importance.  But I mention the politics because had the Republicans played all of their cards back in the initial government shutdown debate, they might have been too politically weakened to do what they're doing now.


And what are they doing now?  Ask columnist Clive Crook of Financial Times who, though not having any affinity towards Republicans, explains exactly what is occurring:

President Barack Obama took a huge gamble in his approach to the debt-ceiling talks last week. Believing he had an understanding with John Boehner, leader of the Republicans in the House of Representatives, he declared he wanted a $4,000bn "grand bargain" on the budget. Barely a day later, Mr Boehner said the deal was off. By Sunday evening, with talks about to resume at the White House, the president's gambit appeared to have failed.


Until recently Treasury officials had believed that the big fiscal issues could not be resolved with the debt-ceiling clock running down. After standing aside for months, Mr Obama took the opposite approach: nothing short of a grand bargain would work. He even promised to veto a stopgap measure. Liberal Democrats were stunned, because savings of more than $4,000bn cannot be found without changing Social Security and Medicare, which the party wants to keep off-limits. Mr Obama was offering these programmes up for cuts.

In return, he demanded movement from Republicans on revenues...

By intervening in the budget talks and staking his own reputation on a dramatic new proposal, he hoped to break the stalemate. He knew he risked his party's anger by putting entitlement reform, which is necessary, on the table. By doing so, he hoped to force Republicans to soften their resistance to tax increases, which are also necessary. A more balanced approach to long-term fiscal restraint would be possible - and if all went well, Mr Obama would get the credit.

It was too little leadership, too late. To make this strategy succeed, Mr Obama needed the pressure of public opinion to force Republicans to compromise. That pressure is still too weak, and the time to fix this is running out fast. Mr Obama has infuriated much of his party - again. And he has failed to budge a pathologically intransigent Republican party - again. He has come to a moment that could settle the fate of his presidency.

As I've been saying on the radio show, Mr. Obama lacks any credibility on the economy.  The American people don't trust him, and why would they? 

The weak economy makes a budget breakthrough all the more urgent. Jobs figures released on Friday were shockingly bad. They show that the US unemployment rate has risen again, to 9.2 per cent. In June, net job creation all but stopped. Even if uncertainty over the fiscal outlook is not the main reason for the setback, it certainly is not helping.

Obama and Pelosi and Reid teamed up to bring policies that have been an utter disaster, our economic recovery is non-existent, and now more than ever Americans are depressed every bit as much about tomorrow as they are today.

It's almost as though Republicans realized several months ago how disastrous Mr. Obama's decision making had been and they were willing to bide their time.  I don't want to give them more credit than what they deserve, and time will tell whether they will in the end, cave and save Mr. Obama from falling on his own political sword with this failed moment of attempted leadership.  I don't put it past them, honestly.

But for now, it appears Republicans are holding their ground and defending the taxpayer.  We have a spending problem in Washington, and it will not be resolved by higher taxes on anyone - especially job creators.  Americans agree with Republicans.  Mr. Obama knows that.  It's why he went for it all and ticked off his own party in a desperate attempt to get Republicans to let him tax just a little bit more.  For now, he failed.  If Republicans don't snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, he will take his party down with him, and the country will be all the better for it.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:08 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Monday, July 11 2011

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


If there was a Republican in the White House right now, the media and its experts would not be nearly so puzzled as to what is causing the bad economy.  Of course, they would have been expecting as much.  As I've mentioned before, when Bush was president, the media's "experts" were always surprised by "better than expected" economic news.  Now that Obama is president, they are stunned by "worse than expected" economic news.  The template isn't difficult to deduce: liberal media wants you to assume things will get better with a Democrat in office, and worse when a Republican is there.


After over 2 years of bad economic reports thanks to Obama, and over 4 years of bad economic reports thanks to a Democrat-led Congress, you would think that any self-respecting expert would have figured out by now that things aren't getting any rosier, so they might want to tick those projections down a notch or two.  Especially if they would just take a look at the foolish and job destroying policies Barack Obama and the Democrats have thrust upon us at a time we should be in a "recovery." 



But instead, we're still getting the nonsense.  After another stunningly bad jobs report last week, the AP reported that the "weak hiring casts doubts on the strength of rebound."  Uh, what rebound?  They wrote that "The report baffled economists...the job market is defying history...the excruciatingly slow growth is confounding economists."


Really?  Then maybe they should look for another line of work?  Granted, thanks to the President and his Party that these folks continue to defend, finding another line of work might be difficult.  But still.


The truth is that this isn't difficult to figure out.  I'm sorry, but it's not.  That is what actually makes this economic malaise so infuriating: it's not necessary.  We are doing it to ourselves.  Well, we did it to ourselves in the last presidential election because this president and his party are doing it to us, I should say.


Proof?  Simple.  Over at the Heritage Foundation, check out what Mike Gonzalez cited to explain why we're not seeing job growth. 

Stimulus package - The nearly $1 trillion boondoggle failed to stimulate, as we all now know, but made government grow beyond its means. ... The government stimulus bill did not create jobs; instead it filled job creators with fears of future tax hikes or more borrowing, and thus future artificially high interest rates.


Obamacare - It took the Administration and the Democratic-held Congress a year and half to ram this piece of legislation down the throat of the American people, time that could have been spent fixing the employment picture. Worse yet, Obamacare imposes vast and expansive new regulations and made labor costs uncertain. ...


Frank-Dodd Financial Bill - The heavy-handed Dodd-Frank financial regulation bill not only placed needless burdens on small as well as large financial institutions, but has deterred investment by imposing ill-defined restrictions on those who want to invest in the economy. And it did so without addressing the real causes of the financial crisis.


Environmental Protection Agency regulation - Unable to get Congress to pass Cap and Trade, with its skyrocketing electric rates, the Obama EPA is skinning the cat another way, mandating costly regulation. ...


Regulatory Assault on Employers - The Administration's enforcement agencies view employers as lawbreakers who need to be brought in line. ... Obama's message to employers has been clear: "We suspect you are breaking the law and we will get you." Small wonder they are not hiring.

And though Gonzalez doesn't mention it, let's not forget this President's (and his Democrat Party's) insane energy policy that is crushing jobs and family budgets, as well as undermining any profit made by businesses in America. 


So for all those economists who are baffled, and the media types who pretend that this is just confounding, it's really not.  All this makes sense, and it's all traceable right back to a central problem.  He's found at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:07 pm   |  Permalink   |  2 Comments  |  Email
Monday, July 11 2011

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


When I grew up as a little boy in the 1980s, I remember a very popular song from the very popular rock band Poison called, "Something to Believe In."  I remember some of the lyrics, particularly the chorus, that declared that we're all looking for something to put faith and trust in.  Well, apparently the "universalists" haven't gotten that message.  Check out this hilarious story from the Washington Post:

A recent Sunday service at the First Unitarian Church of Baltimore ended with an apology.


Laurel Mendes, a neo-pagan lay member who led the service, feared that a reference to God in the hymn "Once to Every Soul and Nation" might have upset the humanists in the pews. So, Mendes explained to the congregation that religious doctrine had been duly scrubbed from hymns in the Sunday program.


"I didn't want to make anyone uncomfortable by reciting something that might be considered a profession of faith," Mendes, 52, said after the service. "We did say ?God,' which you don't often hear in our most politically correct hymns."


Welcome to a typical Sunday in the anything-but-typical Unitarian Universalist Association, a liberal religious movement with a proud history of welcoming all seekers of truth ? as long as it's spelled with a lowercase "t."


Dramatic readings from the biography of 20th-century labor leader John L. Lewis? Sure. An altar crowded with Christian, Buddhist, Islamic and Jewish symbols? Absolutely. God-talk? Umm, well...

A few years ago, my friend John Branyan and I did a video parody of this type of nonsense.  Check it out here for some reference to what we're dealing with in this story.  I can't quite fathom why this "church" wants to call itself a "church" or a "religion" in the first place.  What kind of religion doesn't engage in - and actually apologizes if someone accidentally brings up - "God-talk?"  Isn't that what religion is?!  I know, I dogmatic of me.


And that brings up something else about this piece.  Check out this line from the story:

Many UUA members say they find meaning and purpose in the familial bonds forged in congregations, regardless of religious beliefs. But some say the UUA is held back by members' reluctance to proclaim religious tenets ? a tricky situation for an association that includes Christians, Buddhists, Jews, pagans, humanists and spiritual refugees from a host of more dogmatic faiths.

Umm...more dogmatic faiths?  What exactly is it, if it's not dogma, that these people adhere to?  Shunning the name of God and strictly forbidding anything that means anything into your services, like it or not, is dogmatic!


Anyway, that wasn't the point of the story.  It seems that the Unitarian Universalists are a bit perplexed.  They thought that by standing for nothing, they would grow by leaps and bounds...that people would be flocking to get in their building so they could stand around and look at each other and hear a bunch of meaningless poetry and readings.  But it's not happening:

For 50 years, the UUA has conducted a virtually unprecedented experiment: advancing a religion without doctrine and hoping that welcoming communities and shared political causes, not creeds, will draw people to its pews.


Leaders say its no-religious-questions-asked style positions the UUA to capitalize on liberalizing trends in American religion. But as the UUA turns 50 this year, some members say a "midlife" identity crisis ? trying to be all things to everyone ? is hampering outreach and hindering growth.

The fact that the "religion writers" at the Washington Post can't figure this out makes them just as ridiculous as the leadership of this non-church church.  What is the point of attending one of these confabs if there's nothing meaningful associated with it?  Besides being epically boring, imagine having to be careful what you say every moment you're in there so as not to offend anyone.  I know these folks think that Christian dogma is just suppressing and overbearing, but can you imagine trying to be an adherent of the church of political correctness?  Yikes.  Their floors are paved with eggshells, no doubt.


But I thought I would give them a little tip to help them through their "midlife" identity crisis: Unitarian Universalists, you're having an identity crisis because you have no identity.  You stand for nothing.  You teach nothing.  You have no fixed point of reference, no concrete, established basis for your beliefs...even your deified principle of tolerance lacks any firm objective grounding.  You flap in the breeze of relativity and offer no solid rock upon which to build an existence or to answer the big questions of life.  You create more questions in your flock than you answer.  You lead people into the wilderness rather than into the truth.  You believe that there is no Truth, except for the truth that says there is no Truth. 


Once word got out, did you honestly expect to be a viable or meaningful institution?  Really?  That's sad, given that you could have learned better simply by listening to an 80's power ballad.
Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:06 pm   |  Permalink   |  1 Comment  |  Email
Monday, July 11 2011

In spite of what you may have been led to believe by Hollywood, the media, and the pop culture, Americans still have an innate understanding about the basic building block of the family. More than forty million Americans (63% of total voters) in 31 state elections have voted to affirm marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Two weeks ago, a national poll from Public Opinion Strategies found that 62% of Americans say that marriage should be defined as only between a man and a woman . . . with 53% strongly holding this view. (Only 35% polled disagree.) Most Americans seem to instinctively know that marriage benefits adults and children in ways that cannot be duplicated in another relationship that does not include a husband and a wife.

You may be interested to know that this week, AFA of Indiana sent a brochure and DVD to every Indiana state legislator explaining the various dangers to children, society, schools, churches, religious and faith-based charity institutions that the un-defining of marriage would have in Indiana.

Posted by: Micah Clark AT 06:02 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Sunday, July 10 2011

Indiana Congressman Dan Burton has joined with North Carolina Congresswoman Virginia Foxx to author an amendment to the House Defense Appropriations bill (HR 2219) which would do something that the Obama Administration won't - enforce the Defense of Marriage Act. The amendment was to be considered on the House floor.

The Foxx/Burton Amendment states, "No funds under the act may be used for activities in contravention of Public Law 104-199, the Defense of Marriage Act." It reaffirms the intent of Congress that in all military policies, regulations, programs, and matters involving benefits, funds may not be used for activities in contravention of the Defense of Marriage Act. The amendment is important in that it prevents the military from hasty social engineering while the Department of Defense sorts through all the implications of the repeal of "Don't Ask Don't Tell."

The Obama Administration shocked many military observers when it quickly attempted to allow for the use of military facilities for the performance of same-sex marriages. It also tried to coerce military chaplains to perform such ceremonies soon after it succeeded in lifting the ban on open homosexuality in the military with the repeal of "Don't Ask Don't Tell." This placed the majority, some 3,000 military chaplains, in conflict between a dramatic new policy change and clear religious teachings on the issue of homosexual behaviors, leaving some to observe that in the Obama-led military, "homosexuals now have more freedom of expression than do Christians and military personnel with traditional beliefs."

In 1996 every single member of the Indiana Congressional delegation supported the Defense of Marriage Act in a lopsided 342-67 vote in the US House and 85-14 in the US Senate. Prior to the Obama Justice Department's pathetic defense of DOMA, nearly every Federal high Court had upheld the law, including the US Supreme Court's rejection of challenges to it. Interestingly, unlike DOMA, the administration has chosen to enforce and fiercely defend its far more legally questionable health care plan.  This highlights the problem of a politicized Department of Justice picking and choosing which laws it wants to defend.Rather it should fulfill its duty to defend all the laws properly enacted by Congress until the courts exercise their limited role of settling constitutional questions.

The Center for Military Readiness has a factsheet on the Foxx/Burton Amendment here:

Posted by: Micah Clark AT 09:00 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Sunday, July 10 2011

In a response to one of my letters to the editor, Mr. Joel Detchon agreed with my phrase, "the great and grand experiment that is American liberty." He then goes on to suggest:

The experiment continues as we now deal with the issue of gay rights.

I am prompted to wonder exactly what rights are being denied the homosexual community.



Are they denied the right to travel freely? Are they somehow prevented from engaging in free and open commerce? What about the right to own property? Are they required to quarter soldiers or to allow police officers into their homes without properly executed court orders? Are they forbidden to have jury trials? Do they not count as citizens?


I have read through the entire Constitution of the United States, and I cannot find anywhere the rights afforded by this document that they do not already enjoy. It appears to me that the experiment has already succeeded.

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 07:00 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Sunday, July 10 2011

"God is our refuge and strength, an ever-present help in trouble. Therefore we will not fear, though the earth give way and the mountains fall into the heart of the sea, though its waters roar and foam and the mountains quake with their surging." - Psalm 46:1-2

Patrolling the no-fly zone over Bosnia on June 2, 1995, turned out to be anything but a routine day for U.S. Air Force Captain Scott O'Grady. Struck by a surface-to-air missile at 27,000 feet, Capt. O'Grady hastily ejected from his F-16 fighter. He managed to land unscathed in enemy territory.


Bosnian Serbs immediately began a relentless pursuit to capture the downed pilot. O'Grady evaded them for six long days and nights. His rigorous survival training was not the only thing that sustained him. His faith in God played a significant part in O'Grady's survival.



After his remarkable rescue by an elite team of Marines, O'Grady revealed that on his third day on the ground, he experienced the love of God to such a level that it took away his fear of death. At a national press conference, he explained, "If it wasn't for my love for God and God's love for me, I wouldn't be here right now." Captain O'Grady's inspirational story is a testimony to Article 6 of the United States Military Code of Conduct: "I will never forget that I am an American, fighting for freedom, responsible for my actions, and dedicated to the principles which made my country free. I will trust in my God and in the United States of America."


Lord, thank You for your ever-present help in Captain O'Grady's trouble. May the light that shines on You through His testimony teach us to rely upon You in my own troubles. No matter what challenge looms before me, I recognize that You are my refuge and that Your strength will guide me through it. Amen.

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 06:00 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Saturday, July 09 2011

Associated Press reports:

Comedian Tracy Morgan delivered a personal apology Tuesday to gay advocacy groups and Tennessee audience members who were offended by an anti-gay rant during his show there earlier this month. "I don't have a hateful bone in my body," he said. "I don't believe that anyone should be bullied or just made to feel bad about who they are."


Really? So, Mr. Morgan, when can everyone else you offend in your comedy act receive their apology? Or does it take a bit of bullying, as evidenced by gay "rights" activists, to extract an apology from you?


I will admit that it is fascinating to watch the left turn on themselves. Perhaps we need to convene a Congressional panel to form a bureaucracy to which all comedy act routines must be submitted for approval. That would be interesting.

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 07:45 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Saturday, July 09 2011

This week's liberal quote includes any and all residents of the land of left-believe who have expressed anger at the Casey Anthony verdict. Case in point:

Kathy Griffin (twitter): Wow. Ok, now this case has my attn. Not guilty? Really? I just assumed...


Even though the left is filled with ire - at least until Big Media finds some new drama on which they can focus their dysfunctionally short attention span - this is the same sector of folks who would be vulgarly cussing out pro-life advocates had Casey removed her daughter from her life a couple of years sooner. Everything that Casey did - the wild, self-absorbed, lascivious lifestyle - is endorsed by the left. Liberals persecute relentlessly those, like evangelical Christians, who speak out against abortion and licentious behavior. Yet when the logical consequence of a life indoctrinated by moral relativity becomes reality, liberals feign shock. What a herd of hypocrites.


Given the rampant immorality left like cow patties across the American landscape, it is no big surprise when someone steps in it. Sad, yes, but not surprising.

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 07:30 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Saturday, July 09 2011

A disappointing U.S. jobs report has stunned Wall Street and triggered a fresh round of political recriminations as to who and what's to blame.

Not everyone is stunned by the jobs report of 7/8/2011.



As faithful readers know, I have some favorite market analysts and stay abreast of their reports. Among my group of favorites are the good folks with Weiss Research. I have not referred to them in awhile, so I will provide links to some of their recent publicly released articles. (Please feel free to ignore their promotional ads. I have no employment or remuneration connection of any kind with Weiss Research or any affiliates. I am merely sharing what I consider useful and helpful analysis concerning national and international economic events.)


Why This Summer Is Truly Different:

What about jobs? Outplacement firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas said job cut announcements rose more than 12 percent between May and June to 41,432. And while ADP Employer Services said job growth rebounded somewhat in June, unemployment remains stubbornly stuck around 9 percent.

Why the Great Greek Tragedy has Barely Begun:

You can believe the same politicians who have consistently and deliberately deceived you about this debt crisis from day one (see also "Government Lying about Debt Crisis"). Or you can believe the global investors who have no agenda but to protect their own investments from the true risks.

The robust recovery isn't underway; time to take matters into your own hands!:

Just months ago, Wall Streeters and politicians were cheering that a recovery was well underway. Many forecasters were projecting 2011 to be a big year, with growth to be better than 5 percent ? the kind of "snap-back" you might expect following a typical recession. They also admitted that the key fundamentals, like jobs and consumer spending, weren't confirming the recovery. But they explained it away, saying these components were just lagging.

Recession Warning Flags Flying Again!:

The United States emerged from a grueling 18-month recession just two short years ago, according to the business cycle arbiters at the National Bureau of Economic Research. Yet for many Americans, the "recovery" felt like anything but a rebound. And now, it looks like it's already coming to an end.

More articles available at the Money and Markets website.

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 06:00 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, July 08 2011

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


Will the media or the uber-leftists take notice of Barack Obama's recent broken campaign promise:

The White House is prepared to keep as many as 10,000 U.S. troops in Iraq after the end of the year, amid growing concern that the planned pullout of virtually all remaining American forces would lead to intensified militant attacks, according to U.S. officials.

Keeping troops in Iraq after the deadline for their departure at the end of December would require agreement of Iraq's deeply divided government, which is far from certain. The Iraqis so far have not made a formal request for U.S. troops to remain, according to the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly.


This while he is speeding up withdrawals of troops faster than our military commanders think wise or safe for our men and women in uniform.  What to make of all this?  Obama wants to get re-elected.  That's it.  All of these decisions militarily are now being made within the prism of running for re-election.  Therefore it does little good to evaluate the philosophical logic behind what Obama is doing.


But that doesn't mean the question of what we should be doing, what our purpose is, and what we should expect of our military is inappropriate.  Maybe it's time to get candid.


Here are a few of my thoughts:


Few conservatives question whether President George W. Bush was right to take military action in both Afghanistan and Iraq (after gaining Congressional approval for both).  Afghanistan was a response to the attacks of 9/11, and we were totally justified in waxing the Taliban and obliterating terror bases throughout the wilderness they call a country.  In terms of Iraq, if our intelligence indicated a mounting and imminent threat to U.S. security, and the Iraqi leadership was hostile and unwilling to comply with international obligations, we were again justified to toast them.


Where conservatives like myself begin to balk at the action in both places is what followed the initial military activity.  Nation building doesn't work.  Never has.  Yet, because many of us wanted to believe that "a free Iraq" or a "free Middle East" would spread throughout the region and do more to secure our interests than the hundred short-stint military actions that would otherwise be required, we suspended our common sense a bit and supported the military rebuilding initiatives.


Most of us were willing to give President Bush the benefit of the doubt when he began toeing the liberal line of nation building.  We became victims of language manipulation.  When Colin Powell expressed his now famous declaration, "If you break it, you own it," we hesitatingly accepted it.  But what Powell was doing with that statement was finding a flowery way of justifying the futile attempt of rebuilding a nation like Afghanistan or Iraq in our image.  We accepted the argument that in order to "finish the job," we had to see a democratic Iraq or free Afghanistan.  Technically, that's not true.


We had no further obligation to the people of either country.  We took action to protect our citizens and our interests, and were completely justified in doing so.  Our job was finished in those places when the threat was removed.  It's not that we should oppose Afghan efforts to establish democratic rule, or Iraq's attempt to create a functioning republic.  But we didn't "owe" it to them.  That is a self-loathing guilt complex placed upon the American conscience by bleeding heart liberals who neither understand nor respect the purpose of the military.


What we are seeing in both these countries right now is very instructive, though it is something liberals undoubtedly want to ignore: freedom, though it may be the yearning of the human soul, is not easy.  A free society requires the widespread embrace of certain principles, moral standards, and an internal moral restraint of the masses who wish to be free.  It's why (get ready to get uncomfortable, liberals) our Founders talked about why Christianity was the best friend of freedom.  It's why Western civilizations (those founded upon Judeo-Christian principles) enjoy the blessings of freedom to a far greater extent than anyone else.


Apart from a foundation in the moral principles taught by Western civilization, countries like Iraq and Afghanistan will not be free.  But Iraq and Afghanistan cannot have those principles thrust upon them by military force.  And they aren't likely to willingly adopt them given that their population has been indoctrinated from birth that such principles are evil, corrupt, and characteristics of the infidel.


The Middle East is mired in a barbaric belief system that keeps them locked in the stone-age.  Liberating their minds from that belief system is the only way they will introduce soil fertile enough for the seeds of liberty to take root.


So what does that portend for us?  It means we should recognize what our "obligations" in those parts of the world really are: defend our people and our interests.  Period.  Given the hotbed of terrorism that the Middle East has become, and the dangerous weapons these mad Islamic regimes are pursuing, we should ramp up our oversight and intelligence activity.  We should increase our covert action to eliminate threats as they amass in the shadows.  And, God forbid, when our people are victimized by an act of violence originating from one of these backwards civilizations, we should light them up like the 4th of July in such a mighty display of force that perhaps it will dawn on them not to do so again.


And when we do, we should recognize that while we shouldn't be an impediment to any serious attempt of the native people to embrace freedom (and should encourage the missionary and humanitarian enterprises that help facilitate such a shift in ideology among the people), it is their obligation to shed their anti-Western, anti-democratic, anti-Christian ideas, and lay the foundation for a free society.not the obligation of the U.S. military.

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

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


I am truly coming to believe that our ability to survive as a civilization is going to come down to whether or not people will have the intellect and common sense to see through the myriad tactics of politicians to cloud reality with rhetoric.  There are times when I feel confident that the American people can overcome this challenge.  There are times when I'm not so sure.


The fact that so many Americans can still believe (even if it's not a majority) that the world is getting ready to incinerate because too many Americans use air conditioning and fly commercial jets is alarming.


The fact that so many Americans can still believe (even if it's not a majority) that a business should be forced to pay $60 an hour to someone without a college degree who stands and presses a button on a machine all day - and that anything less than that amounts to an outrageous attack on the middle class - is alarming.


The fact that so many Americans can still believe (even if it's not a majority) that Medicare and Social Security will be sustainable when the Baby Boomers retire is alarming.


And then there's this: the fact that so many Americans can still believe that "taxing the rich" is a sound fiscal policy is perhaps the most alarming of all.  Why?  Economist Thomas Sowell explains:


The current controversy over whether to deal with our massive national debt by cutting spending, or whether instead to raise tax rates on "the rich," is a classic example of talking points versus reality.

Most of those who favor simply raising tax rates on "the rich" ? or who say that we cannot afford to allow the Bush "tax cuts for the rich" to continue ? show not the slightest interest in the history of what has actually happened when tax rates were raised to high levels on "the rich," as compared with what has actually happened when there have been "tax cuts for the rich."

As far as such people are concerned, those questions have already been settled by their talking points. Why confuse the issue by digging into empirical evidence about what has actually happened when one policy or the other was followed?

The political battles about whether to have high tax rates on people in high income brackets or to instead have "tax cuts for the rich" have been fought out in at least four different administrations in the 20th century ? under Presidents Calvin Coolidge, John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush.

The empirical facts are there, but they mean nothing if people don't look at them, and instead rely on talking points.

How depressingly accurate Sowell's point is.  Engage even a handful of Americans on this idea and you will inevitably start hearing about how the rich need to "pay their fair share," or some other poll-tested rhetoric that Democrats have gotten the masses to believe in defiance of common sense and facts.


What are the facts?  Take a look:

The first time this political battle was fought, during the Coolidge administration, the tax-cutters won. The data show that "the rich" supplied less tax revenue to the government when the top income tax rate was 73 percent in 1921 than they supplied after the income tax rate was reduced to 24 percent in 1925.

Because high tax rates can easily be avoided, both then and now, "the rich" were much less affected by high tax rates than was the economy and the people who were looking for jobs. After the Coolidge tax cuts, the increased economic activity led to unemployment rates that ranged from a high of 4.2 percent to a low of 1.8 percent.

But that is only a fact about reality ? and, for many, reality lacks the appeal of talking points.

I've said it this way before: the rich didn't get to be rich by being clueless about how to handle their money shrewdly.  They know how to protect themselves from the IRS man - particularly when he starts demanding exorbitant rates. 


Further, when there is a lower tax rate for "the rich," that money is typically invested, resulting in a healthier economy, more upward social mobility for lower classes, and thus more tax revenue coming into the government.  It's worked that way every time it's been tried.  But again, that is a fact.  And for Democrats wanting to get elected, ginning up class envy and talking about soaking the rich earns you the votes of the ignorant poor and middle class voters.


I say ignorant because they don't take the time to see beyond the rhetoric and realize that while dutifully giving their votes to Democrats in hopes of making some money off the rich people they envy, they are electing the very people whose policies will result in increased cost of living, depressed economic activity, decreased job markets, and lower purchasing power.  Those too, are facts of history that anyone with a desire to know the truth can figure out simply by looking at the results of Democrat economic policies in the United States.


Facts are facts.  Rhetoric is rhetoric.  Here's to hoping the American people differentiate between the two come 2012.

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

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


If you listen to the American mainstream media, you might have been under the impression that the world would be a tolerant place if it weren't for those darn, dirty Christians always persecuting people who don't think like them.  If that's the case, you might have a hard time processing this:

The United States government voiced concern Wednesday about the plight of an Iranian Christian pastor sentenced to death for apostasy. Reports say his appeal to a higher court resulted in a stark choice - disavow the Christian faith or die.


"While Iran's leaders hypocritically claim to promote tolerance, they continue to detain, imprison, harass, and abuse those who simply wish to worship the faith of their choosing," State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said in a statement.



"We join the international community in continuing to call on the Iranian government to respect the fundamental rights of all its citizens and uphold its international commitments to protect them."


Yosef (Youcef) Nadarkhani, a 32 year-old father and evangelical pastor who embraced Christianity at age 19, was arrested in October 2009, reportedly for objecting to the teaching of Islam to Christian children at Iranian schools. The indictment against him accused him of organizing evangelistic meetings, sharing his faith and inviting others to convert, running a house church and "denying Islamic values."


He was sentenced to death by hanging late last year, and he lodged an appeal with Iran's Supreme Court.


Late last month, the appeal was reported to have been granted, and his lawyer indicated as much to a news agency on July 3. But it quickly emerged that the ruling was not as straightforward as initially thought.


According to the Human Rights Activists News Agency (HRANA), an association established by Iranian human rights advocates in 2009, Nadarkhani and family members have been told that new charges may be brought against the accused man, or the case could be referred back to the original sentencing court, in northern Iran's Gilan province.


HRANA said the information it obtained indicated that the Gilan court would "question the defendant again in order to determine whether he believes in Islam or not. If he is a Muslim, Yosef Nadarkhani must be released. If it is determined that he is a Christian, he may repent from his faith. Otherwise, if he insists on his beliefs, the death penalty must be carried out."

The truth is that this kind of religious bigotry and persecution is happening all across the Islamic world.  But in our politically correct culture - propagated by the same liberals who love to tell everyone how intolerant and bigoted Christians are - we can't bring it up.  Islam, as a religious minority in America, is protected by the left from any derision, any condemnation, any evaluation or dissection.


Liberal U.S. human rights teams will scour the earth looking for any dude dressing up like a woman who might have been told that he can't use the women's restroom, to hold him up as the next Rosa Parks.  If a minister refuses to marry two men, you can't find a microphone big enough to accommodate all the Hollywood liberals wanting to get face time condemning the bigotry and hatred.


But when Christians around the world are being persecuted and sentenced to death for their beliefs, you only hear about it when conservative media pushes the story - and then, only if the offending regime is one the U.S. is already at odds with (for instance, this story is discussed because it happens in Iran...but if it happens in Saudi Arabia, you'll never hear about it).


Countries founded on Christian principles like the United States are tolerant because that's what Christian principle teaches.  Read the Golden Rule for a primer.  But countries founded upon Islamic principles teach and embrace the exact opposite.  That might be something to note as the left continues to push their idiotic dogma that all belief systems are equally valid and beneficial to society.


If you'd like some expert testimony on this point, please contact Pastor Nadarkhani.  Pray for him and his family.

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

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


Talk about virulent, though shrouded, racism!  Check out what happened on NBC's Today Show when guest host Savannah Guthrie hosted Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain:

On Monday's Today show, substitute host Savannah Guthrie got snippy with GOP presidential contender Herman Cain as she played up his lack of time in government as a negative and demanded of the former head of the Godfather's pizza chain: "If you were still a CEO, if you were in business, would you hire someone for a key role who had no experience whatsoever in business?"


For his part, Cain jabbed back that his experience as a businessman, away from the Beltway, was exactly what government needed now.



Cain asserted: "If you look at any successful businessperson...they learn how to solve problems. Work on the right problems, surround yourself with the right people, and then make sure you put together the right plans. That's not happening in Washington, D.C."


However Guthrie would not let go of her attack line that Cain was too inexperienced to run for president as she huffed: "You've acknowledged that you have no foreign policy experience. And, in fact, you've minimized the importance of it saying it's something you can learn about later or you will just listen to experts. At a time this country is in two wars, is that sufficient?"

Outrageous, isn't it?  NBC finds it appropriate to question the credentials and the qualifications of Herman Cain.  I suppose it's just a coincidence that he's black?  I suppose it's just a coincidence that this question has not been posed to any other white presidential candidate?


Now, before you give NBC the benefit of the doubt and suggest that this is just a legitimate question about the qualifications of a man who is running to be the most important figure in our federal government, let me remind you that when we had an imminently unqualified man run in 2008, these questions were nowhere to be found.


But wait, you say: that unqualified man was Barack Obama, and he was black!  So it must not be racism.  How little you seem to understand.  Barack Obama was half-white, therefore the media didn't question him on his qualifications.  They reserve these insulting insinuations only for fully black candidates like Herman Cain.


If we're ever going to become a colorblind society, we have to be willing to call out racism when it rears its head.  And even if you don't pick up on it, words like "no experience, not sufficient, learn later," are all buzzwords and smokescreens for a vile antipathy towards people who are not white.


And by the way, if you think this is taking it too far, if you think that I am stretching beyond all rational limits in my accusation against NBC, take it up with the mainstream media.  They set the rules for what defines racism, now I'm just making them live by them.
Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:07 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, July 07 2011

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


The other day, the former tax attorney turned Congresswoman turned presidential candidate that the media pretends is too stupid to be in governmental office, Michele Bachmann, made an excellent point about all this debt ceiling/government default talk: we won't default even if we don't raise the debt ceiling.


It was honestly the first time I heard anyone say this.  The media has been bombarding us with talk of the economic Armageddon that will befall us if Republicans don't capitulate to Democrat demands to spend even more money and rack up even more debt.  Though I should have known better than to believe the media hype on this one, I admit that I hadn't taken the time to actually think this through fully.



Economist and blogger Noel Sheppard wrote a very simple, coherent explanation of how this works, and how our media is willfully ignorant and completely content to lie to the American people with hysterics simply to justify the government raising our taxes:

Let's start our truth dig by looking at the monthly debt payments so far this fiscal year:


Interest Expense Fiscal Year 2011
May $30,858,726,707.77
April $28,895,123,159.28
March $24,460,282,823.69
February $21,759,253,957.26
January $21,122,729,715.18
December $104,700,174,845.03
November $19,396,316,137.56
October $24,142,491,931.22
Fiscal Year Total $275,335,099,276.99


As you can see, since October, we've made interest payments of $275 billion. All we have to do is make those interest payments, and our debt remains in good standing. As interest rates haven't risen this year, we should likely expect our total interest expenses to be close to last year's $414 billion. So far in fiscal 2011, we have brought in $1.48 trillion in receipts and only made interest payments of $275 billion.


Will we have enough to meet all of our obligations?


Certainly not. Like what's happened in the past, many government employees and contractors would be given IOUs.


BUT, unlike what the Obama-loving media are telling people, we won't have to default on our debt, we won't have to forego payments to America's seniors, and we won't have to hold back the salaries of our military members in the field.


Just imagine how much different this debate would be if our press were actually presenting the truth to the people rather than the hysteria-driving nonsense that's been on display of late.

That's exactly right.  The way the media is portraying this is the same way labor unions portray the dire consequences of some law they see as threatening their power.  They tell all their workers that they will all lose their jobs, their homes, their kids and their kidneys if they don't rally in the streets - rally for legislative action that in actuality is detrimental to those very workers while benefitting the union bosses.


By pressing the template that this is the end of the world, it ramps up pressure on Republican lawmakers to cut a deal with Democrats to drive us even deeper into debt.  People like Bachmann get it.  It's smoke and mirrors, using a "crisis" to throw people into a frenzy, in order to get them to accept something that should have them livid - our irresponsible government being even more irresponsible with our money.


Don't raise the debt ceiling for any reason.  The government could still issue our debt interest payments keeping us from default.  And it would put increasing demand on Obama and his spend-happy Democrats to make the necessary cuts to our bloated federal budget.


Kind of amazing how smart Bachmann is, while proving how ignorant those who call her an "idiot" are, isn't it?

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

For years, Peter has written and talked about how the homosexual lobby was not merely interested in achieving the political objective of "marriage equality."  Rather, the push for gay marriage is nothing more than the latest in a series of steps taken by sexual anarchists seeking a complete removal of all moral expectations and standards for sexual conduct.


That is why you do not hear the homosexual lobby offering any alternative definitions for marriage.  The moment they do, they are guilty of the very kind of "moral judgments" they condemn in Christians.


As has become increasingly obvious - whether it's eHarmony being bullied into opening up a gay site or be fined, Christian photographers being fined for refusing to photograph a gay "ring ceremony," Just Cookies being threatened with eviction from their place of business for not wanting to participate in a gay celebration, etc. - there is an intention conflict being pursued between the homosexual lobby and Christians.


Homosexualists do not want peaceful coexistence with Christians.  They never have, and still don't.  If you listen to their words, they are content to live peacefully with Christians if and only if Christians abandon their beliefs.  What we are seeing is a movement that seeks to destroy the rights of conscience in America.  And it's happening right under our noses.



If there was ever any question about that truth, it is now settled.  Dr. Frank Turek's story is one that will soon become the norm in American society unless we realize what is occurring and stop the anti-Christian bigotry being perpetrated by the homosexualists and their left-wing allies.  They've laid the foundation and now they are making their move.


On Thursday's show, Peter interviewed Dr. Turek about his firing from Cisco Systems.  He was fired because he held Christian beliefs.  This is a warning call that must be heeded. 


Hear the startling full interview here.

Posted by: Anna Anderson AT 05:09 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, July 07 2011

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


Indiana may gain a great governor out of the process, but the national government is losing one of its finest statesmen as Mike Pence returns to Indiana next year.  While others have mentioned the need for a balanced budget amendment in passing, Mike Pence made it the integral part of his floor speech on the debt ceiling debate:

"I believe our debt limit should not be raised without real and meaningful reforms in the way the federal government spends the people's money in the short term and the long term.


In the short term, we need to cut spending now and implement statutory caps on how much money the federal government can spend going forward.


But in the long term, the time has come for this Congress to send to the states a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution that will limit federal spending and require this national government to live within our means.


While the debate, it seems according to the newspapers today, has focused on spending cuts versus tax increases, the real answer is to cut spending now and to make any increase in the nation's debt ceiling contingent on Congress sending to the states a Balanced Budget Amendment that limits federal spending to one-fifth of the American economy."

Pence makes an excellent point.  Virtually every one of the media reports on this debt ceiling debate has focused on how the President wants to increase taxes to help his deficit problem, and the Republicans want to cut spending.  It doesn't matter the media outlet, they all focus on how a "compromise" will be needed between these two sides.


Even on my program, we've talked about how the Republicans should not give an inch on this - raising taxes in the midst of our staggering economic "recovery" is a disastrous idea, and they will be tied to it if they capitulate.  Barack Obama has not earned the right for Republicans or the American people to take him seriously when it comes to economic ideas.  Republicans shouldn't give it to him.  He has proven himself to be clueless about the economy, and his failures are destroying jobs and family budgets.  He had his chance: 2 years with large majorities in both houses of Congress and he made a mess of things.


But while we've been pointing that out, we haven't spent enough time talking about what Pence is saying: okay, so we make spending cuts today, or a mixture of cuts and tax increases.  Either way, that is a temporary patch.  When the next election comes along, thousands of spending promises are going to be made, and we're going to end up right back where we are now.  That isn't responsible, and it's time for responsibility.  Force the Balanced Budget Amendment as part of the package.

"In short, it's time to let the states decide. Article V of the Constitution provides a process that requires any amendment to pass the House of Representatives and the Senate by a two-thirds vote. But, ultimately any amendment to the Constitution is submitted to the states. The states decide whether to amend the national charter. If three-fourths of the states agree, the Constitution is so amended. 


By demanding spending cuts today and sending a Balanced Budget Amendment to the states, we will let the states decide. And I have every confidence that these United States will choose fiscal discipline and reform.


Thirty-two of our fifty states operate under a balanced budget requirement in their state constitution, and forty-nine have some sort of balanced budget requirement. 


In Indiana, our state has had a prohibition against assuming debt in our state Constitution since 1851. And the Hoosier state has a balanced budget and even a surplus rainy-day fund."

It's nice to see Indiana being held up in the national spotlight as an example of common sense.  But other states are like us in that regard.  Why?  Because state governments are closer to the people and are therefore more responsive to their demands.  State governments are more accountable to the masses they lead, which is precisely why the Founders thought they should carry more authority than the national government.


And it's precisely why Pence is saying let the states have the option to put the brakes on the out of control national government that they created in the first place.  I'm with Pence.

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

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


The New York Times ran a very interesting story about an increasingly apparent divide between current Texas Governor and potential presidential candidate Rick Perry and former Texas Governor and former President George W. Bush.  I think the Times ran it to cause problems for Perry.  I also think they will accomplish the exact opposite.  Here's a portion of the piece:

But in recent years, Mr. Perry has broken politically with Mr. Bush, questioning his credentials as a fiscal conservative, accusing him of going on "a big-government binge" and playing down some of Mr. Bush's accomplishments in Texas in light of his own.


Mr. Perry's public statements exposed a long-simmering rivalry that had been little known outside the political fraternity here but underscores the rightward drift of the Republican Party since Mr. Bush was president. More acutely, Mr. Perry's criticism holds potential peril and benefit for him should he decide to mount a presidential campaign, allowing him to establish an identity distinct from Mr. Bush but risking a guerrilla campaign against him by the former president's inner circle.


I won't get hung up on the silliness of liberals warning conservatives about the Republican Party's "rightward drift."  Any thinking person can figure this one out: if twice as many Americans consider themselves conservative as they do liberal, drifting rightward isn't a bad idea.  If you're not convinced, consider that the Republicans' pre-drift location got them waxed in a couple successive elections, but their post-drift position saw a landslide Congressional victory.  Huh.


The truth is that a story like this, right now anyway, only helps Perry.  Liberals are desperately trying to figure out how to attack a guy they do not want to see get the nomination.  They tried (and will try again) the, "he's too religious" argument.  That's not flying.  So now they're trying the, "he's too conservative" argument.


Even in the general election, remember the way things turned out for those "dangerously right-wing Congressional candidates" in 2010 or the "dangerously right-wing" Reagan in 80 and 84.  But what's amazing about this piece is that it fails to note the general principles of primary election campaigns.  You win primaries by appealing to your base - in this case the right side of the aisle.  Political conventional wisdom says you drift more center as the general election approaches.  Thus, if you're trying to defeat Perry, this is not a good move:

On government spending, immigration and education, Mr. Perry's criticisms of Mr. Bush have given him cachet with conservatives, especially with Tea Party voters who blame the former president for allowing spending and the reach of government to grow rapidly.


Those criticisms have burnished the Perry image as less prone to ideological compromise or a fuzzy "compassionate" brand of conservatism, an appealing trait to those Republican primary voters seeking purity in their nominee. And they have helped Mr. Perry escape the shadow of Mr. Bush, whose sponsorship, along with that of his chief political strategist, Karl Rove, was critical to Mr. Perry's rise.


But it antagonized Mr. Bush's old team, many of whom endorsed Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison in her unsuccessful primary challenge to Mr. Perry last year. Some are indicating that they will oppose Mr. Perry should he join the presidential race with an anti-Bush message.

Telling a bunch of conservative Republican primary voters that this Perry guy is very different from Bush, to the point that Bush aides resent Perry and have tried to unseat him in the governor's mansion with a more establishment, Bushian candidate is only going to make them like Perry more.


Yes, there are many conservatives (myself included) who appreciate George W. Bush for many reasons.  But we also recognize that his centrist, big-government spending proclivities set us back many years.  So while I don't think it would be wise for Perry to run an anti-Bush campaign, thereby putting a bad taste in the mouths of the Bush apologists, I don't think being distinctly more conservative than Bush (as one aide put it: they attend the same church, but sit in different pews) is bad at all.


Besides, the New York Times is missing one important point: this election of 2012, as much as they may want it to be about Bush's record, is going to be a referendum on Obama's record.  And in that regard, the only distinction that would matter is the night and day difference between Perry and Obama.  Of course, maybe they realize that, which is why they are writing stories like this in a desperate attempt to fuel inner-Republican turmoil?
Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:06 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, July 06 2011

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


I bet you just never saw this coming.  I know I was just floored.


A group that bills itself as the nation's largest labor union, the National Education Association - a group that supports abortion, homosexuality, the breakdown of the traditional family, opposes Christianity and its general principles, and touts Marxists from its website - has formally endorsed Barack Obama for re-election at their summer convention.


Gee, I thought Sarah Palin had a shot at getting this open-minded group's endorsement.


But alas, it is not to be:

Members of the National Education Association voted to support Obama on Monday at their annual convention in Chicago.



In a statement, NEA President Dennis Van Roekel says Obama and the union share a vision and members wanted early and strong support to help his election.

So there you go, teachers.  If you are a member of the NEA, if your dues are going to support the NEA because your local association is doing what it does not have to do and is choosing to affiliate under them, you share the vision of Barack Obama.


That means when you sign the paper this August to join with them, you are pledging to continue funding an organization that is promising to do all they can to use the apparatus, networking, and structural command that you pay for to get a man re-elected to office who has gutted the American economy, made a joke of our international alliances and relationships, ushered in a socialist revolution, and pursued a rabidly anti-Christian social agenda.


So solace yourselves as you will.  Tell yourselves that the NEA is only supporting him because of his staunch "pro-education" policies.  But before you buy that crock-o-bull, you might want to read the rest of this AP story that discussed Vice President Joe Biden's speech to the NEA convention:

Biden's speech largely praised teachers and he took jabs at Republicans, saying they don't share the same views on public education.


But Biden drew applause when he briefly acknowledged there's widespread unhappiness among teachers for the Obama administration's education policies.

Wait a minute.  The NEA President says that the union and its members "share a vision" with Obama.  But it's clear from this same story that vision does NOT include Obama's education policies, where there's "widespread unhappiness."  So what is the "vision" that is the shared, you ask?  That would be the radical left-wing social, economic and international agenda.


Christian teachers continue to defend this how?

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

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


It's no surprise to me (nor should it be to anyone) to read members of the left-wing mainstream media happily celebrating the acceptance of sexual depravity in a liberal enclave like New York.  So many folks might have glossed over the personal celebration of the legalization of "gay marriage" in the state written by Time Magazine's news director Howard Chua-Eoan.



As a quick sidebar, this Chua-Eoan won the Media Research Center's "Quote of the Year" award several years ago for blaming Jeffrey Dahmer's murder/cannibalism spree on the right's "homophobia."  So yes, it's clear this guy is firing on all cylinders.


Anyway, like I said, most conservatives - if they even bother to pick up a copy of Time - probably didn't take the time to read the stomach-turning celebration of legalized depravity that this uber-leftist penned.  But there was something very significant buried in the article.  This is a point that many of us conservatives have been making, but that earns us scorn and ridicule for suggesting (despite the myriad of evidence that proves us correct).


For that reason, and that reason alone, I will subject you to reading a bit of this end-zone celebration dance from Time:

Marriage without a church or temple wedding isn't the real thing. Why can some people have all the bells and whistles in the church of their choice but not me? Of course, there have been and will be congregations and churches that allow gay men and lesbians to be married in their midst and to bless those unions, recognizing that God loves them just as much as Governor Andrew Cuomo does. But some rich and influential religious institutions are not only free to continue to reject gay men and women as equal beneficiaries of all aspects of faith but will now also rally their congregants to reject politicians who are willing to abide with this extension of secular civil rights ? no matter how much acceptance there is of same-sex marriage elsewhere, no matter how many wedding announcements appear in the New York Times.


I write this as a deeply religious Christian who is pained that the church that otherwise provides me with so much spiritual comfort and joy will never allow me to marry within its walls. Some clerics may be "liberal" enough to turn a blind eye to gay relationships so long as they do not have to recognize them, much less grant them any kind of imprimatur. And as of now, even in New York, religious institutions cannot be compelled to perform such a simple act of charity.

Whoa.  Can I now demand an apology from all of the hate-filled bigots who wrote to me and called me all sorts of names over the years for expressing the fact that this entire "gay marriage" movement is not about establishing any "legal right" or "equality," but about criminalizing Christian doctrine, and discriminating within the law against the rights of conscience?


Every time there has been an example - whether it was Catholic orphanages shuttered for not allowing adoption by gays, or photography businesses fined for not taking pictures of gay "ring ceremonies," or many other events we've documented - that proves the ultimate objective of these sexual anarchists, I've been told that I am exaggerating and hyperbolizing as the result of my own "hatred" towards gays.


Hmmm.  Let me just reiterate some of Chua-Eoan's points in case you missed them: "Marriage without a church.isn't the real thing."  In other words, the law doesn't go far enough.  "And as of now, even in New York, religious institutions cannot be compelled to perform such a simple act of charity."  In other words, it's such a small thing to legally force people to violate their convictions and conscience, to disobey the God they worship, and to condone and celebrate something their faith teaches them is an abomination (I mean, it's not like our ancestors founded a new civilization to avoid such violations of conscience or anything), surely that can happen soon.


Don't miss the dirty little secret of the "gay marriage" movement buried right here in this story: it doesn't end with "marriage equality rights."  It ends when freedom of expression and religion are things of the past, and every person is forced to bow their knee and accept the moral perspectives of those on the left.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:08 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, July 06 2011

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


Tom has taken his song and gone home.  If you hadn't heard, another one of the desperate-to-hang-on-to-our-coolness-as-we-wrinkle-and-age rock community, Tom Petty, has decided he will prove how hip he is to everyone by denying that radical right-wing nut Michele Bachmann the use of one of his songs, "American Girl," on the campaign trail.


It's his song, so whatever.  But I wonder how Tom would feel about all of his conservative fans deciding to deny him their business?  Now, obviously that will never happen.  Primarily because conservatives, by and large, are not nearly that - forgive this pun - "petty."



No one in their right mind thinks to themselves when they hear the song playing at a Bachmann event, "Oh my gosh, I love Tom Petty and he obviously is endorsing Bachmann, so I will now vote for her."  The same is true for Jon Bon Jovi when he told Sarah Palin she couldn't use "Who Says You Can't Go Home," or Rush when they told Rand Paul he couldn't use "Tom Sawyer," or Bruce Springsteen when he told Ronald Reagan he couldn't use "Born in the U.S.A."


No, these liberal cry babies are simply trying to make a point to all their rich, elitist liberal snob friends in Hollywood and the entertainment glitterati: don't count us among those Neanderthal rubes on the right.  And in the process, they make themselves look like jerks to millions of people who have always loved their music.


Count me among that number.  I grew up with Springsteen and Bon Jovi.  I remember dragging the extension cord out my bedroom window in Terre Haute, IN, so that I could blare their music from my boom box while I played in the front yard.  I still like their music, but my feelings about purchasing their work, about them personally has soured tremendously.  All for no reason.


Jeannie DeAngelis wrote a wonderful piece on this pettiness of liberal songwriters that is worth reading in its entirety.  But here was the crux:

Tom Petty is one of a large herd of liberal singers and songwriters who sell their wares like capitalists on steroids to anyone and everyone, but when a conservative candidate identifies with one of their songs, out of fear of being perceived as leaning to the right hawkers of concert T-shirts and tacky glassware suddenly become all partisan and possessive.


Yet when Democrats like Black Socks Spitzer of New York and John "My-Wife-Has-Cancer-While-I'm-Having-an-Affair" Edwards used Heartbreaker music as campaign anthems, Tom the Petty fully endorsed both Lotharios using the extremely apropos "Won't Back Down" ditty.


The "You Can Call Me Al" and "Don't Stop" crews are proud to have signature songs associated with Al "Crazed Sex Poodle" Gore and impeached adulterer Bill Clinton, but Sarah Palin shaking hands and hugging babies in time to "Barracuda" irked female rock group Heart so much that the duo threatened a lawsuit if Sarah didn't pick another tune.


Truth is, in the world of rock and roll, the liberal malady is endemic. In the 1980's, Bruce Springsteen took on the Gipper over Reagan's use of the song "Born in the USA." During the 2004 presidential election, in an effort to save the USA from a second Bush term, Bruce partnered with Řber-liberal left-wing group to headline a star-studded caravan of whiners in a Vote for Change Tour.


The 2004 effort failed and Bush won reelection, which proves there are more Republican voters than liberals realize.  If, as a group, conservatives boycotted downloading music from iTunes and stopped buying concert tickets, many artists who feel comfortable insulting Republicans for sport would definitely take a hit in the pocketbook.


Then again, one has to wonder if someone like Bruce Springsteen even comprehends the concept that the people he slurs with his political invectives have the monetary power to affect The Boss's bottom line.  After all, didn't Springsteen say Obama "speaks to the America I've envisioned in my music for the past 35 years"?

I never knew growing up listening to The Boss that he was envisioning an America embroiled in 3 wars, 9.1% unemployment, staggering moral decline, familial discord of unparalleled proportions, and 50 million children laying dead on the altar of convenience.  Had I known that I might not have been so interested in listening to his tunes.


But the truth is that these liberal cry baby hypocrites will continue insulting the people who buy their music and make America work.  And we'll keep buying and listening to it because we can respect people's talents and abilities, even if we don't agree with their hair-brained politics.  We're grown ups, they're desperate, aging hipsters. 


So throw your temper-tantrums, Tom, Bruce, Jon and others...but know this: I'll be listening to them on my iPod as I pull the lever and vote for Michele or Sarah.  And you can't stop me.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:07 pm   |  Permalink   |  1 Comment  |  Email
Wednesday, July 06 2011

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


I've felt for a long time that the smartest thing violent terrorists wanting to infiltrate the United States and carry out a dastardly attack on innocent civilians could do to avoid capture by our Homeland Security Department would be to dress as young Muslim men of Middle Eastern descent.  They should act as conspicuous as possible - travel alone with a large duffle bag, look suspicious and avoid eye contact with others, and make sure that they hail from a terror sponsoring state.


That seems to be the one thing that evades the quick eye of Janet Napolitano and her band of merry men over at DHS.  Because if those terrorists make the mistake of going to a Bible camp, or attending a Tea Party, or serving honorably in the American military, or of dressing like a 90 year old woman with leukemia and a soiled adult diaper, Big Sister Janet is going to nail them.  She's all over that like stink on garbage.  She just hasn't caught on to the whole radical Muslim threat yet.


But beyond just that method, there appears to be another iron-clad approach to avoiding capture that the terrorists are actually employing:

al-Qaeda fanatics in Britain are being taught to avoid detection - by pretending to be gay.



A new terror training manual tells Islamic extremists to lie about their sexuality if a woman approaches them in case she is a "honeytrap" spy sent by security services.


The handbook, which was uncovered by a Sunday Mirror ­investigation, says: "Many hotels - especially in busy UK cities - have women hanging around the lobby areas in order to attract men.


"A young beautiful woman may come and talk to you. The first thing you do to protect yourself from such a ­situation is to make dua (prayers) to Allah for ­steadfastness.


"The second thing is to find an excuse to get away from her that is realistic and sensible, such as you having a girlfriend for the past few years and you are loyal to her or you are ­homosexual."

I'm amazed I hadn't thought of this.  It's a cunning and brilliant strategy for the terrorists.  The West is crippled by the political correctness of the left.  It is the greatest weapon our terrorist enemies have to use against us.  And this report shows that they realize it.


There's no way that any leftist administration is going to offend the sensibilities of the homosexual community by daring to give a second glance to some effeminate dude in pastels at the airport.  That would be insensitive and discriminatory.  And far more important than protecting American citizens to the left is protecting the feelings of their cherished select communities of "victims."


One of those protected victim communities is the Muslim population.  So we must go out of our way to prove that we don't give them a second look in airports - how presumptuous and offensive it would be to do so.  But another protected victim community is the sector of the population that flaunts having homosexual relations.  The terrorists have seemed to pick up on that fact too.


It's interesting how when we find training manuals from terrorist camps about how they will defeat America, they include things like, "cry mistreatment and abuse of your rights" or "pretend to be homosexual."  Why is it interesting, you ask?  Because our country's enemies have realized that American liberals are useful idiots to use to accomplish their goals.  Sad that we Americans haven't picked up on that yet.

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

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




That's the only word to describe the latest economic report chronicling and reporting on the success of Barack Obama's economic plans.  The Obama administration was careful to release the findings on the Friday afternoon right before the long Independence Day weekend.  But even that couldn't bury the reality of his epic fail.  Caution: what you are about to read is depressing.

the "Seventh Quarterly Report" on the economic impact of the "stimulus," released on Friday, July 1, provides further evidence that President Obama's economic "stimulus" did very little, if anything, to stimulate the economy, and a whole lot to stimulate the debt.


The council reports that, using "mainstream estimates of economic multipliers for the effects of fiscal stimulus" (which it describes as a "natural way to estimate the effects of" the legislation), the "stimulus" has added or saved just under 2.4 million jobs ? whether private or public ? at a cost (to date) of $666 billion. That's a cost to taxpayers of $278,000 per job.   

In other words, the government could simply have cut a $100,000 check to everyone whose employment was allegedly made possible by the "stimulus," and taxpayers would have come out $427 billion ahead. 


Furthermore, the council reports that, as of two quarters ago, the "stimulus" had added or saved just under 2.7 million jobs ? or 288,000 more than it has now.  In other words, over the past six months, the economy would have added or saved more jobs without the "stimulus" than it has with it. In comparison to how things would otherwise have been, the "stimulus" has been working in reverse over the past six months, causing the economy to shed jobs.

Those are staggering numbers.  $278,000 of taxpayer money has been used by the Obama government to create one job.  That isn't just an indictment of Keynesian economics.  It's not just an indictment of Obama's clueless performance as Chief Economic Planner.  It's another proof of how ill-equipped government is to do a job that is best left to the private sector. 


Conservatives have always argued that the American people in the private sector are the engine of our economy.  Liberals have argued that the American government is.  The argument is pretty well settled now, though it is a shame we have had to undergo so much economic misery and destruction to prove what backwards liberal policies have taught us plenty of times before now.


This report, coupled with the anecdotal story covered this last weekend by Liberty Tree blogger TheOldSalt of the very business Barack Obama touted as proof of his genius alternative energy economic plans now filing bankruptcy, drives the stake further through the heart of Obamanomics.  We are still a year and a half away from Obama's judgment day, but the verdict is in: on matters of the economy, this man has been a total disaster.


And if there's any questioning that fact, please note one other important little item about the numbers above: they were produced by Barack Obama's own handpicked economic advisers:

Again, this is the verdict of Obama's own Council of Economic Advisors, which is about as much of a home-field ruling as anyone could ever ask for. In truth, it's quite possible that by borrowing an amount greater than the regular defense budget or the annual cost of Medicare, and then spending it mostly on Democratic constituencies rather than in a manner genuinely designed to stimulate the economy, Obama's "stimulus" has actually undermined the economy's recovery ? while leaving us (thus far) $666 billion deeper in debt. 


The actual employment numbers from the administration's own Bureau of Labor Statistics show that the unemployment rate was 7.3 percent when the "stimulus" was being debated. It has since risen to 9.1 percent. Meanwhile, the national debt at the end of 2008, when Obama was poised to take office, was $9.986 trillion (see Table S-9). It's now $14.467 trillion ? and counting.

All sides agree on these incriminating numbers ? and now they also appear to agree on this important point: The economy would now be generating job growth at a faster rate if the Democrats hadn't passed the "stimulus."


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

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


Over the Independence Day weekend, I had the great opportunity to speak to a large congregation of believers about the blessings of freedom here in the United States.  After the congregation had sung the song "God Bless America," I posed the question to them: why did God bless America?



Some will say that occurred by chance.  God spun the globe and plopped his finger down right when the U.S. came by and decided to randomly make us the most envied and prosperous nation in world history.  I don't buy it.  I believe it is apparent when looking at America's situation, past and present, that our greatness was achieved due to the firm foundation in the moral principles of God's Word.


In other words, what set us apart is not that God unfairly picked us over other people, but rather that here in the United States, we followed the moral guidelines and principles for living given to us by the Author of human liberty to a greater extent than had ever been done before.  As a consequence, we became the most blessed.


Trevor Thomas had a great article about this very reality, as he traced back the core American concepts of life, liberty and property to the Puritans and the Christian colonies they originated.  We often think of men like Sam Adams and John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and George Washington when we consider the foundations of American greatness.  But Thomas does an excellent job of illuminating the reality that those giants of America's past actually took their cues and got their ideas from colonial clergy like John Winthrop, Nathaniel Ward, and Thomas Hooker:

In June of 1630, 10 years after the Pilgrims founded the Plymouth Colony, John Winthrop, and 700 other Puritans landed in Massachusetts Bay.  This was the beginning of the Great Migration, which over 16 years saw more than 20,000 Puritans leave Europe for New England.  On June 11, 1630, aboard the Arbella, Winthrop, the first Governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, penned A Model of Christian Charity, which became a model for future constitutional covenants of the Colonies.


Under the leadership of their ministers, the Puritans established a representative government with annual elections.  By 1641 they had a "Body of Liberties" (essentially a Bill of Rights), which was penned by the Rev. Nathaniel Ward.  This was the first legal code established by the colonists.


In 1636 the Rev. Thomas Hooker, along with other Puritan ministers, founded Connecticut.  They also established an elective form of government.  In 1638, after hearing a sermon by Hooker, Roger Ludlow wrote the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut.  This was the first constitution written in America.  It served as a model of government for other colonies and, eventually, a union of colonies.  It also served as a model for the U.S. Constitution.


However, as historian David Barton notes, "[w]hile Connecticut produced America's first written constitution, it definitely had not produced America's first written document of governance, for such written documents had been the norm for every colony founded by Bible-minded Christians... This practice of providing written documents had been the practice of American ministers before the Rev. Hooker's constitution of 1638 and continued long after."


Our founders wisely understood that Christianity was the best friend of freedom.  Why?  From a Christian standpoint it's simple to answer: if the Son has made you free, then you are free indeed.  From a worldly standpoint, it's not much more difficult: Christianity teaches moral virtues that must provide the internal restraint for a free society to function civilly.  If it disappears, man's lusts and passions will drive him to use his "freedom" to take advantage of others.  When that happens, men cry out for more laws to protect them.  And when the government writes more laws, freedom slowly disappears.  It's a simple formula, actually.


It's why John Q. Adams said the highest glory of the revolution was that there was a connection between the principles of civil government and the principles of Christianity.  It's why John Adams said that our Constitution was made only for a moral people and would prove wholly inadequate to the government of any other.  It's why in his Farewell Address George Washington called the act of removing religion from the public square unpatriotic.


As Thomas wrote:

This explicitly Christian heritage, more than any other reason, is why the United States stands alone in the world.  It is why the U.S. is the world's longest ongoing constitutional republic, enjoying unprecedented longevity among contemporary nations of the world, with over 220 years under the same documents and the same form of government.


"Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom," wrote the Apostle Paul.  Of all the nations of the world, this has never been more evident than with the United States of America. 

If that is the case, then it stands to reason that erasing that heritage, or removing its firm foundation, will jeopardize any hope that those blessings of liberty persist into the future.

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

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


When people sign petitions attempting to promote a certain action of government, they almost always include not just their name, but address, phone number, and other important contact information.  That's just the way it works.


So why is a federal court in Washington being asked to redact (keep private) the names of signatories to a very significant petition that was presented to the state government?  Because of the death threats coming to those who signed the petition from those who oppose it.


But before you think this is proof of how violence-prone those radical right-wingers are, and how the Department of Homeland Security needs to crack down on the tea parties who are taking their political opposition too far, take a closer look at who is trampling the First Amendment:

The issue is the some 138,000 Washington state residents who signed a petition in 2009 to repeal a law that gave same-sex partners all the legal rights of married couples. The petition forced a referendum vote in November of that year in which voters decided to sustain the law.



But because the state considers such petitions "public records," homosexual activists are demanding the names and addresses of the signers in order to post them on the Internet and "publicize on their web sites, in searchable format, the identities of every person who signed the . petition," according to a new filing seeking nondisclosure of the names.


The groups announcing the plans were and, according to the filing.


The filing on behalf of Protect Marriage Washington explains the real problem is the documentation of actual threats that have been made against those who support traditional marriage, a litany of what the Los Angeles Times described as a "vengeful campaign."

Among the documented threats:


"I will kill you and your family."


"Oh my God, This woman is so f---ing stupid. Someone please shoot her in the head, again and again. And again."


"I'm going to kill the pastor."


"If I had a gun I would have gunned you down along with each and every other supporter."


"We're going to kill you."


"You're dead. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon . you're dead."


"I'm a gay guy who owns guns, and he's my next target."


"I warn you, I know how to kill, I'm an ex-special forces person."


"Get ready for retribution all you bigots."


Burn their f---ing churches to the ground, and then tax the charred timbers."


The evidence included churches marred by graffiti, swastikas on lawns and walls, bricks thrown through windows and doors, adhesive poured into locks, suspicious packages of white powder sent in the mail - "all for nothing more than supporting traditional marriage."

Hmmm.  This doesn't sound much like tolerance.  But that can't be right.  These are the people who have been subjected to such discrimination that they are tireless defenders of tolerance for all, right? 


They are the modern day equivalent to the Doctor Kings of the past, right?  Peaceful resistance until the objectives are met, right?  Prayer on public streets...oh wait, never mind the praying thing...but at least they gather on those streets, right?  In peace and simply wanting the chance to love.  So something isn't adding up here.  Let's look again:

According to the filing, "When some activists could sense that intimidation was not working . they resorted to threatening the families - even the children - of supporters. In one case, the perpetrator threated to 'kill' the supporter's child and the whole family; in another, to 'harm' the supporter's family; and in another, to rape the supporters' daughter."

If only Christians who believe in traditional morality could learn from these tolerant folks about how to treat those they disagree with.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:07 pm   |  Permalink   |  1 Comment  |  Email
Tuesday, July 05 2011

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


Not surprisingly, on the Independence Day weekend, ABC's This Week program decided to disparage our nation's founding.  The host of the program is a known globalist and anti-American liberal, Christiane Amanpour.  So watching the production about how the Founding Fathers denied rights to women and blacks without a recognition of those Founders who fought for those groups, or the fact that the foundation the Founders gave us is what allowed us to do what so many other civilizations STILL haven't - right those wrongs - should have been no surprise to anyone.


But the real interesting part of this week's This Week, was the panel discussion that followed the America Sucks: Happy 4th of July opening.  In that discussion, the lone conservative George Will posed a question that left the tag-team array of liberals stumbling and stammering.  It's the unanswerable question for the left - not, as you'll see, because they don't have an answer.but because they don't want to admit it:


CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, HOST: We touched briefly on health care. The whole debate about President Obama's health care act is being called unconstitutional in some quarters. So is that going to be challenged at the Supreme Court?


GEORGE WILL: 26 states, more or less, (inaudible) 26 are in various courts around the country in a case absolutely certain to be decided by the Supreme Court.


The question is, has the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce been so loosely construed that now Congress can do anything at all, that there is nothing it cannot do.


Let me ask the three of you. Obviously, obesity and its costs affect interstate commerce. Does Congress have the constitutional power to require obese people to sign up for Weight Watchers? If not, why not?

Boom.  Watching the team of liberals that ABC had amassed to face off against Will stumble all over themselves in attempting to dodge that question was hilarious.  Richard Stengel of the liberal Time Magazine tried to artfully escape the damaging question by bringing up the tired, old red herring of car insurance again.


Will redirected by reminding you only pay for car insurance if you choose to buy a car.  ObamaCare requires the purchase of health insurance if you choose to live.  Bit of a difference there, Richard.  Oh, and another difference is that those car insurance laws are issued by states, not Congress under the authority of the Commerce Clause, as ObamaCare attempts to do.


Will reiterated his question and pressed for an answer from the liberals.  He eventually got one, and it proves exactly why the left tries to dodge this question:

WILL: Well, does Congress have the power to mandate that obese people sign up for -- do they have the power to do this?


STENGEL: I don't know the answer to that.


WILL: You don't know.


MICHAEL ERIC DYSON, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY: Well, the beauty of that is, the not knowing -- and we can predict that Rick would say that because he's saying that's the color of the curtain. The basic foundation is set.


WILL: Is that a yes, Congress does have the power to mandate?


DYSON: It's open. If they decide that they will, they will have the power to do so.

Yikes.  So there you go, America.  There's the vision of the two sides of the ideological spectrum that you have to choose from: the conservative side that believes in self-government and a limited state; and the liberal side that believes in an authoritarian state that can do whatever it wants to do to you, whenever it wants to do it.


Which one do you think keeps to the vision of the Founders that led to us becoming the greatest civilization in the history of the world?  Well done, George.  Let's keep asking this question until every liberal in America is exposed for their freedom-destroying designs and beliefs.

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

Poor, poor liberals. So often it seems like their hearts are in the right place, but their minds never quite makes it into the light.


One case in point is Sam Pollak's column a month ago, which he began by expressing pleasure that the leader of a foreign nation, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, said "thank you" in an address to Congress for America's support. Like Mr. Pollak, I appreciate hearing that. In the course of his column, Mr. Pollak went on to write:

For some reason, progressives have permitted conservatives to shanghai the whole concept of U.S. patriotism. The political heirs of Franklin Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy have allowed ourselves to be marginalized when it comes to acknowledging that we love our nation.


Well, it's not too difficult to figure out why the left is marginalized when it comes to expressing love for our nation: they don't express it. Earlier in his column, Mr. Pollak contrasted Prime Minister Netanyahu's "thank you" with folks from other nations who burn our flag, call us imperialists and warmongers, and chant "death to America."


However, we do not often have to leave our own shores to witness this behavior. This is the stuff American liberals have been doing for decades. Publically burning the American flag became "protected speech" long ago as a result of liberals' displays of anti-American antics. Google "Iraq war protests" and look at the image results to see how the left "acknowledge their love" for their nation; for instance, a poster reading "Bush is more evil than bin Laden" and a couple with "no imperialism" and "no war" printed across their chests. No one has to support a war in order to be patriotic; I am merely observing that the anti-American actions of our own left are no different than those who express hatred for America around the world.


So is Mr. Pollak offering a liberal change of outlook for America? Well. as I wrote, it seems that liberals' hearts are in the right place, but their minds forever wander around in the land of left-believe. Immediately after opining how his fellowship of liberals have allowed themselves to be marginalized concerning acknowledging love for their nation, he writes:

The "America, love it or leave it" crowd has always had the wrong kind of patriotism, caring far more about the flag than what it represents, and sacrificing wisdom and nuance for simplistic bumper-sticker slogans. All this "American Exceptionalism" stuff that Republican presidential candidates are spouting is just exceptional nonsense.

He then dribbles on with a typical left-wing litany of national ills and imperfections. Instead of expressing and acknowledging his love for the nation and leaving it at that, he has to take unnecessary and unfounded swipes at his ideological rivals. He has to write about American interference in other nations' affairs.


Is it a surprise to any rational thinker why liberals are marginalized when it comes to acknowledging their love for America? They marginalize themselves because they make clear in their expression over and over that they seek to overturn the founding principles that guided this nation since its beginning. They seek to replace decency and dignity with vulgarity and tyranny. That's the way liberals feel the love.

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 08:30 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Monday, July 04 2011

States are passing legislation in order to combat illegal immigration. President Barack H. Obama opposes them.


Indiana is blocking federal funds to abortion providers. President Barack H. Obama opposes it.


States determine their policies to ensure their citizens maintain their "right to bear arms." President Barack H. Obama opposes them.


States are fighting against the overreaching unconstitutional legislation of "Obamacare." President Barack H. Obama opposes them.



States are disregarding federal legislation and passing legislation legalizing homosexual marriage.

President Obama supports equal rights for gay and lesbian couples and believes New York lawmakers' vote to legalize same-sex marriage is an example of the process working "just as it should," an administration spokesman said today.


"The President has long believed that gay and lesbian couples deserve the same rights and legal protections as straight couples," White House spokesman Shin Inouye said. "That's why he has called for repeal of the so-called 'Defense of Marriage Act' and determined that his Administration would no longer defend the constitutionality of DOMA in the courts.


"The states should determine for themselves how best to uphold the rights of their own citizens," he said. "The process in New York worked just as it should."

When it comes to perpetuating, expanding, and imposing immorality on innocent Americans, President Barack H. Obama is a solid advocate for states' rights and autonomy.


We'll see just how well "the process works" for those states that pass their own defense of marriage legislation as it conflicts with a federal juggernaut making homosexual immorality a law of the land.

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 07:45 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Monday, July 04 2011

In 2009, President-elect Obama visited Cardinal Fastener & Specialty, a manufacturer of fasteners - nuts & bolts - for wind turbines. On the day of his visit, Cardinal employees dubbed one of their large bolts the "Obama bolt."  Spoke the incoming president (video):

"The story of this company," he observed, "which began building wind turbine parts just two years ago and is now poised to make half its earnings that way, is that a renewable energy economy isn't some pie-in-the-sky, far-off future. It's happening all across America right now. It's providing alternatives to foreign oil now. It can create millions of additional jobs and entire new industries if we act right now."

In 2011, Cardinal President John Grabner has had to announce that the company is filing bankruptcy.

Jeff Grabner, vice president and head of the company's wind business, told the Plain Dealer earlier in the week that Cardinal had been losing business to European suppliers who had underbid Cardinal, forcing the company to trim its workforce by 15 employees a year ago.

As a conservative, I do not like this kind of news. I have no desire to see American business fail just so I, or anyone else, can say, "I told you so."



As a conservative, I do not want to see renewable energy businesses fail. I do think that liberal politicians are expecting too much from the technology right now, and are overspending taxpayer money on higher risk ventures that the private sector could better develop, but conservatives like myself would like nothing better to see "alternative energy" business succeed and take off and provide another venue for successful entrepreneurship and investment opportunities.


Nevertheless, the irony present here is not lost.

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 07:00 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Sunday, July 03 2011

While recently watching a documentary about the Marquis de Lafayette, the young French adventurer who helped America during the Revolution, I gained a new insight. During one of his returns to France, Lafayette extensively visited the King's court to try to gain more French support for the American cause. Because of his extensive popularity, ladies of the court offered him "their favors," which, viewers are told, he did not turn down.


It dawned on me that throughout the many history documentaries I have watched, sexual deviance is associated with monarchies and autocracies, not liberty. In order to maintain good order and discipline throughout their kingdoms, monarchs required moral sexual conduct from their subjects. For them and their courts - the privileged few - however, different rules applied. They would flaunt and break their own laws as they sought selfish satisfaction and personal gain.



Their often rampant debauchery and immorality resulted in chaos and treachery, not freedom. It imposed upon their common subjects greater hardships as significant wealth was wasted upon lavish lifestyles that cared for temporary personal pleasures while eschewing concern for others in less fortunate positions.


Even though our own culture does not sport a monarchy, the results of sexual debauchery are no less unfortunate than they were in times past. We witness on a growing basis the negative social results of irresponsible sexual activity from which large numbers of single family spring. Typically, single parent families, especially single mother families, struggle financially more than families with a father and mother. Divorce and remarriages likewise create challenges and hardships that are usually avoided in long-term heterosexual, monogamous relationships. And the complete misnomer known as "same-sex marriages and families" adds even more harmful chaos to the mix. Yet, our own cultural elitists demand that more and more of their immorality be imposed upon the citizens of liberty. Then, as the costs escalate, sexual anarchists further demand that responsible, hard-working, common-sense citizens who oppose this foolishness foot the inevitable bills for their selfish debauchery.


As in the historical periods of aristocratic monarchism, sexual anarchy is a sign of elitist selfishness, not of liberty.

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 10:20 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Sunday, July 03 2011

I ran across a little article reporting that a fundraising effort by Lady Gaga has been hit with a lawsuit. The online fundraising appeal states that "all proceeds go directly to Japan relief efforts." The lawsuit contends that not all the money is going to help the Japanese. Detroit-area attorney Alyson Oliver wants an accounting.



What caught my attention, though, is not a lawsuit against Lady Gaga. Visitors to the fundraising website can purchase $5 wristbands that say, "We Pray For Japan."


To whom or what would Lady Gaga be praying? It is certainly not the self-revealed Living God. If Lady Gaga actually prays for the Japanese, or anyone else, it is an even bigger waste of air and time than her singing.

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 10:17 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Sunday, July 03 2011

Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable - if anything is excellent or praiseworthy - think about such things. Whatever you have learned or received or heard from me, or seen in me - put it into practice. And the God of peace will be with you. - Philippians 4:8-9 (NIV)

There are times when my only response to a news report is utter astonishment and disbelief. Such was the case as I read about the reaction in Vancouver, British Columbia, to the loss of their hockey team, the Canucks, to the Boston Bruins in the Stanley Cup final.

Almost 150 people required hospital treatment and close to 100 were arrested after rioters swept through downtown Vancouver... Rioting and looting left cars burned, stores in shambles and windows shattered over a roughly 10-block radius of the city's main shopping district.

See what I mean? Utter astonishment and disbelief!


I know that this atrocious event took place in Canada and was done by Canadians, but it still creates a real-life illustration to the concerns and warnings voiced by America's Founders. After all, America has had its share of rioting and looting.



Without the recognition of the source of law, our Founders pointed out, freedom degenerates into anarchy. John Adams, for example, plainly stated this sentiment:

 "From the day of the Declaration... [the American people] were bound by the laws of God, which they all, and by the laws of The Gospel, which they nearly all, acknowledge as the rules of their conduct." -- July 4, 1821


"Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other."

It is simple to see the truth in what Founders like John Adams expressed because, when their warnings are tossed aside, their predictions of anarchy become absolute reality. If we are to maintain the liberties for which our Founders and succeeding generations risked so much, then we must take seriously the words to which they affixed their names:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.

When the creation ignores and then rejects the Creator from which liberty is derived, then we are left with only what the enemy can provide: anarchy, destruction, and death.


Almighty and loving Creator, please accept our humble words of sorrow when we recognize how far from You we stray. Thank You for welcoming us home once again as sons and daughters when we return once more to our senses and realize how much better it is to live as mere servants in our Father's household than as impoverished creatures in a foreign land. Thank You for the wisdom You bestowed upon our Founders - a wisdom that has influenced the generations that followed - and help us to desire once again to be a moral and religious people so that we can once again taste the fruits of Your blessings for this nation. May the God of peace be with us. Amen.


Have a Glorious Fourth!

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 10:12 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, July 01 2011

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


And they say Michele Bachmann's dumb?  One of the left's more prestigious Senators, Dick Durbin of Illinois, was beside himself with love and adoration for illegal immigrants who had been brought before Congress (remember all that talk about how we could never find all the illegals in the country even if we wanted to?  Maybe we should just invite them to Congress?):


After using illegal immigrants as props to push the DREAM Act, Sen. Durbin (D-IL) made the following statement at a Senate committee hearing:

"When I look around this room, I see America's future. Our doctors, our teachers, our nurses, our engineers, our scientists, our soldiers, our Congressman, our Senators and maybe our President."

However, Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution says: "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."

Talk to me all you want about Michele Bachmann getting two obscure Iowa towns confused, or even mistaking the state where Lexington and Concord were fought.  When you finish, I will run this clip of Durbin believing that an illegal immigrant - or immigrant of any kind - could be elected president.


That's not to even mention the insanity of dragging illegal immigrants in front of Congress to testify on behalf of an amnesty bill.  This is the leadership and vision of the left.  It's the direction our country goes if we continue empowering these folks and putting them in power.  Spread the word.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:09 pm   |  Permalink   |  3 Comments  |  Email
Friday, July 01 2011

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


The focus of the story is understandable, but misplaced.  If you haven't heard by now, MSNBC ended up in the gutter again yesterday morning (no surprise there):

MSNBC senior political analyst Mark Halperin was suspended on Thursday by the cable network after he called President Obama "a d***" on a popular morning show and then quickly apologized.


"I thought he was a d*** yesterday," Halperin, who also is an editor-at large for Time, said on Morning Joe, referring to the President's conduct during his press conference.


A couple of hours later, MSNBC issued a statement, saying, "Mark Halperin's comments this morning were completely inappropriate and unacceptable. We apologize to the President, The White House and all of our viewers. We strive for a high level of discourse and comments like these have no place on our air. Therefore, Mark will be suspended indefinitely from his role as an analyst.


For his part, Halperin made quite a few heartfelt (and I do believe they were embarrassed and heartfelt) apologies during the program.  So let me say a couple things about this:


First, my standard line: profanity is the futile attempt of a feeble mind to express itself forcefully.  There's no reason to have to resort to being a potty-mouth in order to stress your point.  It makes you look lazy, petty, juvenile, and without credibility.


Secondly, this happening on MSNBC does not surprise me in the least.  The base nature of discourse on that channel, for all their talk of leaning forward, for all their claims that they are warriors against hate and vitriol, is self-evident.  When you make a living off of playing in the gutter, this stuff happens, even if unintentionally.


Third, it's a shame that Halperin chose to use a nasty term that was so vulgar it distracted from what was otherwise an important observation: the president was extremely juvenile and petty.  Halperin's mistake has allowed the media to gloss over the important indictment Halperin was trying to make about a classless president.


His performance in talking about the budget, sniping at Congress in a most undignified way, should be the story.  It falls into the larger pattern of immaturity we have seen from this man since he took office.  I wrote a whole column about it.  And here was yet another example of his pettiness.  It proves President Obama is most concerned about appearances - he wants to be the "tough guy" far more than he has any interest in bringing both sides together and leading.


Halperin's point would have been an important one: President Obama cannot get the job done when it comes to solving our government deficit and debt problems, because he doesn't know how to do anything but trash talk.  He's petty.  He's juvenile.  He acts in ways that are beneath the dignity of the office, and thus undermines his credibility and entrenches his opponents.  That's not leadership.


The point would have been even more significant given that Halperin is a liberal.  Even his allies are seeing the maturity problem of our Chief Executive.


It's too bad Halperin had to call out Obama's juvenility with even more juvenility himself.  It undermined his correct observation, and allowed the Obama loving press to ignore the indictment and make Obama the victim rather than the bully that he chooses to be.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:08 pm   |  Permalink   |  3 Comments  |  Email
Friday, July 01 2011

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


In my rugged and fierce devotion to bringing all listeners and readers an accurate picture of what life would be like in this country if we followed the path the left would take us down, I never run out of material.  Every day, somewhere in the world, we see the consequence of some liberal "progressive" idea that would befall us if not for the resistance offered by the conservative mind.



And while we typically look at American cities like Chicago (where liberal gun laws have made the place less safe than Baghdad) or San Francisco (where liberal social policy has banned everything from plastic bags to Happy Meal toys while allowing the full extent of sexual anarchy to run rampant) or Detroit (where liberal energy policies have resulted in rolling blackouts) to New York (where topless women dance in the streets as the Mayor parades down a street full of men in tutus carrying fairy wands and pixie dust), today we go outside the country.


There is no question that liberal progressivism has been running many European countries (particularly Sweden) for decades.  It's where American liberals get their ideas.  It's why they want to make the U.S. a European style socialist welfare state.  It just works so darn good over there!  And certainly in terms of moral degeneracy, the American left envies the wide-scale perversion that is openly embraced in these progressive paradises.


Pay close attention and you'll notice how what happens in Europe will make it's way across the ocean in short order, at the behest of the liberal left.  In fact, this very example I'm sharing with you, has actually already been seen on this side of the ocean.  And as it has taken hold in Europe, it's only a matter of time until this ingenious concept makes its way to your school district, courtesy of liberal Democrats.  And don't even think about opposing it!  What are you?  Some kind of bigot?

At the "Egalia" preschool, staff avoid using words like "him" or "her" and address the 33 kids as "friends" rather than girls and boys.


From the color and placement of toys to the choice of books, every detail has been carefully planned to make sure the children don't fall into gender stereotypes.


"Society expects girls to be girlie, nice and pretty and boys to be manly, rough and outgoing," says Jenny Johnsson, a 31-year-old teacher. "Egalia gives them a fantastic opportunity to be whoever they want to be."


The taxpayer-funded preschool which opened last year in the liberal Sodermalm district of Stockholm for kids aged 1 to 6 is among the most radical examples of Sweden's efforts to engineer equality between the sexes from childhood onward.


Breaking down gender roles is a core mission in the national curriculum for preschools, underpinned by the theory that even in highly egalitarian-minded Sweden, society gives boys an unfair edge.


To even things out, many preschools have hired "gender pedagogues" to help staff identify language and behavior that risk reinforcing stereotypes.

Where to even start?  No use of him or her.  Remember the "genderless child" story we had not long ago?  This stuff is real, folks.  As crazy and as kooky as it sounds, please know there was a time that the idea of having an American school textbook talking about Mom and Mom or Dad and Dad would have been considered the same.


Yes, the staggering rejection of basic biological reality is appalling.  But if the left is willing to reject the moral expectations of God, why would we expect them to acknowledge the biological ones?



And notice, as is always the case with the left and their agenda, they will use your tax dollars to fund it.  Government is the great engine to bring about social change.  It has been the dream of every true Marxist since Karl, and the sexual revolutionaries who push it today are no different.


This is what the Democrat Party in America has been co-opted by.  And it's what they seek to bring to our shores, and your school.  Stop them.

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

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


Imagine a school where teachers are threatened by students on a daily basis, student gangs congregate freely in the halls and rob other students regularly, teachers have been beaten, spit upon, more textbooks are thrown through windows than placed in lockers, and only 2 out of 88 students pass the state competency test.



Sound like the plot of a movie?  Meet the infamous Middle School 344 in Harlem - a school that the Department of Education has recognized for years as such a total failure that they have attempted, and are attempting again to close the school down.


The New York Post ran a story on this "School from Hell:"

Kids hoot and yammer so loudly that their ruckus drowns out the teacher.  A trash can is overturned in class and dumped.  Grimy floors are littered with sunflower seed shells, spit out by the hundreds.


Books and supplies fly out the windows.  Mouse droppings are everywhere, even on the computers.




The Department of Education has tried twice since last year to shut MS 344, the city's worst performing middle school.  MS 344 has made the state's list of "persistently dangerous" schools, and just two of 88 eighth-graders last year passed the state math or reading exams.


"It needs to be closed, closed, closed, because it's an unsafe place for children," a teacher said of the school.  "It's heartbreaking that the small percentage who want to learn don't get the education they deserve."

So if this is the way the teachers feel, and the Department of Education is even inclined to close its doors, why does the school remain open?  Now meet the NAACP and the United Federation of Teachers (UFT) who continue fighting in court to keep the doors of the school open.


Remember, if the school closes, these troubled students will be sent elsewhere.  They will not be forsaken and left on the streets.  But most importantly, the handful of students who actually are desperate to learn and escape the inner city cycle of poverty will have a chance to do so.  Yet, once again, teachers' unions and so-called "civil rights" groups of the left stand in the way.


Typically when I cite examples of the behavior of teachers' unions that I disagree with, it's the union taking the side of their members (employed adults) over the best interest of the kids in the school.  In this case, it's the union opposing both interests!  Who knows what political purpose the union and NAACP have for their idiotic crusade to keep kids and teachers locked in this dump, but it offers us yet another glimpse of just how interested the left is in better schools and better learning environments "for the children."

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