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

a service of Attaboy Productions, Inc.

Friday, September 30 2011

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


Meanwhile, in the maddening world of political correctness:

The B.C. and A.D. versus B.C.E. and C.E. debate is heating up. both B.C. and A.D. (which stand for Before Christ and Anno Domini ? "Year of our Lord") have, until now, been the basis of historical time.


But the BBC, joining other progressive institutions, has decided that using these religiously-charged abbreviations is no longer appropriate. Signaling major changes to the way that the news network will deliver radio and television reports, the government-funded media company has decided to stop making these references, replacing them with B.C.E. (Before Common Era) and C.E. (Common Era).



Why, you ask? Well, the BBC claims that this decision is rooted in the media outlet's commitment to remaining impartial. As Religion News Service points out, the network released an official statement saying that it is, "committed to impartiality." Additionally, the release said, "it is appropriate that we use terms that do not offend or alienate non-Christians."

Before we go any further, can I just ask some questions:



Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:09 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, September 30 2011

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


Our country's economy has weathered some pretty remarkable challenges in the past.  The Great Depression comes to mind.  I'm not sure if it can weather another four years of the Obama Administration...I'm really not.  It's that bad.  In fact, when I read this story, I found a new and more appropriate name for it: madness.

Buried in the text of President Obama's jobs bill is a provision named the "Fair Employment Opportunity Act," which would make it illegal for employers to discriminate against the unemployed.


Like everything liberals propose, it is made to sound great on the surface.  It sounds great to say that you are "investing" in this, that and the other thing.  Until you realize that word means you are taxing people oppressively and wasting their money on things that don't work.  It sounds great to say that you are providing a "safety net" to folks who are out of work.  Until you realize that phrase means that many times you are encouraging laziness and exacerbating your own problem.



Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:08 pm   |  Permalink   |  4 Comments  |  Email
Friday, September 30 2011

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


It appears that our great national nightmare is finally coming to a close:

The Obama administration is taking steps to extend new federal protections to a list of imperiled animals and plants that reads like a manifest for Noah's Ark -- from the melodic golden-winged warbler and slow-moving gopher tortoise, to the slimy American eel and tiny Texas kangaroo rat.


What?  Did you think I was talking about something like our abortion crisis and the degradation of the sanctity of life?  Did you think I was talking about the destruction of the family unit and the overall breakdown in our moral health?  Did you think I was talking about the continuing threat of radical Islam and its war against Western civilization?  Did you think I was talking about our relentless unemployment crisis and our stagnating economy?



Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:07 pm   |  Permalink   |  1 Comment  |  Email
Friday, September 30 2011

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


It's so nice to see that thanks to the left, the United States of America is being shown up by Mexico of all places when it comes to the respect of human rights:

The Supreme Court of Mexico ruled on Wednesday to uphold the state constitutional personhood amendment of Baja California. A similar decision in the San Luis Potosi case is expected. The Court's most recent appointee, Justice Jorge Mario Pardo Rebolledo, sided with three members of the Court to reject an Action for Unconstitutionality submitted against the measures. Pardo Rebolledo was appointed last February and had yet to rule in an abortion case. His vote ensures that the Court will not reach the supermajority necessary to overturn the amendment.




In total, eighteen states have passed measures enshrining into law full personhood protections for preborn children. The amendments were passed in reaction to the legalization of abortion in Mexico City in 2009. The state measures received the support of 88% of the members of state legislatures including members of every major political party such as PAN, PRI, and PRD.

The people of Mexico have enacted laws that recognize that what is conceived in the womb is a human being.  And obviously, if what is in the womb is a human being, then no one can be allowed - for any reason - to kill that human being.  This is the basic principle of Western Natural Rights theory.  How nice to see that Mexico now does a more admirable job of holding to those principles than the country (us) that popularized them!



Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:06 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, September 29 2011

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


I really like Kentucky Senator Rand Paul.  I think the guy gets it right now more than most anyone else in Washington, D.C.  That isn't to say that I think Rand is perfect or that I would agree with him on every issue.  And that isn't to suggest that in the future if Rand strays from the reservation or does something unforgivable, I have bound myself to him ideologically or ethically with my statement.  It simply means what it says: I think that right now he is making more sense than pretty much anyone inside the Beltway.



Take, for example, the excellent response he gave to his colleague, self-described socialist Senator Bernie Sanders, who recently held a hearing entitled, "Is Poverty a Death Sentence?"  Paul was outstanding in this piece:

Anyone who wishes to equate poverty with death must go to the Third World or seek out socialism and tyranny. Where you find command economies, you will find death and starvation. In contrast, those who wish to see death from poverty in our country are blind to the truth. While we all hope to lessen the sting of poverty, we need to put poverty in America into context.

And that's exactly what Paul did:



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

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


There's no question that the issue of jobs is going to be a major factor in the election of 2012.  But don't ignore another issue that is going to be at the forefront, and in fact, could end up being the significant referendum of the cycle: ObamaCare.  No one - whether they favor the law or not - denies the reality that it was a strictly and bitterly partisan enactment of this highly controversial and highly intrusive piece of legislation.


The furor that it created helped in many ways to fuel the infant days of the Tea Party movement.  And tea partiers around the country utilized the arrogance of Democrats in cramming the healthcare takeover through to state their case to all voters in 2010.  You saw how that turned out.



The best hope Obama had for avoiding the same kind of kickback for ObamaCare that was inflicted on his fellow party members in the midterms rested on voters being distracted and more focused on other issues during the campaign.  That's what makes this story all the more perplexing:



Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:08 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, September 29 2011

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


My wife and I were watching TV the other night and the program that we had recorded on the DVR had just finished.  Neither one of us grabbed the remote to stop the recorded playback, and the short bleed that the DVR allows into the next show rolled into the 11:00 news on a local news station out of Indianapolis.

The lead story of the night was on a church's billboard campaign in Indiana's capital city.  The giant billboards ask the simple question, "Who Stole Jesus?"  Both my wife and I knew what was coming: as soon as the story reached the point where the billboards were explained, the DVR shut off.  So I looked it up online.  This is what I found (and what I was thinking as I read):

LifeJourney Church in Indianapolis has taken its message to the streets through a billboard campaign that is designed to get both Christians and non-Christians to consider whether or not the Jesus they know is the same Jesus portrayed in the Bible.


What a great idea!  There is so much misunderstanding and misrepresentation of who Jesus was, the divisive nature of the truth that He spoke, and the boldness with which He spoke it.  Jesus has become so watered down in some circles, it is a blessing to see a move like this...



Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:07 pm   |  Permalink   |  3 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, September 29 2011

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


I'm glad to see that major media organizations (even those who have been strongly pro-Obama in the past) are willing to acknowledge and identify Barack Obama's most recent foray into class warfare for what it is.  Rush Limbaugh suggests their willingness to do so demonstrates that with as much loyalty as they have for him and as much as they want to spare him from going down, they are even more adamant to ensure that if he does go down, he doesn't take all of liberalism with him.


Perhaps Rush is right.  Or perhaps the media is painfully aware that thanks to the Tea Party movement and an increased awareness around the country of the typical rhetorical tactics of politicians, the people are already seeing through this poorly veiled attempt by Obama to generate class envy for his benefit, and therefore any attempt to convince them otherwise would be futile.



Or perhaps the president went too far with his arrogant condescension this time, issuing the most un-presidential taunt that, "It's not class warfare, it's math."  Sorry Mr. President...people are smarter than you give them credit for being.



Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:06 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, September 29 2011

Have you ever noticed how solutions to big problems are often simple?  What's more, the answer was always right in front of your face.  You just couldn't see it because you were focusing on the wrong things.  That is exactly what is going on with education reform today.  Everyone wants to improve our schools; unfortunately, they are focusing on everything but the key to the problem - the student.



The fact is a student who is intent on getting a good education can do so at the worst school in America.  Likewise, a student who could care less is not going to learn much even in the best school in the country.  My point is THE STUDENT is the most important factor in education.  Sure, teachers, administrators, parents, politicians, and even the public have a role to play; however, the most critical element in the whole process is the student.  Is he willing to do the hard work necessary to learn the material?  If not, can we motivate him?



Posted by: Matthew W. Turner AT 12:52 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, September 28 2011

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


Last week I talked on the radio show about the fact that while the Democrats assail Republicans like Rick Perry for being "anti-science" given that they question Darwin or doubt the global warming alarmists, Democrats themselves are dangerously more anti-science.  They deny the value of vaccinations, genetically modified food, humanity in the womb, nuclear energy, and the list goes on.


After that commentary, I received this comment from a listener:

You say that the Democrats being anti-science on food is more dangerous than Republicans being anti-science when it comes to climate change.  That is dumb.  If we keep denying the science of global warming, your children and mine will pay the price.  It will be their cities that will be underwater, their homeland that is threatened, their offspring that will have dread diseases.  And when they are, I hope you'll be happy about supporting idiot Republicans like Perry.


So it appears that we need to spend a little more time addressing a common misconception that the left intentionally perpetuates.  And this is true, by the way, whether we're talking about the twin constants of liberal scientific thought: Darwinism and Man-Caused Global Warming.  They hijack the word science and redefine it.  They simply label their own scientific interpretations as "science."  And the sympathetic mainstream media continues to repeat it and to ingrain this false definition in the public's minds.



Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:09 pm   |  Permalink   |  1 Comment  |  Email
Wednesday, September 28 2011

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


Yet another dangerous case of bullying has surfaced, this time in Texas:

Holly Pope said she was "absolutely stunned" when she received a telephone call from an assistant principal at Western Hills High School informing her that her son, Dakota Ary, had been sent to in-school suspension.


"Dakota is a very well-grounded 14-year-old," she told Fox News Radio noting that her son is an honors student, plays on the football team and is active in his church youth group. "He's been in church his whole life and he's been taught to stand up for what he believes."


And that's what got him in trouble.


I'm confused.  How could a churchgoing young man who is well behaved be suspended by the school simply for standing up for what he believes in?  Isn't this America?  Perhaps it was, but that was before the sexual anarchist crusade reached into our school system:



Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:08 pm   |  Permalink   |  2 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, September 28 2011

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


We've had a ton of reaction in our email inbox to the story we discussed yesterday on Morgan Freeman's race-baiting comments about the Tea Party.  But one of the responses stood out.  During my on-air comments, I made mention of my friend Emery McClendon - a tea party organizer who happens to be black.  I wondered out loud how someone like Freeman can get away with calling a movement that touts people like Emery racist towards blacks.


Conservative Daily News got Emery's take on that question, and Emery forwarded it on to me.  Needless to say, his remarks were excellent:

Emery McClendon, Tea Party Organizer, Air Force retiree and regular guy with a 9 to 5 job in Ft. Wayne, Indiana, has a lot to say about those allegations.



"My initial reaction was ?What movie is coming out? Is he trying to get attention?'" says McClendon. "The motivation is, I think, to use this as a publicity stunt. It's a complete reversal from his previous statements on ABC."


The previous statements McClendon is referring to are from an interview with Mike Wallace of ABC in which Freeman explains the way to eliminate racism is to stop talking about it. He also thinks that Black History Month is "ridiculous" and renders Wallace speechless when Freeman asks him about white history month.



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

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


When I first started my radio show, I remember doing a lot of show prep by going to and reading the work of a really far left guy named Eric Alterman.  I don't know if good ol' Eric is still writing or not.  While he was a great resource for all things absurd in those early days, I've lost track of him through the years.


But one thing that I remember Eric was all about - he even wrote a book about it if I recall - was that he believed the mainstream media had a conservative bias.  Yes, I'm serious.  I'm used to hearing liberals blast Fox News and talk radio for their conservative slant, but Alterman dialed it up a notch on the silliness scale.



I caught myself reminiscing about the Alterman days when I saw this story over at the Daily Beast by Howard Kurtz.  It was a profile on Fox News boss Roger Ailes, who took on the nonsense of those who suggest Fox is radically biased for the right. 



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

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


In further proof that the Tea Party and Republican Party are seething with racism (just ask Morgan Freeman), Tea Party favorite Herman Cain won the Republican Party straw poll in Florida over the weekend.  Cain, who by the way is black, bested second place finisher and current national front-runner Rick Perry, by 20 points.


I hope this straw poll result has the consequence of a massive fundraising boon to the Cain campaign.  He has earned it, and his ideas deserve to be heard by every person voting in the Republican primary.



As a follow-up to the results, Yahoo political reporter Chris Moody had a nice story on Cain and his amazing background.  Just imagine the superiority conservatives could feel in comparing Cain's self-made man account to Obama's "How the Heck Does a Man This Unimpressive Get Into Such Prestigious Schools" narrative:



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

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


I always hate to see movie stars or sports stars speak out on political issues - not because I don't think they have every right to their opinion, or that I think it's wrong for them to feel passionate enough to share them.  No, I hate to see it for selfish reasons.  I want to like them for what they do, and live in blissful ignorance of how misguided they are when it comes to religious or political realities.


It just sours it for me when I know that Harrison Ford or Tom Hanks are using the money they make from my support of their excellent acting ability to support causes that war against my values.  I don't want to know!  Some stars realize that, and make the shrewd business choice to keep their mouths shut.  Others can't.  Add one of my favorites, Morgan Freeman, to that latter list.



Freeman appeared on Piers Morgan's CNN show, and made an utter fool of himself.  It's foolish enough to tout left-wing politics, but it was pretty apparent that Freeman took great pride in his ignorance and remained undaunted even when the host accidentally proved his race-baiting argument to be sorely lacking any grounding whatsoever.



Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:06 pm   |  Permalink   |  1 Comment  |  Email
Monday, September 26 2011

Having now reached the first anniversary of the launch of The Liberty Tree, the official blog/transcript page of The Peter Heck Radio Show (Peter's "blogs" are really transcribed and slightly edited versions of his on-air commentary from his radio show), here's a look at the amazing traffic statistics from our inaugural year:


The Liberty Tree brought in almost 1500 unique visitors in our first month, September 2010.  It was a wonderful opening month, but little did we know how quickly it would grow.  As reference, consider that in the first 25 days of September 2011, we have had almost 30,000 unique visitors.


Here's a snapshot look at the traffic we received per month in the year 2011:



The high water mark was June of 2011, with an amazing 41,962 unique visitors to the site (that's not page views, but rather different individuals logging into the site from different computers around the world).



Posted by: Anna Anderson AT 05:07 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Monday, September 26 2011

In order to be moved to action by what I write, you need to know a little bit about me.  My wife and myself both started working for a small church-school over twenty years ago.  (We were married the first week in August 1991, and began teaching in the third week.)  Furthermore, we are both founding members of our local TEA Party.  We are blessed with an awesome 15 year old boy and a great church family.  I tell people, "I am the luckiest man on Earth!"  What's more...I really believe it.



Being an educator and history freak, I often wonder how America became such a great power before politicians took over education.  How did our citizens get an education without the federal government micromanaging our nation's schools?  If you would listen to most politicians and educators today, you would have to conclude that American schools of the past were complete failures.  After all, how could a child get an education if politicians didn't pour money into schools?  (By the way, I am also sarcastic and tactless.)  Is it possible that money is not the real problem?  Is it possible that we have been focusing on the wrong thing for years?



Posted by: Matthew W. Turner AT 05:06 pm   |  Permalink   |  1 Comment  |  Email
Sunday, September 25 2011

The ideological and political flavor of "Doonesbury" creator G. B. Trudeau is far from a well-kept secret. He is a decidedly modern liberal, meaning that he favors big government "solutions" to social challenges. He is not the least bit shy about legislating immorality. And he holds closely to the notion of peace through appeasement.


Unless, of course, pacifism gets in the way of forwarding the liberal agenda. Then it can be conveniently discarded for a season.


Such is the case with the "Doonesbury" strip from 9/18/2011 in which he endorses and encourages class warfare... literally:

The film is called "400," after the 400 families who control more wealth than 50% of Americans combined! It's a class warfare flick, where millions of little guys rise up against the powerful families. Think "It's a Wonderful Life" meets "Braveheart."

My predominant description here of Mr. Trudeau is "coward." How cowardly of him to not specify some of the "400" to which he makes anonymous reference. Since he could not bring himself to name names, I did a little research. It is quite easy, actually: google wealthiest Americans. One result is the Forbes list of 400 richest Americans. From that list, I glean some significant insights.



Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 09:56 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Sunday, September 25 2011

There is an interesting, if not disturbing, article reporting on the intimidation tactics of several homosexual demands groups like the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) that are targeting businesses which may support traditional marriage or family values.  Part of the targeting is aimed at forcing PayPal to no longer do business or offer their service to such businesses.  

These radical activists even went after a business some consider fairly liberal (Starbucks Coffee) because its president was going to speak at Pastor Rick Warren's mega-church.  The Starbuck's executive backed away from speaking after suffering the harassment of the homosexual activists.

I have often said that "tolerance" has become a one-way, politically correct street in which you must agree with the ideology of the political left, or you will be smeared as intolerant.  


Posted by: Micah Clark AT 06:20 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Sunday, September 25 2011

"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?' The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'" -  Matthew 25:37-40


Since the last legislative session earlier this year, Indiana has been under fire from the federal government for daring to strip public funding for abortion. It is a complete no-brainer to note that Planned Parenthood is leading many charges against this preservation of life.



Slowly, Americans are recognizing abortion for what it is: a murderous assault on the most vulnerable human. The road to correcting this national disaster has been - and remains - arduous. Yet for those who have persevered in this struggle, advances in science, technology, and medicine continue to bear them out.



Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 05:45 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Saturday, September 24 2011

Sometimes the lib-quote of the week is at least partially humorous. This week's is just plain frightening.

Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL)

"I'll put it this way, you don't deserve to keep all of it [the money you earn]. It's not a question of deserving, because what government is, is those things that we decide to do together...I think you need to pay your fair share for things we've decided are our national priorities."


I give credit where credit is due... Rep. Schakowsky is honest about her big government coercive redistributionist ideology. At least it is not masked right here, although I am certain that she does the "compassion" masquerade along the way.



Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 10:46 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Saturday, September 24 2011

In March of 1841 the oldest president ever elected up until Ronald Reagan in 1980, and the last one born before the signing of the Declaration of Independence took the oath of office. William Henry Harrison, our ninth president, was also the only Hoosier to ever serve as President. Unfortunately, he was also to serve the shortest time in office at just 32 days becoming the first President to die in office. "Ol Tippecanoe" spent most of his inauguration day shaking hands with everyone in bad weather and died from pneumonia.

Just for fun, here is what the former military hero from his defeat of Indians near Lafayette, IN, General in the war of 1812, member of Congress and Indiana Governor said in his final closing point of his inaugural address on March 4, 1841:


Posted by: Micah Clark AT 07:29 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Saturday, September 24 2011

There has been a lot of activity and attention in recent weeks on the Republican presidential field. Has Texas Governor Rick Perry's entrance and the attention on an HPV vaccine mandate impacted your view of him? Has Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney's health care plan given you pause? Do Ron Paul's views on why 9/11 happened or foreign policy concern you? Have Newt Gingrich's best one-liners in the debates caused you to reconsider his candidacy?

These are questions we are wondering about at AFA of Indiana too. Two months ago we asked a poll question on our web site about the GOP candidates. We are wondering if those results have changed since then. Hundreds of you voted in our poll. You do not have to register to vote. In fact, it takes only a few seconds to vote.


Posted by: Micah Clark AT 07:01 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Saturday, September 24 2011

Boy, this slope is slippery.  First, it was just a matter of "human rights."  Now, it's a matter of silencing the opposition.  Yes, the unthinkable is happening as the thought police are out in force.  The left would have you believe only people on the extreme right try to bully and silence people into submitting to their worldview, but more and more, we see the left being the bully.


I (and others) have been warning for years that the Christian worldview is under assault.  Here is a story about a high school student being disciplined for simply stating his opinion on the matter of homosexual behavior.  For simply exercising his First Amendment right, this student was punished and ordered to keep his opinion to himself while in the classroom.  Where are the defenders of free speech?



Are the school officials admitting that it is a violation of school policy for a student to publicly express his religious beliefs based on his understanding of the Bible?  Do we not have the government schools endorsing one religious view over another?



Posted by: Matthew W. Turner AT 06:08 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, September 23 2011

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


EDITOR'S NOTE: Peter discussed this commentary of Joel Harris on today's radio show and discussed his points of agreement with Harris.  What follows is not the typical transcript of Peter's on-air remarks, but the original piece by Harris.


Here is my instant reaction and grades for the candidates following the debate.  Some may surprise you.  I'll start from top to bottom in polling average:


Perry - D, In each of the other debates you could give him a bit of a pass.  Either he was rushing into the debate having recently suspended his campaigning to deal with natural disaster crises' or it was the "gang up on Perry" show and he was on the defensive the whole time.  This time around he simply looked very uncomfortable.  He stumbled over his answers at times and when he had opportunity to drive home some key points he faltered...



Posted by: Joel Harris AT 05:09 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, September 23 2011

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


One of the most commonly repeated refrains you hear from the mainstream media whenever the topic ventures into the realm of evolution or global warming is that the Republican Party is "anti-science."


And while I've talked at length about the silliness of such an assertion, and about the larger issues with the hijacking of the word science, I noticed a piece in the USA Today by Alex Berezow that took a slightly different approach.  Though Berezow quite obviously believes in goo-to-you-by-way-of-the-zoo and the manmade global warming malarkey, he interestingly revealed that the Democrat left has their own problem with "science" or the scientific "consensus."



For all the Democrat hyperventilating about being the party of science, Berezow points out how the left abandons science when it conflicts with their ideology, just like they condemn Republicans for doing.  First, the topic of vaccinations:



Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:08 pm   |  Permalink   |  2 Comments  |  Email
Friday, September 23 2011

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


As I expected, my column this last week that criticized Ron Paul for his suggestion that 9/11 could have been avoided simply by a lessened U.S. military presence around the world (and thus, we are responsible for bringing it on ourselves) brought on an onslaught from Paul's overly rambunctious online army.



Several of them criticized me for being a "Paul-hater," and refusing to listen to him.  Much to the contrary, I even wrote in the column how much I've come around to Ron Paul and how much I appreciate many of the contributions he has made in pushing the concept of individual liberty.



Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:07 pm   |  Permalink   |  1 Comment  |  Email
Friday, September 23 2011

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


As the unconstitutional Super Committee begins meeting to discuss where to find the required $1.5 trillion in cuts to the federal budget, there is an emerging awareness that the two sides are going to be deadlocked.  Republicans will not agree to tax increases the Democrats demand.  Democrats will not agree to entitlement fixes Republicans demand.


All this will push the committee up against the deadline that would trigger immediate serious cuts in funding for areas like national defense, homeland security and the State Department.  Those are traditionally areas that Republicans have been loathe to cut, and the Democrats knew that when they set up this "compromise."  The left is clearly anticipating the Republicans caving on this at the last minute. 



Here's the strategy for John Kerry, Patty Murray and company: demand tax increases you know Republicans won't agree to...keep demanding it and holding out...when the deadline gets near, refuse to budge and force Republicans to either accept massive defense cuts or agree to tax increases.  They have every reason to believe (particularly given the wishy-washy statements Super Committee Republicans have already been making) that the R's will get jello-spine and agree to the tax hikes.  At that moment, Republicans own the hikes and Obama is spared from defending that dumb idea during the campaign.



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

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


It's nearly impossible for any fair-minded American to come to any conclusion besides this: the President of the United States is lying to the American people.  Or maybe that's a bit too loaded for some.  Let's tweak it: the President of the United States is intentionally misleading the American people.  Razor thin line between the two?  I know, but for the sake of common ground, I'm throwing the Obama supporters a bone.


The conclusion is inescapable, however, as we watch the president talking about how the rich pay 15% in taxes, while the middle class pays much more than that.  As we talked about on the show, the president is intentionally comparing apples and oranges.  "The rich" pay much closer to 35% of their income.  So where does the 15% number come from?  That's capital gains tax (brief explanation: a "rich" person makes their income, the government takes 35% of it away, the "rich" person takes home the remaining 65% but decides to invest part of it...if he makes any money on those investments, the government taxes that too at a 15% rate).



So the president is intentionally comparing the capital gains tax paid by rich investors to the income tax paid by the middle class.  That's deception.  He's not confused or misspeaking.  He's intentionally trying to mislead middle class people into believing that they are being taxed at a higher rate than the rich.  It's called class warfare.  It's also called the Obama 2012 re-election strategy.



Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:09 pm   |  Permalink   |  1 Comment  |  Email
Thursday, September 22 2011

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


I've said before that it's a sign of our times when mild-mannered men like Dr. James Dobson are regarded as vile haters and threats to society, while perverted freak shows like Lady Gaga are held up as role models.


So I suppose it shouldn't be surprising to me that in a messed up world like that we find out that while social media sites like Facebook are more than fine with the posting of graphic, overly sexual, or aggressive and impetuous items to their site, they find it necessary to censor Christian material for its "offensive nature."



Matthew Philbin reports that a new study from the National Religious Broadcasters (NRB) and American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) proves that is exactly what is occurring:



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

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


When Rick Perry got into the presidential race, he did so not only to the delight of long time Perry supporters, but also to all conservatives who were hoping for a viable alternative to Mitt Romney.  It wasn't that they didn't appreciate the stances or beliefs of other candidates like Bachmann, Cain, Gingrich, or Paul.  It's just that they felt it was obvious none was going to be able to mount the type of campaign to slow or defeat the Romney freight train that has been barreling towards the nomination since the end of the 2008 race.



In Rick Perry they projected their hopes for an authentic conservative who was electable, and had a proven ability to raise money and win.  Many of those anti-Romney conservatives are still hopeful, but they've begun to panic as Romney is creeping closer to Perry in the polls.  It leaves them with a question: is there anyone else should this Perry thing not work out?



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

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


One of the most shameless things we saw the left do towards the end of the Bush years was deceive the American population about the motives of President Bush in invading Iraq in 2003.  To hear them tell it, Bush wanted to invade Iraq from day one of the administration, and seized upon the terror of 9/11 to go do it - despite the wise counsel of men like Richard Clarke and Colin Powell.


To this day the left speaks of Iraq as unjustified and illegal, almost portraying Saddam's mad regime as innocent doves slaughtered by the mindless butchery of the Bush/Cheney war machine.  Not surprisingly, the truth is something entirely different.


Jim Lacey has written one of the most definitive and thorough explanations about the real threat of Iraq post 9/11 and pre-invasion over at National Review:



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

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


Amidst all of the glee that was being trumpeted by the mainstream media yesterday as their decades-long crusade on behalf of the sexual anarchy movement achieved a significant milestone in the military's official embrace of homosexuality, there was this little jewel of idiocy coming from Admiral Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff:

I believed then and I still believe that it was first and foremost a matter of integrity; that it was fundamentally against everything we stand for as an institution to force people to lie about who they are just to wear a uniform.


We are better than that. We should be better than that.

Really?  So are we to assume that Admiral Mullen would feel similarly about men and women in the military who define themselves by some other forms of sexual behavior?  Aren't we making men who like having sex with animals lie about who they are when we ban that behavior?  And aren't we making women who like having sex with multiple men lie about who they are when we ban that kind of promiscuity within the ranks?


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

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


In the left's ongoing quest to pretend like they've always thought religious tests for candidates is okay, the Washington Post ran an interesting piece discussing the faith of Rick Perry towards the end of last week.  The story ran shortly after Governor Perry spoke to a crowd of students at Liberty University in Virginia.


Perry's decision to talk to Christian students about his Christian faith seemed odd to the Post, for some reason.  They pondered what it all meant, and whether it might signal that Perry will make faith a bigger role in his campaign than jobs.  These people are incorrigible:

On the debate stage, Perry has [talked about jobs]. But he demonstrated Wednesday that he will not shy away from cloaking his candidacy in his Christianity, delivering an address here at the late Jerry Falwell's Liberty University that presented his life in deeply spiritual terms and cast his political aspirations as destiny.


Here we go again.  They didn't explicitly state it, but they are making the same implications about Perry and his belief that God directs his paths as they did about Palin and other evangelical Christians.  They hint that Perry somehow holds to the arrogant belief that God has chosen him above all others to be exalted and magnified.  But that is not at all what Perry is doing.  You have to read down another 11 paragraphs until you see what Perry actually said:



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

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


One of the talking points being shared by Democrats right now as they seek to prop up Obama's miserable performance on the economy goes something like this: "Well, we may not be creating any jobs under Obama and the unemployment rate may be really bad, but it's better than it was when Obama took over."


With as annoying as that non-point is, I actually feel bad for those people who fall for it.  So let's put this in the proper perspective for the 150th time: when Obama took over, he inherited an economy in recession.  Much like Bill Clinton did.  Much like Ronald Reagan did.  We quickly moved out of the recession before many of Obama's policies were enacted, and keeping with the cyclical pattern of market economies, entered a time of recovery.



Except there hasn't been one.  And there hasn't been one because of the idiotic, job-killing policies of this administration.  They have strangled the life out of our recovery with new regulations, new fees, the threat of new taxes and obligations on employers, and much more.  If you want to measure the effects of Obamanomics, you can't compare it to a time of recession.  You must compare it to similar moments of "recovery."


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

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


I didn't understand it then, and I don't understand it now.  Back during the debate over the raising of the debt limit, Republicans allowed themselves to be talked into a "compromise" that included the immediate allowance of Barack Obama to borrow billions of more dollars to be spent immediately.  All this was done with the promise that there would be cuts made down the road.  Sound familiar?  This is the way we got 13 trillion dollars of debt in the first place.


But Republicans who went along with the increase countered that there were fail-safe measures put into place to prevent the same problem from happening again.  But like we said at the time: look at what those measures included.  Congress created a "Supercommittee" of highly partisan Democrats and Republicans that had to find a way to cut 1.5 trillion dollars from the budget.  And if they don't?  Immediate cuts to defense spending.



I suggested at the time that the Democrats on the committee (Patty Murray and John Kerry to name just two) would not go along with any substantial changes to the money-sucking entitlement programs because that would take away the major issue Democrats exploit to get elected every cycle.  But without major cost cutting measures in those areas, there's no way to approach the $1.5 trillion mark.



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

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


If you're looking for another sign of the coming apocalypse, look no further than this story coming out of West Palm Beach, FL:

In West Palm Beach, Florida, a couple sued a doctor and an ultrasound technician for negligence. The two claimed that they would have aborted their son, who was born with no arms and only one leg, had they known about his disabilities beforehand.'s Jane Musgrave writes:


[The parents] claimed they would have never have brought Bryan into the world had they known about his horrific disabilities. Had Morel and technicians at OB/GYN Specialists of the Palm Beaches and Perinatal Specialists of the Palm Beaches properly administered two ultrasounds and seen he was missing three limbs, the West Palm Beach couple said they would have terminated the pregnancy.



As a result of what some are calling a "wrongful birth," Ana Mejia and Rodolfo Santana sued Dr. Marie Morel and an ultrasound technician for $9 million ? a figure that was estimated to cover the child's expenses for the next 70 years.


Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:09 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, September 20 2011

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


Only on the left can you maintain this type of inconsistency and not think twice.  Let's begin with the disgraceful former representative from Florida, the hate-filled Alan Grayson, appearing on MSNBC's Ed Show.


Grayson had been on with Ed earlier this month and had proclaimed that "Republicans want you to die quickly."  So Ed thought it would be great to invite him back on and see if he would agree to perpetuate a smear about Ron Paul and conservatives that followed the recent presidential debate.  Taking Paul out of context and clipping his answer to a Blitzer question about a man without insurance before he'd fully finished, Ed suggested that Paul actually did want people without insurance to die.  Grayson was more than ready:


GRAYSON: I'm often proven right, but usually not so vividly. I have to say this encapsulates exactly what people fear about the Tea Party, the so-called Tea Party - that they just love the taste of blood in their mouths. And that's what this seems to come down to. You know, they call themselves pro-life, but if you listened to them last night, it seemed that they were pro-death.


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

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


If this were any other presidency, you'd have to imagine the mood of the White House to be pretty somber these days.  The grand hope of 2008 has faded into a misery of failure.  The elaborate schemes to rapidly grow the size of government, inviting it to take over more and more of people's lives - to make them better of course - has collapsed into a mess of over-regulatory, bureaucratic gobbledygook.


But far from being ordinary, this is one of the most narcissistic and self-absorbed administrations we've had in quite some time.  Persistently convinced of his own greatness (and the ignorance of the unwashed masses) and how much the people need his brilliance, President Obama remains defiant in the face of the obvious...his quiver is empty.


Victor Davis Hanson writes:


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

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


I incurred the wrath of Ron Paul supporters this week with my column that took issue with his silly comments regarding the cause of 9/11.  They are a very animated bunch, those Paulites.


Nonetheless, Paul deserves to be defended against what was one of the most egregious examples of blatant liberal media bias I have seen in some time (well, at least since Ed Schultz and his shameless editing attempt).


Chris Matthews recently introduced a segment on the Republican candidate debate this way:

CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: I have to say, I've never witnessed such a crackle of enthusiasm for executing people as I heard at the Reagan Library debate last week. I recalled it last night when I heard the clap of applause when Ron Paul said he'd let someone die if they failed to pony up for health insurance.


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

Allow me to share with you the single greatest email I ever remember receiving:

Peter, I had to write and tell you about an event that happened to me recently, as I know you would appreciate it.


My husband and I were finishing up a two week long vacation touring Europe. It had been a delightful experience, but we were excited to come home. We had just boarded our transatlantic flight to come back to the states (we were flying into New York's La Guardia) and were noticing the relatively small number of people on board the plane.


Read more: 

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

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


It's been a contention of conservatives for a long time that Obama's rigid pursuit of "green technology" is a boondoggle that is crushing real economic growth in the name of an idealistic vision that is neither reasonable nor logical.  The emerging Solyndra scandal makes that case open and shut.

The Obama White House tried to rush federal reviewers for a decision on a nearly half-billion-dollar loan to the solar-panel manufacturer Solyndra so Vice President Biden could announce the approval at a September 2009 groundbreaking for the company's factory, newly obtained e-mails show.





The August 2009 e-mails, released exclusively to The Washington Post, show White House officials repeatedly asking OMB reviewers when they would be able to decide on the federal loan and noting a looming press event at which they planned to announce the deal. In response, OMB officials expressed concern that they were being rushed to approve the company's project without adequate time to assess the risk to taxpayers, according to information provided by Republican congressional investigators.


Solyndra collapsed two weeks ago, leaving taxpayers liable for the $535 million loan.

It kinda sounds like the banking crisis and mortgage crisis, doesn't it?  Government has political ends that it wants, leans on institutions (whether that's OMB, mortgage companies or banks) to make it happen despite all the risks that would prevent any rational institution from ever approving the venture.  The government struts about bragging about all the good they're doing.  And then the venture collapses, and taxpayers are left with the bill.


In other words, government creates the problem, proclaims the problem is actually a great victory, and then sticks the taxpayer with the bill.  And when the taxpayer starts looking for who is responsible, the government points the other way.

One e-mail from an OMB official referred to "the time pressure we are under to sign-off on Solyndra." Another complained, "There isn't time to negotiate."


"We have ended up with a situation of having to do rushed approvals on a couple of occasions (and we are worried about Solyndra at the end of the week)," one official wrote. That Aug. 31, 2009, message, written by a senior OMB staffer and sent to Terrell P. McSweeny, Biden's domestic policy adviser, concluded, "We would prefer to have sufficient time to do our due diligence reviews."


White House officials said Tuesday that no one in the administration tried to influence the OMB decision on the loan. They stressed that the e-mails show only that the administration had a "quite active interest" in the timing of OMB's decision.

House Republicans have launched an investigation into these dealings and emails, and of course, Democrats are dragging their feet, waving in the other direction, shouting to any American who will listen, "Move on, there's nothing to be seen here."

The e-mail exchanges could intensify questions about whether the administration was playing favorites and made costly errors while choosing the first recipient of a loan guarantee under its stimulus program. Solyndra's biggest investors were funds operated on behalf of the family foundation of Tulsa billionaire and Obama fundraiser George Kaiser. Although he has been a frequent White House visitor, Kaiser has said he did not use political influence to win approval of the loan.


The White House has previously said that it had no involvement in the Solyndra loan application and that all decisions were made by career officials based on the merits of the company.

I think the merits of the company are pretty apparent.  It's bankrupt - and you and I are paying for it.  Put another way, we're paying for the nonsensical idea that Obama's pie-in-the-sky environmental dreams can become reality if we just throw a few tax dollars at them to subsidize it.  Even if it was operating at full capacity, these solar companies could not produce the energy needed to power a single large city.  But we're wasting tax dollars on that, so Obama can keep collecting contribution dollars from lobbyists Big Environment.

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

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


A few months ago, PBS's race-baiting host Tavis Smiley suggested that the 2012 presidential election would be the most racist election in American history.  At the time, I publicly agreed with Mr. Smiley, albeit for different reasons.  My position was that as long as there were people like Mr. Smiley hosting national television programs, we will see race interjected to every issue of this campaign as the race hustlers of the left look for anyway to get President Obama re-elected.



So glad to see that prediction was spot on:

"It's just not that black folks are hurting the most now. It's that there's no sign that it's going to get any better. There really are two questions in black America, I think, Lester, have to wrestle with. At least two questions. Number one: what is the pain threshold in black America? What is our pain threshold, number one. And number two, what is the presidency really worth? Is it worth not saying anything? Is it worth being silent when you're catching the most hell, when you're suffering the most pain? Especially, when you're the most loyal part of the President's base," Smiley said.

"That's not hating on the President, it's defending your own flanks. And whatever happened to that notion that to the victor goes the spoils? If anybody ought to be looked out for, it ought to be the persons who represent the most significant and the most loyal part of the base. That would be African-Americans."

"Tribal?"  Is this man seriously a national commentator?  It's a useful exercise to compare the words of men like Smiley and Sharpton to the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.  While King called for a colorblind society, Smiley and Sharpton have nothing to discuss if they're not bringing up race.  They have one card to play, no matter the issue.  They've found that talking race is profitable for them, so they do it.  Sure they may be doing a disservice to the country, they may be stoking fires of racial discord, but that's a small price to pay in their estimation for the dollars it adds to their bank accounts.


It's incredible that Smiley is suggesting that since blacks supported Obama in large numbers in 2008, they should somehow get the "spoils."  The spoils, of course, means taxpayer dollars.  This is what we've come to: our general tax revenue has become "spoils" to be dolled out to whichever group wins the presidential election.  And worse than that, Smiley defines those groups on the basis of skin color.  Colorblind society?  Not a chance with this guy behind a microphone.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:06 pm   |  Permalink   |  3 Comments  |  Email
Sunday, September 18 2011

I'm going to throw some quotes at you and I want you to tell me the context and the person who said it.

"Terrible...We shouldn't increase taxes on ordinary income. ... There are other ways to get there."

If you said Mitch McConnell's response to President Obama's proposal to tax the rich during the debt debate, you lose.

How about this one...

"That offset is not going to fly, and he should know that.  Maybe it's just for his election, which I hope isn't the case."

If you said Eric Cantor during the debt negotiations, you lose.

What about this...

"I think the best jobs bill that can be passed is a comprehensive long-term deficit-reduction plan.  That's better than everything else the president is talking about ? combined."

If you said Tom Coburn speaking on debt reduction, you lose.

And this...

"It's hard to have an opinion on something you don't think is going to be the final product.  I've made it clear I'm looking for [tax] cuts, so I'm very hopeful there will be cuts."

If you said John Boehner's response about scoring speeches, you lose.


"Every dollar that is spent... is not going to be available to Congress to deal with the debt, and to me, the top priority of ours should be long-term major debt reduction."

If you said John Kyl's response during the debt supercommittee, you lose.

of course there's...

"If we're going to change something, we got to be sure that we do it in the total [tax reform] package, that they know what the rules of the road are."

If you said Marco Rubio speaking of the importance of tax reform, you lose.

How about...

"When you start singling out certain industries, there's an unfairness to it.  On the pay-fors, I have a problem."

If you said Newt Gingrich in the Republican debate commenting on government picking winners and losers, you lose.

So where are these quotes from?  Are they racist, obstructionist Tea Party Republicans seeking to undermine the president at any cost?  Are they reactionary Republican ideologues in the midst of the debt debate?  Nope.  These are Democrats voicing their displeasure with the current jobs bill. Here are the quotes again and the proper election context.

"Terrible...We shouldn't increase taxes on ordinary income. ... There are other ways to get there." - Jim Webb (D -VA, up for election in 2012).

"That offset is not going to fly, and he should know that.  Maybe it's just for his election, which I hope isn't the case." - Mary Landreau (D-LA, up for election in 2014).

"I think the best jobs bill that can be passed is a comprehensive long-term deficit-reduction plan.  That's better than everything else the president is talking about ? combined." - Tom Carper (D-DE, up for election in 2012).

"It's hard to have an opinion on something you don't think is going to be the final product.  I've made it clear I'm looking for [tax] cuts, so I'm very hopeful there will be cuts." - Ben Nelson (D-NE, up for election in 2012).

"Every dollar that is spent on the jobs bill ... is not going to be available to Congress to deal with the debt. And to me, the top priority of ours should be long-term major debt reduction." - Joe Lieberman (D-CT, retiring, seat up for election in 2012).

"If we're going to change something, we got to be sure that we do it in the total [tax reform] package, that they know what the rules of the road are." - Kay Hagan (D-NC, up for election in 2014).

"When you start singling out certain industries, there's an unfairness to it.  On the pay-fors, I have a problem." - Mark Begich (D-AK, up for election in 2014).

This says two things.  First, anyone who says the TEA party lost the debate on the debt clearly has no idea what they're talking about.  Even Democrats are now starting to recognize that debt reduction is a major priority and essential for long term economic health.  Far from losing, the TEA party was well ahead of the curb and the political climate is starting to realize that.  Of course they're going to take their shots at the TEA party along the way but it's clearly an admission of defeat in the debt debate.  Second, Democrats (particularly those up for re-election in this election or the next in red states) are terrified.  The rhetoric of many of these vulnerable Dems is starting to match conservative Republicans because they realize that fiscal responsibility is going to be essential to their reelection chances.  And the more this happens, the more apparent it will be just how far left of a president we have that his own party is starting to call his proposals extreme.  Grab some popcorn and enjoy the upcoming show.  It should be entertaining.

Posted by: Joel Harris AT 06:30 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Sunday, September 18 2011

I keep hearing and reading Democrats who respond to accusations of overt socialism with outrage and denial. They love to cry, "Foul!" They love to depict conservatives making these claims as hateful demagogues.


The only problem with their outrage is that it is completely unjustified. Their political leaders, such as Representative Maxine Waters (D - Calif), keep telling us exactly what they seek to accomplish:

"If [banks] don't come up with loan modifications and keep people in their homes that they've worked so hard for, we're going to tax them out of business."


There's the Democrat Party philosophy we have all come to know and love... and fear.


There's the job creation ideology of the left. I don't make this stuff up, folks. It's out there every day all the time. Just remember: if you want to anger a conservative, tell her a lie; if you want to anger a liberal, tell him the truth.

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 04:00 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Sunday, September 18 2011

"All these are the beginning of birth pangs. Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me." -  Matthew 24:8-9

Chilling words made even more chilling because they were spoken by Jesus.


In spite of this sobering warning, who would have believed that one of those nations hating the followers of Jesus Christ would be America? I do not think that we have reached that point yet, but the trend is heading that direction at an increasingly fast clip.


Consider last week's remembrance of the 9/11 attacks on America. In the days following 9/11/2001, Americans rallied together in numerous displays of national unity. One of the very evident displays was the use of "God Bless America." It was emblazoned on banners and hung literally everywhere. Members of Congress stood together on the Capitol steps and sang "God Bless America," which continues to be sung during the seventh inning stretch at baseball games and other venues. Suddenly, God was important to Americans again.


It was short-lived.


Ten years later, the inclusion of Christian prayers at the official New York service became a controversy. Atheists are suing government officials to prevent the inclusion of a cross formed by the steel beams found in the remains of the World Trade Center in the Memorial and Museum. The expansion of selfish vulgarity continues unabated in American pop culture and entertainment.


The extreme reversal of America's foundation upon saving grace and faith becomes even more stark when we ponder the open belief shared by such great Americans as John Jay, who served as the President of the Continental Congress from 1778 through 1779, was instrumental in the emancipation of slaves in New York, contributed to the ratification of the U.S. Constitution as one of the three authors of the Federalist Papers, and served as the first Chief Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court. In a letter to Representative John Murray, dated October 12, 1816, he wrote, "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest, of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."


Our Lord, many prayers were offered for the victims of 9/11, their surviving family members, and the many heroes who continue to serve America today. They are certainly worthy recipients of our prayers, but we need to also recognize that not only are we to call upon the name of the Lord; we are to obey the Lord. We fail You, O God, all too often. Thankfully, though, whether it is included in the 9/11 museum or not, Your cross bears testimony to Your everlasting presence in Your world and in our lives. As we remember Your grace, may we likewise remember to walk humbly with our God. In the name of Christ our Lord we pray. Amen.

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 01:51 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Sunday, September 18 2011

The Gospel of John records for us the clarion call for all Christians... "If you love me, keep my commandments." (KJV, Jn. 14:15)  As a follower of the true Messiah, I am humbled when I contemplate His call to obedience.  As much as I strive to live up to such a call to action, I only find myself falling short on a regular basis.  (I speak the truth to my own shame.)

Oh, how wonderful it would be if His commandment was as easy to obey as the left's messiah, Pres. Obama.  When a disciple of his expressed his love for our president earlier this week, how enraptured he must have been when his messiah responded personally to him, " I love you back!  But if you love me, you've got to help me pass this bill."  

 I have to learn how to love my neighbor self-sacrificially and walk in obedience to the high calling of Jesus, and all Pres. Obama's followers have to do is pass an overwhelming debt on to the next generation in an act of supreme selfishness.  I think I will continue to follow Jesus.

Posted by: Matthew W. Turner AT 12:49 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Sunday, September 18 2011

The Republican presidential debate that aired on CNN this week involved a heated exchange between Congresswoman Michele Bachman and Texas Governor Rick Perry on the issue of an HPV vaccine.

It is not my intention to analyze the exchange or to dissect the candidates' answers and allegations. Yet, I realize that this subject may sound familiar to many readers, as AFA of Indiana was deeply involved in this matter when an HPV bill passed the Indiana legislature a few years ago. That bill, authored by state Sen. Connie Lawson, originated as a mandate tied to school admission. We opposed the introduced version of the bill, but not the vaccine itself or the final version that reached the Governor's desk.

At the time, the HPV vaccine was very new and there were several questions surrounding its safety and effectiveness. Our position was not automatically against a vaccine mandate. Almost all vaccine matters under Indiana law include a longstanding opt-out provision, though historically it has generally not been widely known or used outside of certain religious groups. We try to make sure that all vaccine proposals include this provision.

HPV is the Human Papillomavirus. It is a sexually transmitted disease that is largely responsible for cervical cancers, genital warts in both men and women and anal cancer among homosexual males. Unlike mumps, measles or other communicable diseases in which a mandate may be understandable due to an outbreak quickly infecting entire classrooms or schools, HPV is behaviorally spread. It is not an airborne pathogen caught by bystanders.

The greatest concern that I expressed in every media interview I could on the HPV vaccine was that the legitimate emotional desire to save women from a horrible cancer often overlooked the shortcomings of the vaccine. Gardisil only protects women from the HPV viruses strains accountable for cervical cancer. There are up to 30%, which may still cause cervical cancer that the vaccine may not touch. Gardasil also has very limited effectiveness against genital warts. Parents really needed to know this limitation.

There were also the questions about the duration of the vaccine proposed for 12-year-old girls. Some reports indicated that the vaccine would not last until most women marry in their 20's. Therefore, the vaccine has benefits, but it is not a silver bullet for cancer. Without such an understanding, it risks giving women, and parents, a false sense of security in regard to their remaining health risks and sexual choices.

This is why we were pleased that the bill was modified from a school admission mandate to a provision requiring schools to give information about the vaccine's availability to parents who could then discuss its pros or cons with their family physician and decide if and when the vaccine is right for their child.

Posted by: Micah Clark AT 08:33 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Sunday, September 18 2011

While large numbers of Orthodox Jews in New York's 9th Congressional District may not be able to accept a rewriting of God's design for the family and raising children, it seems that more and more Americans in the last ten years are reshaping God's expectations to fit their own desires.

A story appearing in USA Today reports that since 1991 more Americans are shaping religion according to their own preferences and drifting away from clearly defined denominational teachings. (Historically, religion is usually understood to be about principles that change man, rather than man changing religious principles.)

Pollster George Barna observes this shift noting, ""We are a designer society. We want everything customized to our personal needs ? our clothing, our food, our education," he says. "Now it's our religion."

Barna's new book and survey on faith in America finds that every major positive trend line is pointed downward except for one. More Americans say that they have "accepted Christ as their Savior" than in 1991 (35% then to 40% today). However, other findings separate belief from religious practices. More Americans say that they have not been in a church in the last six months (24% then to 37% today). Fewer Americans than in 1991 read the Bible outside of church (45% then to 40% today), fewer volunteer at church (27% then to 19% today), fewer attend an adult Sunday School program (23% then to 15% today), fewer call the Bible accurate (46% then to 38% today) and fewer define God as all knowing (74% then to 67% today).

Barna explains this cultural trend, "People say, 'I believe in God. I believe the Bible is a good book. And then I believe whatever I want."   I have to wonder if the many churches over the last decade that have been so willing to reshape faith in hope of being more relevantn and appealing have unwittingly also contributed to this pliable, cafeteria style faith. 

The  USA Today article notes that studies of other religions such as one recently reported in the Jewish magazine Moment are finding similar trends. These changes  in religious practice and belief seem to reveal the depth of our postmodern society where truth is increasingly relative and up for grabs from person to person. 

Posted by: Micah Clark AT 06:28 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Saturday, September 17 2011

For years there have been concerns expressed surrounding school textbooks being used by a liberal activists pushing an agenda because of what is or is not emphasized in curricula. An interesting blog post including pictures of a third grade history textbook may serve to continue those worries. The textbook, "Our American Heritage" by McGraw Hill, a company with many Indiana ties, seems to be an example of selective history helping advance an agenda.

Here is what the blog reports about this textbook published last year:

There is but one sentence devoted to the Bill of Rights. It reads, "These rights [of citizens] are listed in the part of the U.S. Constitution called the Bill of Rights."

Two pages cover the Declaration of Independence
Two pages describe the Constitution, all of which are devoted to the three branches of government and separation of powers
No pages are devoted to James Madison and the authors of the Constitution; there is no mention of federalism
Six pages are spent describing the background of Paul Revere
Ten pages are devoted to the history of democracy in ancient Greece.
George Washington and Abraham Lincoln are mentioned only in passing, almost as if they are immaterial scenery on the road to diversity and social Utopia.

In the section entitled "America's Freedom Fighters":

Eight pages are spent covering the life of Frederick Douglass
Five pages on Susan B. Anthony
Six pages on Mary McLeod Bethune, (a black educator an adviser to FDR)
Zero pages are devoted to the life of Abraham Lincoln

In fact, the entire Civil War is described only as a backdrop to the lives of Frederick Douglas and Mary McLeod Bethune.

In the section entitled "The Fight for Freedom Continues":

Seven pages are spent on praise for FDR
Six pages on Eleanor Roosevelt
Six pages are devoted to Thurgood Marshall
Six pages are spent on LBJ's life and the wondrous effects of "Great Society"
Six pages are spent on Cesar Chavez and the lionization of the labor movement

There is no list of American Presidents in the children's textbook.

Posted by: Micah Clark AT 07:54 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Saturday, September 17 2011

This week the legislature of North Carolina passed a measure by the necessary two-thirds margin to allow voters in the Tar Heel state to have a say on marriage protection. They may become the 31st state to pass a marriage amendment. Every time the people have been asked if the importance of gender in marriage should remain, or be discarded, they vote to keep marriage between a man and a woman.

Interestingly, in order to get 75 votes, a compromise had to be made with some Democrat opponents (though the vote to protect marriage included both Republicans and Democrats.) Rather than a November vote, which would pull in social conservatives and increase the Republican voting base, the marriage protection vote will occur instead during North Carolina's May primary.

This wasn't the only big news about marriage this week, though you may not hear much about this second item. A lot of money went into a congressional race in yesterday's special election to fill the seat vacated by discredited New York Congressman Anthony Weiner. The Brooklyn and Queens district is a 3-1 Democrat district, (which is also 40% Jewish) that was previously held by ultra-liberal Sen. Charles Schumer. A Democrat has held that district since the 1920's.

The national media sees the 6-piont victory by Republican Bob Turner over Democrat New York Assemblyman David Weprin as a rejection of President Barack Obama and his handling of the economy. There is certainly a lot of truth to this observation. Yet, it is also worth noting that Weprin recently voted to undefine marriage in New York, a week after a poll found that 56% of voters wanted marriage to remain between a man and a woman. Although this has not been mentioned in most of the national reports, it was one of the issues that came up locally in the district and hurt Assemblyman Weprin.

Posted by: Micah Clark AT 06:25 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, September 16 2011

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


Okay, I'm sorry but even if you like the guy, support him, still pretend that he is some sort of transcendent politician who will deliver us to the promised land, you can't tell me that getting an email from the sitting president of the United States with a subject line that says, "Sometime soon, can we meet for dinner" wouldn't register just a tad on the creepy scale.


But that's exactly what this increasingly bizarre administration has done.  Here are portions of the text of the email:

Friend --



Today, I want to ask if you'll join me and three other supporters for a meal and conversation sometime soon.

Please donate $5 or more to be automatically entered for a chance to join me for dinner.

If this sounds a bit familiar to you, it's because we've done this before. In fact, my hope is that I'll be able to keep doing these dinners throughout the campaign.



These dinners also set our campaign apart. No matter what our opponents do over the next 14 months, dinners like these are how we will continue to put people at the heart of this campaign -- and prove that we don't need checks from Washington lobbyists or special-interest PAC money to win an election. We can do it person to person, in our neighborhoods and backyards, and over the dinner table.

That's why I'm asking for your donation today. I hope you'll take a minute to help build this campaign. When you do, you'll have a chance to join me for dinner:


Maybe I'll get to thank you in person.


The Commander-in-Chief sounds like some kind of weird creeper on a dating service site.  How presidential.  And speaking of presidential, check out what else Barack has been up to online:

As the 2012 presidential campaign heats up, President Obama's campaign team has set up a new Web site,, to challenge negative statements about the president made by Republican presidential candidates and conservatives.




The response to the site has been less than stellar.

(Image via Twitter) On Twitter, where the Web site has an account to help Obama supporters submit evidence of "attacks" on the president using the hashtag #attackwatch, nearly every tweet about the site ? mostly from conservatives ? has ridiculed it.


"There's a new Twitter account making President Obama look like a creepy, authoritarian nutjob," an Arizonan tweeted. "In less than 24 hours, Attack Watch has become the biggest campaign joke in modern history," a contributor to conservative blog The Right Sphere wrote. The contributor linked to the following parody commercial for Attack Watch:


Tommy Christopher of Mediaite noted sarcastically of the site, "Great. Sounds like a terrific content-generating resource for right-wing bloggers, too. Everybody wins!"




It's safe to say that in its 24 hours of existence, Attack Watch has already backfired, becoming a tool for conservatives to use against Obama 2012. A tweet by conservative author Brad Thor summed up the critics's argument: "Wow, not only are Obama & Co. incredibly thin-skinned, they're paranoid."

We've gone from the era of our founding where citizens were paranoid about their governmental leaders to the era of Obama where our leaders are paranoid about citizens who disagree with them.  The mockery Obama is receiving for this is well justified, as it demonstrates a maturity level much more appropriate to late elementary school than the White House.  Beth Galliher agreed:

Good Lord, this is just embarrassing.  Junior High embarrassing.  Like your mom coming on to the field when you're down with a groin injury embarrassing.  It reeks of juvenile insecurity and utter desperation -- just stop picking on me!  Far worse, it is behavior endorsed and propagated by the sitting President of the United States.  It's a disgrace to the office.  It's a disgrace to bully pulpits, for heaven's sake.


And yet, in rather glaring irony, the site does nothing more than embarrass.  It accurately portrays Obama as an ideologue grasping at the last desperate illusion he tries to sell others.  This nation gets it.  The gig is up.  We've seen fundamental transformation, and we're not falling for it, no matter the messenger.  It's the last gasp of a man calling for the destruction of the only real producers left who can be bilked into funding his progressive utopia.  And we know it.  Obama is a man who knows nothing about creating jobs other than stimulating unions with other people's money.  A man who read a dry and uninspired message to an aching nation he will never understand or defend.

The president's narcissism is shielding him from recognizing how he has come to be perceived by the vast majority of Americans.  As the emperor goes around appealing to his subjects, "If you love me, you'll pass my jobs bill," he doesn't even realize he has no clothes.  Makes that dinner invite a little less appealing, doesn't it?

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

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


Yesterday on the radio show, I suggested that Obama is a drastically weak president right now, beatable by virtually every candidate in the Republican field.  I cited how this most recent jobs bill (which is nothing more than yet another stimulus package built upon the false premise that taxing people more so that government can spend more will somehow create long-lasting jobs) is a desperate attempt by Obama to change public perception about his utter failure dealing with the nation's economy. 


Obviously, the plan stinks.  Bad.  But that's never daunted Democrats before (see ObamaCare) when it's time to vote.  So I made the point that the fact Democrats (and not just those in swing districts) were sprinting away from the president and his jobs bill was clear evidence of how weak and unpopular they know he is. 


A listener disagreed:

You can keep talking all you want, but the truth is that Democrats have never been this unified behind Obama.  And you have yourself to blame for it to (sic).  You and Beck and Rush and all of them have spewed such hatred towards him that Democrats around the country are rallying to his side.  We will support him and his policies no matter what they are.  And he will be elected in a landslide just so you know.  You really think Michelle (sic) "John Wayne Gacy" Obama (sic) will beat him?

Okay, so as much as I appreciate listener feedback, this one fell a bit far from the sane tree.  First of all, in terms of whether Michele Bachmann can beat Obama or not, I suppose it may all come down to the last 7 of our 57 states.  I don't know if she'll be able to carry them without being able to find them like Obama apparently has.


Side Note: the preceding comment is part of a personal commitment I have to answering all accusations of Republican "gaffes" with a reminder that even The One has his moments.


But in terms of the actual content of the email, I'm happy to hear that my listener is proudly on board with his beloved Obama.  All I'm saying is that many of Obama's fellow elected Democrat lawmakers are not.  That's not an opinion or an attempt to persuade nearly as much as it's a simple commentary on reality:

President Barack Obama's new jobs plan is hitting some unexpected turbulence in the halls of Congress: lawmakers from his own party.


As he demands Congress quickly approve his ambitious proposal aimed at reviving the sagging economy, many Democrats on Capitol Hill appear far from sold that the president has the right antidote to spur major job growth and turn around their party's political fortunes.


"Terrible," Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) told POLITICO when asked about the president's ideas for how to pay for the $450 billion price tag. "We shouldn't increase taxes on ordinary income. . There are other ways to get there."


"That offset is not going to fly, and he should know that," said Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu from the energy-producing Louisiana, referring to Obama's elimination of oil and gas subsidies. "Maybe it's just for his election, which I hope isn't the case."


"I think the best jobs bill that can be passed is a comprehensive long-term deficit-reduction plan," said Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), discussing proposals to slash the debt by $4 trillion by overhauling entitlement programs and raising revenue through tax reforms. "That's better than everything else the president is talking about ? combined."




"If we're going to change something, we got to be sure that we do it in the total [tax reform] package, that they know what the rules of the road are," said Sen. Kay Hagan (D-N.C.).

Democratic Sen. Mark Begich, from the oil-rich state of Alaska, said it was "frustrating" to see the president single out the oil industry after calling on the congressional supercommittee in last week's address to Congress to find savings.

"When you start singling out certain industries, there's an unfairness to it," he said in an interview. "On the pay-fors, I have a problem."




And those are just the moderates in the party. Some liberals also have concerns.

Now, I suppose it's possible that all those elected Democrats bailing on Obama have just been caught up and convinced by all the "hate" people like me, and Rush and Glenn Beck have "spewed."  But for some reason I doubt the accuracy of that assessment.  No, I'd say the much more plausible reason they are running from the President is because they know the whole country is not, "rallying to his side." 


Looking at what he and his policies have done to our economy, why would they?

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:08 pm   |  Permalink   |  1 Comment  |  Email
Friday, September 16 2011

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


On the radio show last week, I talked about the concerted and serious effort being made by the left to totally recast the presidency of Ronald Reagan.  Once maligned for his staunch conservative views (including being vilified by even establishment Republicans most of all for his "far-right" social conservatism), the left has realized they are never going to win the battle in convincing people Ronald Reagan was a bad guy, a fringe kook, or a poor president.

That presents them with quite a dilemma.  Their entire electoral strategy is to redefine the political spectrum to convey the false idea that someone who shares Reagan's conservative viewpoints is a far-right radical who can't be taken seriously and would wreck the country.  Which leaves the left with two options: either convince everyone Reagan was a terrible president (which again, they can't do), or begin recasting who Reagan was to convince people he wasn't conservative.  That has become the strategy.



I cited this last week with regard to Chris Matthews saying Reagan accepted Roe v. Wade (which is patently and demonstrably false), and Lawrence O'Donnell saying Reagan was all about tax increases (which is just as false).  And now we have another example.


Washington Post columnist and blogger Ezra Klein recently wrote:

There's no doubt who won last night's Republican presidential debate: Ronald Reagan. He even got a montage set to the Verve's Bittersweet Symphony. But the funny thing is that if the actual Ronald Reagan had been on that stage defending his actual record, he would almost certainly have lost. In fact, he would have been destroyed.




I want to be very clear: My point isn't to suggest that Reagan was some closet liberal. This is still the president who signed one of the largest tax cuts in history. My point is to say Reagan was a conservative who was willing to compromise with reality. And that's not something I heard a lot of on the stage last night.

First of all, Klein conveniently ignores that Reagan's major perspective on compromise was that he met them on his turf...the Democrats came his way, rather than him meeting in the middle.  As my college prof always used to say, America can be thankful they elected an actor in Ronald Reagan, who would always extend a hand...but it was usually an empty hand as he pulled his opponent to his side.


Klein, of course, doesn't want to acknowledge that.  Yes, Reagan got Democrats to go along with him on numerous things.  He did that because he was remarkably persuasive, an incredible salesman of conservatism, and they were scared to death to oppose him given his popularity.


And that is Klein's (and Matthews' and O'Donnell's) greatest concern: that a President Perry or Romney or Bachmann might take the same approach.  After the demonstrable failure of the Obama years, it could bury the left for a generation.  That's why they're kicking their Reagan revisionism into hyper drive.

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

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


Well, I did something I probably shouldn't have done over the weekend.  I should have left it alone and stuck with preparing for our first "78" presentation this week and watching football.  But I didn't.  I got online and watched President Obama's recent attempt at a "jobs speech."  The only thing smart I did was watch it sans applause.  I don't think I could have handled that - the site of seeing the very folks who have caused our economic problems standing and applauding the man who has authored the policies that have crushed our recovery, as he recited a plan to enact those same policies again.yeah, I just couldn't do it.


But what really struck me as I watched this was the huge political theater that it was.  As I told an emailer last week, Mr. Obama's decision to call a joint session of Congress to talk about this new plan was nothing but pure politics. He wanted the venue, he wanted to use his bully pulpit, he wanted Americans to think he was serious, even if the content was utterly useless as always.  I suppose that's his prerogative, but it doesn't make it any less annoying.



I haven't seen any polling data post-speech, but I guess I can't imagine that it made even the slightest dent in the way people perceive The One when it comes to jobs.  Why?  Because it just doesn't make sense - with as good of theater as he may have attempted - that a man who is working on his third year in the White House is just now deciding that he's livid about the lack of job growth.


Are we to believe that he just woke up a few days ago when he was on vacation in Martha's Vineyard and thought, "holy cow, there aren't any jobs anywhere."  Are we to believe that he has been blissfully unaware of the malaise that has defined his presidency to this point?  Evidently so.  I'm not buying it.  Neither is former OMB man James Capretta:

During his first two years in office, he had commanding majorities in the House and Senate. He could have passed just about any kind of economic agenda he wanted. What did he do? He passed an $800 stimulus bill that didn't work and then spent a year and a half passing the most controversial and burdensome entitlement expansion in half a century. That's pretty much the entire Democratic economic agenda.

That's exactly right.  If Mr. Obama is ticked that there's been no jobs growth due to lack of action by the government, he should take it up with his own party...or better yet, with himself.  He was the one who decided to focus like a laser on driving through a bloated, jobs-destroying, confusion creating, tax inducing monstrosity known as ObamaCare over the objectives of every American who was thinking.  He wasn't worried about jobs.


And the efforts they did make on the economic front directly, obviously didn't work.  So now the president is going to scold Congress for no job creation?  Now the president is going to act like doubling down on his previous errors will work out well this time?


I don't think you're going to see the jobs package he outlined in the speech be pushed through.  I think he knows that.  That was the point of the theater.  Republicans aren't likely to go along with the same stupid policies that dug us in even deeper in debt.  And when they don't, Mr. Obama wanted to be able to point to some grand speech and say to Americans, "Well see, I had a plan, but the Republicans wouldn't enact it, so it's their fault you don't have any jobs."


Relying on the ignorance of the American people, and basing your candidacy on the ability to dupe the electorate may have been an effective strategy in 2008.  I don't think it will work in 2012.

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

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


After watching Obama's jobs speech, I have to admit I was left with several questions.  But the most pressing of them was this: does anyone actually believe this president when he says that the plan "will be paid for?"


Nothing is paid for in Washington.  It's all on borrowed dimes.  But suddenly we are to believe that the man who has racked up more debt in a matter of two years than the first 40 presidents combined, has decided to take fiscal restraint seriously.  Right.



The AP did a "fact check" on this very issue, and I was pleased to see they addressed the obvious reality that despite saying "everything" would be paid for, the President's explanation of the all-important "how" was left out:

Obama did not spell out exactly how he would pay for the measures contained in his nearly $450 billion American Jobs Act but said he would send his proposed specifics in a week to the new congressional supercommittee charged with finding budget savings.




Essentially, the jobs plan is an IOU from a president and lawmakers who may not even be in office down the road when the bills come due. Today's Congress cannot bind a later one for future spending. A future Congress could simply reverse it.


Currently, roughly all federal taxes and other revenues are consumed in spending on various federal benefit programs, including Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, veterans' benefits, food stamps, farm subsidies and other social-assistance programs and payments on the national debt. Pretty much everything else is done on credit with borrowed money.


So there is no guarantee that programs that clearly will increase annual deficits in the near term will be paid for in the long term.

The key words of that fact check were these: "Essentially, the jobs plan is an IOU."  This is the budgetary gimmicks used by lawmakers for decades to dig us into this insurmountable pit of debt.  They spend the money now, but promise that it will all be paid for with future budgets and future plans - almost all of which never come to fruition because the people who promised it aren't in office anymore.


Think of it this way: if we enact this bill, the money gets spent almost immediately.  But we have to rely on the good word of President Obama speaking on behalf of whoever the next president is.  And that's credible?  And that's to be taken seriously?


Only if we are the big idiots this administration apparently believes us to be.

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

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


Despite the silliness of the NBC/Politico moderators from the recent Republican debate, there were many significant realities that began to emerge as primary voters begin the process of making their choice as to which horse to back.  Not the least of these realities was the difference of Perry and Romney (the frontrunners, and presumptive serious contenders for the nomination) on the pressing issue of entitlement spending.


Mona Charen defines the difference:

There is a brand of Republican who looks at President Obama's vulnerability on the economy and says, "Go for it!" They argue that the overriding issue of the campaign should be jobs ? and that everything else should be a distant second.


There is another kind of Republican who sees the election of 2012 as a tipping point for the nation ? a do-or-die moment when we will either pull back from the precipice of debt and national decline or fall off the edge. This second brand of Republican is hoping that a candidate will emerge who can lay before the American people the nature of the challenge we face in a direct and forthright way. If a campaign is run and won on the need to reform our obese government, the new president will have a mandate to take the necessary steps once in office.


After Wednesday's Republican debate, it seems that Mitt Romney represents the first group, and Rick Perry stands for the second.

This is a very astute observation.  While Governor Perry comes from the school that teaches if there's a problem, you name it and fix it, Romney represents the old guard understanding of how to get elected, how to run a campaign, how to position yourself just right to not be defeated.  Perry is much more about confronting problems, Romney is much more about calculation as to which problem to address.

Members of the first camp ? and it includes lots of smart people, such as Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, and Mike Murphy ? may agree that defeating Obama is critical, but they argue that it's tactically stupid to mention the looming bankruptcy of "popular" federal programs such as Social Security and Medicare.

The truth of that statement was self-evident when Romney gave his response to Perry's labeling of Social Security as flawed from the start, a Ponzi scheme, and a monstrous lie to young workers.  Romney suggested that Social Security was working and that under no circumstances would he say by any measure it's a failure.


Really?  Here's how Charen (and I think a large portion of voters would) respond to that:

Rubbish. How can you deny that a bankrupt government program is a failure? As for whether it's a Ponzi scheme, well, when the program was adopted, there were 17 workers for every retiree, and the average life expectancy was 58 for men and 62 for women. By 2035, there will be an estimated 2.1 workers for every retiree, and life expectancy ? even if it remains at 2011 levels (male 75, female 80) ? will still be about 18 years longer. What Perry said was the simple truth: There will be no funds for 25-year-olds to draw upon when they reach retirement age.

To say that such a construct is not a failure is to be fundamentally unserious about the problem.  We've already got leadership like that.we don't need Republicans who offer the same.


There's another element to this "Perry calling out Social Security" debate that I think warrants mention.  Politicians today treat the American voters like they are children who must be taken care of, and who can't possibly be confronted with bad news.  Perry doesn't play that game, but Romney does.

The Romney Republicans want candidates to tiptoe around the question of entitlements, as if the truth will be too harsh for fragile voters to hear. But the voters are not so sensitive ? nor so uninformed.


A Gallup poll taken in May found that 67 percent of Americans believe that Social Security and Medicare are already creating or will within ten years create "a crisis for the federal government." That included 54 percent of Democrats. Another 19 percent expect the crisis within 10 to 20 years. Only 4 percent said the programs would not create a problem for more than 20 years, and 7 percent said "not in the foreseeable future."


To face the facts about Social Security is not to throw granny over the cliff, as the Democrats would have it. There are reforms (such as the program adopted by Chile, as Herman Cain mentioned and as I wrote about recently) that would offer a better return for retirees and a better deal for younger workers. Republicans can also fairly propose gradual increases in the retirement age.


Either Americans are going to solve this problem by facing up to it, or they aren't. But Republicans cannot hope to sneak the issue past the voters during election season with dishonest palaver and then impose a solution ? or worse, join the Democrats in denial. On this issue, Rick Perry was treating voters as adults.

Precisely.  I think Perry has a very significant opportunity to be the candidate many voters identify with, as they tire of smooth sounding politicians who keep promising them the world and pretending that our problems are easily fixable.  They're not, and the American people know it.  They also know that there's no chance of us getting started on fixing them with someone so dishonest they won't even talk like we need to.


On the Social Security front, I say advantage Perry.

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

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


Watching the Republican debate last week on MSNBC was a hoot.  It had been awhile since I tuned into their flailing network, and hadn't seen the new generation of "lean forward" commercials they are running as promotions for their prime time left wing line-up.


I particularly enjoyed Rachel Maddow's promo that was set against the backdrop of the Hoover Dam.  It was like I was in a parallel universe as I heard Maddow lecture us on the greatness of America:

"People tell us no, no, no we're not going to build it. No, no, no, America doesn't have any greatness in its future. America has small things in its future. Other countries have great things in their future. China can afford it. We can't." She replies to this chorus of strawmen, "You're wrong, and it doesn't feel right to us and it doesn't sound right to us because that's not what America is."


Since when do liberals talk like this?  Or think like this?  Since when did rugged individualism, the pioneer can-do spirit, and a jingoistic national pride become part of the left's mantra?  I was astounded and thought to myself that perhaps I need to tune back into MSNBC to see what miraculous thing had occurred there.  Okay, not really.


I suppose maybe setting of the Hoover Dam was to signify how big government spending could achieve great things.  Subtle, but possible for the folks at MSNBC.  But even still, it doesn't matter.  Jonah Goldberg explains why:

The reason the ad is so funny is that nobody thinks liberals such as Maddow would support anything like the Hoover Dam today. The Hoover Dam is a marvel. But by today's green standards, it is a crime against nature. If you tried to build it, the Natural Resources Defense Council and Greenpeace would be in court tomorrow blocking it, with Ms. Maddow cheering them on.


Indeed, look at all the activists attacking the proposed construction of an oil pipeline from Canada to the Texas coast. It would create thousands of construction jobs and yet liberals oppose it for the usual petrophobic reasons. Ironically, liberals love building highways and bridges, but loathe making it affordable to drive on them.


This is just a small example of the Catch-22 liberalism has found itself in. The Left yearns to "go big" but it wants to do so through the extremely narrow routes it has created for itself. They say government must rush into this economic crisis like firemen into a burning building. But they also don't want to lighten the useless baggage the firemen must carry or remove the Byzantine obstacle course they've decreed the figurative firefighters must run through before getting to work.

Goldberg is right.  Liberals talk like they want America to achieve great things, but time and again when you look at Americans or American business that is seeking to do those great things, who and what is standing in their way?  Liberals and their big government regulations, red tape, and bureaucracy.  Can you imagine the Hoover Dam project being attempted today with the nightmarish regulations liberals have enacted since then?  It might take as long to build as the Freedom Tower on the WTC site.  


Keep leaning forward, Rach.

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

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


Barack Obama and the Democrats terribly misinterpreted the election in 2008.  Assuming that their electoral success was some sort of mandate for aggressive "progressive" change rather than what it was, they crammed through their agenda against the wishes of a thoroughly ticked off population.  Their arrogance ushered in the town hall fallout, the entire Tea Party movement, and a succession of election losses culminating with the smack down of 2010.


They should have learned from Bob McDonnell's victory in Virginia.  They didn't.  They should have learned from Chris Christie's victory in New Jersey.  They didn't.  They should have learned from Scott Brown's victory in Massachusetts.  They didn't.  In each case, they found ways to explain away how it wasn't a harbinger of things to wasn't a referendum on the leadership of the wasn't a bell weather for other elections on deck.  And they were proven wrong.



So was there any question how they would handle this news:

The Democratic Party's rare loss of a congressional seat in its urban heartland Tuesday, accompanied by a blowout defeat in a Nevada special election, marked the latest in a string of demoralizing setbacks that threatened to deepen the party's crisis of confidence and raise concerns about President Barack Obama's political fortunes.


In New York, Republican Bob Turner soundly defeated Democrat David Weprin in a House contest that - in the view of party leaders, at least ? featured an anemic urban machine, distracted labor unions, and disloyal voters. In Nevada, a consequential state for the president's re-election strategy, Democrats suffered a runaway loss rooted in a weak showing in Reno's Washoe County, a key bellwether.


Even before the polls closed, the recriminations - something short of panic, and considerably more than mere grumbling - had begun. On a high-level campaign conference call Tuesday afternoon, Democratic donors and strategists commiserated over their disappointment in Obama. A source on the call described the mood as "awful."


"People feel betrayed, disappointed, furious, disgusted, hopeless," said the source.

Those would be the folks who actually know what's going on.  This is - just like Scott Brown's election in Massachusetts was - an unquestionable rejection of Barack Obama's leadership.  Turner said as much.  He based his whole campaign around the failure of Obama.  And if he pulled that off in a heavily Democratic district in New Obama won by 11 do you think more swing districts in states like Ohio, Florida, Michigan and Minnesota are going to break?  Again, this man is landslide beatable.


I say that not just because of the obvious results of these races, but because of the arrogant refusal to recognize reality by his supporters.  Because how is the Democratic Party responding to what is, yet again, another clear repudiation of the left?

Democratic party leaders insisted the loss wasn't a harbinger of things to come. "It's a very difficult district for Democrats," said Democratic National Committee chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, noting its Democratic margins there tend to be the second lowest of all the districts in New York City.

Very difficult?!  This is a district that hasn't gone for a Republican in almost 90 years...1923 to be precise.  But Debbie Wasserman Schultz - the gift that keeps on giving for the Republican Party - suggests that there isn't anything surprising about the Republicans taking the seat that previously belonged to disgraced Democrat Anthony Weiner.  


Not that I mind all this fingers-in-the-ears, head-in-the-sand silliness of the left.  Their monumental overreach has alerted people to exactly what would become of this country should they be left in charge.  They have done more for the cause of conservatism than any Reagan-like figure could have ever done.  And if you don't believe me on that point, consider that the seats that once belonged to radical liberals Ted Kennedy and Anthony Weiner are now occupied by Republicans.  Case closed.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:06 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, September 14 2011

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


Rick Perry had the courage to call the Social Security mess exactly what it is: a government run Ponzi scheme that is offering a monstrous lie to young workers.  The left is attempting to seize on that language as being over-the-top and reckless.  Even Mitt Romney, apparently after that "compassionate conservative" contingent, suggested that the Republican nominee just can't say such things.  Actually, Mitt, speaking the truth is kind of an important quality in a candidate.


But the question of whether this is an accurate characterization just hasn't been settled in the minds of some on the left.  The great liberal mind, Tom Friedman of the New York Times, appeared on CNBC the other day to shoot down this idea.  But Rick Santelli, whose rant sparked the Tea Party movement, didn't let him get away with it in a classic exchange:

RICK SANTELLI, CNBC: I was watching that debate last night, although it wasn't really a debate. It was more like a weird press conference. But I'd like to know does Mr. Friedman think Social Security is a Ponzi scheme?


TOM FRIEDMAN, NEW YORK TIMES: No, I don't think it's a Ponzi scheme.



SANTELLI: Earlier in the show you said we're putting a burden on our kids that's unsustainable. What's a definition of a Ponzi scheme?


FRIEDMAN: Yeah, I think it's a program that's made promises that it cannot keep in full and it needs to be fixed and reformed.


SANTELLI: Isn't that exactly what a Ponzi pyramid letter is?


FRIEDMAN: No, I don't think it is. A Ponzi scheme is a criminal endeavor and I don't think this is it.


SANTELLI: Forget the criminal side. You need more people to perpetuate a myth because if the people stop, the myth is known to all. That's my definition of a Ponzi scheme. Let's call it a chain letter, a pyramid scheme. Isn't that by definition what Social Security is? Take the legalities and the fraud out.


STEVE LIESMAN, CNBC: Why is it a Ponzi scheme, Rick, if we're paying as we go?


SANTELLI: I didn't hear an answer, Steve. I didn't hear Mr. Friedman make an answer..


FRIEDMAN: We're paying as we go. Ronald Reagan fixed it. Why can't we fix it?


SANTELLI: What does Ronald Reagan have to do with my question?


FRIEDMAN: What does your question have to do with reality?


MICHELLE CARUSO-CABRERA, CNBC: We brought it up because it came up last night. It's going to be the biggest thing in the.


SANTELLI: Because if you can't decide that more people is the only thing that makes Social Security work we have a real issue because many people in government seem to like to read your work.


FRIEDMAN: Well, what makes Social Security work is fixing Social Security in terms of the population.


SANTELLI: I didn't ask whether we should fix it or not. I asked if it's pyramid scheme.


FRIEDMAN: Your question is idiotic. That's what you asked.


SANTELLI: Your answer is idiotic. I'm done, I feel good.

Wait a minute, Tom.  The point that you were trying to make was that Social Security is not a Ponzi or pyramid scheme.  After explaining briefly the way the system works, Santelli asked if it wasn't a pyramid scheme.  How is that idiotic?


And in case you're still unaware of what a Ponzi scheme really is, here's a refresher:

Ponzi schemes are a type of illegal pyramid scheme named for Charles Ponzi, who duped thousands of New England residents into investing in a postage stamp speculation scheme back in the 1920s. Ponzi thought he could take advantage of differences between U.S. and foreign currencies used to buy and sell international mail coupons. Ponzi told investors that he could provide a 40% return in just 90 days compared with 5% for bank savings accounts. Ponzi was deluged with funds from investors, taking in $1 million during one three?hour period?and this was 1921! Though a few early investors were paid off to make the scheme look legitimate, an investigation found that Ponzi had only purchased about $30 worth of the international mail coupons. Decades later, the Ponzi scheme continues to work on the "rob?Peter?to?pay?Paul" principle, as money from new investors is used to pay off earlier investors until the whole scheme collapses.

Newsbusters editor and economist Noel Sheppard explained further:

Much as in the original Ponzi scheme, Social Security also paid huge returns to its first investors who, whether intentionally or not, led Americans to believe the plan worked marvelously, thereby engendering the support of an exceedingly grateful nation.

So, if Social Security is constructed in the same way a Ponzi scheme is constructed, why is Tom Friedman adamantly reciting the talking point that it is not a Ponzi scheme?  And he has the nerve to call someone else idiotic?


Friedman and the left dodge the reality of what the system is because if they acknowledge it to be the very essence of a Ponzi scheme, they would look pretty unjustified and ridiculous merely trying to "fix" something that is a flawed premise.  That's why they continue to deny the obvious so vehemently.


But it's important to consider what "fixes" they will and won't agree to:

Hypocritically, the [most] sensible solution of raising the age at which one can begin to receive benefits - this was 65 in 1935 when life expectancy was 57 versus today's 77! - is considered verboten by folks on the left who don't think people should have to work longer despite them living longer.


As a result, no matter how you slice it, their "solution" is to once again demand that people pay additional funds into this failing system above and beyond what was originally dictated by statute.


Isn't this despicably akin to regulators asking the folks who were defrauded by Ponzi to contribute more to his scheme in the hopes that this would avert insolvency and increase the likelihood that they'd eventually get their money back?

Again, I ask: who are the ones being idiotic?

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:09 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, September 14 2011
Hear the audio version here (segments older than 3 weeks may be unavailable)
You know about the see it come to life on stage!
Don't miss Peter Heck's challenging "78" live presentation series that begins tonight at Jerome Christian Church (just outside of Greentown, here for driving directions).
Beginning tonight (Wednesday, September 14), and continuing for 4 consecutive Wednesday evenings (September 21, 28, and October 5), Peter will be presenting these challenging and convicting messages loaded with humor and a trademark blend of passion and energy.
Based off of the three part strategy for rescuing our culture that Peter articulates in his newly released book, 78: How Christians Can Save America, each night has its own theme:
Wednesday, September 14 - "The Realization"
Wednesday, September 21 - "The Reformation"
Wednesday, September 28 - "The Revolution"
Wednesday, October 5 - "The Renewal"
Each presentation is scheduled to start roughly at 6:45 pm. The church is covering all costs associated with the series, so admission is free. There is a meal offered before the service begins, starting at 6:00 pm (cost per person is $4).
Child care IS provided. Any further questions, contact the church office at 765-628-3126 or Attaboy Productions, Inc. at 765-450-5220.
Don't miss these smart, funny, entertaining and extremely important messages beginning tomorrow night! See you there!
Posted by: Anna Anderson AT 05:08 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, September 14 2011

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


Oopsie.  Wasn't it just a few days ago that the great liberal thinker Tom Friedman was calling Rick Santelli an idiot because he suggested Rick Perry was right in calling Social Security a Ponzi scheme?  And wasn't Friedman's opposition to such a characterization, though not based on fact or logic, part of the larger narrative of the left that they were trying to generate heading into 2012 that such language by Republicans like Perry prove that they want to destroy Social Security and leave people out on the street?


Apparently liberal talker Chris Matthews didn't get the memo:

On MSNBC's Thursday broadcast of "Hardball," host Chris Matthews committed the mortal sin ? he nearly parroted the theory that mortified so many of the network's hosts and guests throughout the day. Matthews called Social Security "a Ponzi scheme" the day after Republican Texas Gov. Rick Perry doubled down on his previous statements echoing that sentiment in the Republican debate.


In other words, Matthews said Perry was exactly right in calling Social Security what it is: a Ponzi scheme.  Here's how it unfolded on Hardball:

Matthews first put forth what he thought Social Security was originally intended to be: "You pay for it while you work. When you retired and have no other form of income, this will help you out. In fact, a lot were impoverished in the old days without Social Security. It's a great anti-poverty program. But then people started to live past 65. Even the great Franklin Roosevelt didn't make it to 65. In those days, if you made it to 65, you were lucky. You got a few bucks on Social Security."


Then he put forth what it has become: "Today, lots of people fortunately make it past 65," he said. "They live into their 80s and 90s. They're still getting checks. The system doesn't work that way anymore. It's not as healthy as it once was. So, how does a Republican deal with the fact it is a Ponzi scheme in the sense that the money that's paid out every day is coming from people who have paid in that day. It's not being made somewhere."

It's almost like Chris Matthews is Rick Perry's speech writer!  Matthews surely shocked his guest, Republican strategist Todd Harris:

Todd Harris, Matthews' guest and a Republican strategist agreed. "That's absolutely right," Harris said. "And you will never get back the amount of money that you paid into it under its current structures."

But Matthews wasn't quite done undermining the entire line-of-bull the Democrats are relying on to win in 2012.  He took it a step further, revealing what the ultimate objective of the program is:

"Certainly, poor people did pretty well," Matthews replied. "That's the idea."

Yes it is.  Redistribution of wealth is the objective.  It didn't start out that way, you could argue.  But it's certainly become that way under the guardianship of the left.  I don't know if someone slipped some sodium pentothal into Matthews cocktail before the show or what.  But he did the left no favors in acknowledging the obvious.

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

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


Liberal columnist Bill Press recently gave his thoughts on the first Republican primary debate featuring Rick Perry.  Not surprisingly, I thought that for the most part, Press was clueless.


But in the spirit of bipartisanship, let me start off by acknowledging my point of agreement with the lefty.  He wrote:

First rule: Whatever they are, they're not debates. Lining up eight candidates on the same stage and giving them 10 minutes each (if they're lucky!) to blurt out the latest talking points is not a debate.

I totally agree with this point.  I have been saying for some time now how ridiculous it is, and how this kind of "debate" not only cheapens the idea of debate, but it weakens our Republic.  Here's a column I wrote about this back a year ago outlining my ideas for real debates. 



But after this prudent and wise analysis of the pathetic state of what we attempt to call substantive debate, Press went off the rails.  Though predictable, he was especially bizarre when it came to his (and the left's) biggest fear right now: Governor Rick Perry:

Perry also tripped up on the question of states' rights. After asserting several times that states can handle everything from health care to immigration better than the federal government, he contradicted himself. When asked how to secure the border, he answered: more federal agents. Why are so many Texans without health insurance? Not enough help from the feds. Unlike Ron Paul, in other words, Rick Perry is against the federal government - except when he's for it.

I would ask how Bill Press is nationally syndicated if this is the depth of his understanding and insight, but obviously in the majority of mainstream publications, that is a requirement.


First, Perry isn't contradicting himself when he says that we secure the border with military, while still believing in states' rights to police the immigration issue.  The truth is that one of the fundamental expectations of the national government is the security of our free states.  That includes from invasion of armed foreigners, which is exactly what is happening in the south.  That Perry believes states should be given more latitude in their enforcement rights on immigration violations (rather than being sued by the national government ala Arizona) does not mean that he is a hypocrite for expecting the national government to do its job at securing the border.  Come on, Bill, think.


Secondly, Perry's remarks about healthcare were completely consistent.  I can't honestly believe that Bill Press couldn't follow Perry's point.  The federal government's meddling in Medicaid has resulted in vast swaths of people coming to rely on that system, but at the same time, the federal government's mismanagement and strings-attached dictates to the states on how to implement the system have caused many people to fall through the cracks and struggle.  That, more than anything, is proof of how more government involvement in healthcare creates problems, not benefits.  Perry was calling for more freedom from the feds in handling those dollars and carrying for the uninsured. 


No, he may not be a purist like Ron Paul on the issue of totally free health insurance markets (something Press would freak out about too).  And there is a legitimate debate to be had on that point.  But that wasn't Press' point.  In fact, I'm not sure Press had a point, other than just whining and moaning and trying to find anything to criticize his beloved Obama's biggest threat.


If you doubt me on that point, check out this part of the piece:

As for the others, on the issues, Jon Huntsman made the most sense of all - which is why he has no chance of getting the nomination. Michele Bachmann struggled to stay in the game, but failed. Nobody agrees with her assertion that we'd be better off in Libya if Gadhafi were still in power. The rest of them - Santorum, Paul, Gingrich and Cain - appeared as inconsequential as, in fact, they are.


Next time, just put Romney and Perry on stage. Because that's the only remaining question: Will the Republican Party go far right or extreme right?

Bill Press sees Jon Huntsman as the only reasonable candidate.  He sees Mitt Romney as far right.  Enough said.
Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:06 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, September 13 2011

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


Rick Perry handled himself much better in last night's CNN/Tea Party presidential debate despite being attacked by virtually every other candidate on the stage.  By attacked, I don't mean to imply he was treated unfairly.  The attacks were, by and large, legitimate.  And they produced the necessary kind of rigorous policy and ideological debate that Republicans need in the primary process in order to produce the best, most conservative candidate possible to face Obama in 2012.


One exchange, in particular, stood out to me as particularly important.  Given that it is becoming increasingly apparent that the Republican race is continuing to emerge as a horserace between Romney and Perry, their tussle over Social Security was significant.



Watch the entire exchange here.


You notice a couple things right away by their positions:


Romney is more than content to take the establishment line and be the establishment candidate.  He finds safety in his calculation that voters will be uncomfortable with any frank discussion about serious changes to Social Security.  He will happily discuss new funding methods, but the idea of fundamental structural changes to Romney is a dead end path for any Republican candidate.


Perry is not content with the status quo.  He believes the premise behind Social Security - that the federal government should be in charge of, and involved in, the financing of individual Americans' retirement - is wrongheaded.  He believes that it is structured similarly to a Ponzi scheme, where those that got into the system earlier benefit most, those that get in later end up getting ripped off big time.  He will happily discuss fundamental structural changes to the system because he believes that's the only way to be honest with Americans (particularly young workers).


There's no question who I think is right in this debate.  And honestly, I think Romney knows Perry to be right as well.  But Romney is thinking about political calculation and posturing in such a way as to minimize fallout and weaken the Democrats' ability to use fear mongering on the issue.  The problem with Romney's approach is that it has to be maintained once he's in office - and that's the very kind of establishment mentality among Republicans that has allowed this problem to continue to grow and fester to its now dangerous state.


For his part, I thought Perry did a much better job explaining last night that the system that has been in place for 80 years will be left in tact and will be allowed to function as it does, with no interruptions or serious changes for those who are currently relying on it.  But rather than just finding a way to patch the problems or find new sources of revenue to keep alive a fundamentally flawed program, Perry articulated a need to begin transitioning away from the inherently bad concept of federal-government supplied retirement, and hand the authority off to the states and individual, starting with younger workers.


Conservatives paying attention are seeing a major policy difference between these two men, and if the race really does become a one-on-one, this will prove to be a clarifying distinction for voters.

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

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


Isn't it a bit hypocritical to lecture your political opponents to stop playing politics when you're in the midst of doing that very thing?  There were a couple lines in President Obama's job speech last week that just stuck out like a sore thumb. 


First, the admonition:

"Stop the political circus," an animated Obama told a joint session of Congress in a nationally televised speech. Over and over he implored lawmakers to "pass this jobs bill."



"The people of this country work hard to meet their responsibilities. The question tonight is whether we'll meet ours," Obama said. "The question is whether, in the face of an ongoing national crisis, we can stop the political circus and actually do something to help the economy."


But then, in the same account, covering the same speech, the irony:

Politics shadowed every element of Obama's speech. He appealed to people watching on TV to lobby lawmakers to act. He did the same thing before his speech in an email to campaign supporters, bringing howls of hypocrisy from Republicans who wondered why Obama was telling them to put party above country.



"I know some of you have sworn oaths to never raise any taxes on anyone for as long as you live," Obama said, a reference to the conservative tea party influence on many House Republicans. "Now is not the time to carve out an exception and raise-middle class taxes, which is why you should pass this bill right away."

So how exactly do you expect to be credible when you lecture people to stop with the politics, when you take cheap political shots at the Tea Party, level political accusations attempting to sway the American people against your opponents, and email your campaign supporters essentially telling them just moments before the speech, "Watch this, guys!?"


Here's the recipe: one part ignorance, twelve parts arrogance, and throw in a dash of double standard just to make it spicy.  America is gagging on Chef Obama's bitterly partisan cooking.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:07 pm   |  Permalink   |  1 Comment  |  Email
Tuesday, September 13 2011

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


Conservative talker Laura Ingraham hosted NBC's left-leaning White House correspondent Chuck Todd on her program the other day, and things got a little uncomfortable for him.  Not that Laura was rude.  She merely pointed out something interesting that we discussed on the radio show last week regarding Chuck Todd's recent discussion with Brian Williams on the Nightly News.


Here was the clip of Todd talking with Williams:

TODD: But a more important number that our pollsters say is in there is this idea that is this a long-term setback for him or a short-term one? 54 percent said long-term. Our pollsters are concerned that's kind of numbers you have when the public starts to give up on a president as a problem solver.


See anything peculiar about that?  We pointed it out on the radio show after playing the audio, and Ingraham had no reservation about pointing it out to Mr. Todd:

INGRAHAM: Okay, what do you mean your pollsters are concerned? They're concerned that their guy is, is somehow not going to pull out the victory?


TODD: No, it's not a concern in their guy. It's a concern that the presidency, that, it, it, and, if you want me to fully clarify, the concern is that if you're the president, you should be concerned when you hit that over 50 percent mark, that's when voters are giving up on your presidency. That's what happened to President Bush when it hit over 50 right after Katrina November '05.


INGRAHAM: I don't remember you saying that, that pollsters were concerned about Bush's poll numbers dropping though.

What seems incredible to me is that Todd actually tried to deflect what he said and rewrite it.  This was a time for honesty and the public acknowledgement that it was either an honest mistake in verbiage or that it was a Freudian slip.  But to pretend that it didn't mean what it clearly means made him look pretty silly.


That's why Ingraham followed up with her excellent, if obvious, point about Bush's numbers.  Todd's response to that was, shall we say, less than compelling:

TODD: I, I, but, if you look at the trend line, this is just simply in the data. I, I, look, I am aware of, of how people are trying to interpret that line, and it's like, come on guys, there is not hidden bias all over the place.

Quite true, Mr. Todd.  It isn't hidden bias.  It's as obvious as the nose on the end of your face.

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

The last few days have been filled with amazing tributes to the days surrounding September 11th.  A tribute to a nation that rallied together to show the world we would not be defeated.  Stories that remembered the lives taken from us that awful day, stories that remembered the heroes as well.  We can all be proud as a nation.  I would never want to take away from, or diminish the tragedy of that day.         
As an American, and more important to me, as a Christian, it is impossible for me not to remember an even greater evil that takes place in our nation that we have not responded to.  The truth is, that it is 9-11 for 3 to 4 thousand innocent babies every day! 

Every day terrorists invade that special place that God created to protect the most innocent among us, a mothers womb.  They go in with suction hoses, scalpels and chemicals to murder those babies.  That takes place every day, in this country alone, 3 to 4 thousand times. 

Where is the outrage we felt on September 11th?  Imagine, if you will, that we had not responded on September 11th and allowed terrorists to continue to attack us every day.  That's an absurd thought, right?  As a nation can we continue to stand by and do nothing? 

God help us!

Posted by: Michael Amatuzzo AT 07:16 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Monday, September 12 2011

Be sure to check out the main page hub of today for links to special remembrances of the attacks of September 11th, 2001.

Also, the audio clips from today's radio broadcast (9-12-11) will feature survivor accounts, eyewitness testimony, and recollections of the unifying spirit that emerged from the rubble of the WTC, Pentagon, and Pennsylvania field.  Many audio montage segments will appear as well.

Posted by: Anna Anderson AT 05:00 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Sunday, September 11 2011

"May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace as you trust in him, so that you may overflow with hope by the power of the Holy Spirit." -  Romans 15:13


Ten years. It seems unreal that it should be so long ago since 9-11-2001. As the day unfolded, Americans came to the harsh recognition that an enemy of freedom had invaded our shores like no other since that equally terrible day of December 7, 1941.


In the 1940s, America began fighting a war in the Pacific, followed shortly by declarations of war in Europe also. As those dark days unfolded, America was not heavily industrialized and not prepared for such a massive undertaking. Yet, America successfully engaged determined enemies on two fronts. The cost was tremendously high, but we were triumphant, which reflected directly from our bravery, determination, and faith.



Concerning our present challenges, Dr. Charles Stanley writes,

We have a right to be a godly people who are fearless. We have a right to be bold and confident for the simple reason that God has promised to intervene on our behalf. Does that mena that we will never suffer consequences? No, it does not. Will we always be free from hardship and adversity? Of course not. It means that when we, as individuals or as a nation, stand sovereign under the protection of God, then we can be assured that He will not fail us. No matter neither the disaster that we face nor the enemy at our gate, with God we will be triumphant.

Let us never forget the Almighty God who blessed us with this great nation, and let us never forget the victorious strength derived from the Almighty God as we humbly bow before Him.


Almighty God, bestow upon us the resolve and the strength to face the sober challenges before us. Help us remember not only those who were so cruelly murdered this day ten years ago and those who have been fighting ever since to preserve our freedom, but let us also remember those who faced dark days of uncertainty following the vicious attack on Pearl Harbor. Let us remember their resolve resulting in victory as men, women, and children across this land bowed to You and sought Your divine will in the perils they faced. Help us to find our way back to You so that we can once again rejoice in the everlasting hope that comes only from You. In the name of Christ our Lord we pray. Amen.

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 06:03 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Saturday, September 10 2011

It has been a busy week of media opportunities and "hits" following the news release we sent asking Indianapolis Congressman Andre Carson to apologize for equating those with whom he disagrees to people who lynched African-Americans. Carson told a black audience that some of his colleagues in Congress and the TEA Party would like to see them "hanging from trees." He then created another news cycle when he refused to apologize for his remarks claiming that they were based in the truth.

One columnist, editorializing on the front page of the Indianapolis Star Metro Section, said she was glad Rep. Carson said what he said and hoped he never apologized because he spoke "for many" in the African-American community who felt that same way. Of course, she misses the fact that "many" people in certain communties have agreed with Margaret Sanger, Adolph Hitler, Bull Connor, Louis Farrakhan or David Duke on various racial matters. That doesn't make those views true, legitimate or worthy of praise or promotion by a member of the US Congress.

Another commentator on PBS Indiana Week in Review insisted that there were racists in the TEA Party.  She said she knew this with certainty by the way that the TEA Party reacted so fiercely to Rep. Carson. (To the contrary, it has been my observation that people will often under-react to a true allegation, and over-react to a false smear.)

Rep. Carson's comments were not his first attack on the TEA Party using fear or race-baiting tactics. He claimed that TEA Party activists used the "N" word against him repeatedly in Washington, DC during a health care rally. Yet, various videotapes of the incident and a $100,000 reward for evidence all failed to turn up proof of one single slur against the Hoosier congressman.

There is a pattern of rhetoric here that seems intentional. Over the weekend, Jimmy Hoffa, head of the Teamsters Union told an audience in Michigan, just before President Obama spoke, that they were at "war" with the TEA Party and that they should "take these (expletives) out."

Congresswoman Frederica Wilson (D-FL) told a Miami audience in late August, "Let us all remember who the real enemy is. The real enemy is the Tea Party."

Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr (D-IL) recently compared Texas Governor Rick Perry with Confederate President Jefferson Davis and claimed that Perry's support of the 10th Amendment was a defense of slavery.

In August Congresswoman Maxine Waters told a group in California that "the TEA Party can go to Hell" which echoes a voicemail I received at AFA-IN over the weekend. (I wonder sometimes if people who say this and claim to embrace tolerance or compassion really understand the place where they want people.)

President Obama was sold to the American voter in 2008 as a great unifier, even though little evidence in his background or sparse record ever suggested it. Many commentators have surmised that "white guilt" caused many voters to vote for someone whom they really did not know or agree with merely to have been a part of electing the first black president. Early on, there were some glimpses of a possibility for unity, but they have long since vanished.

2012 promises to be an interesting election year. Let's hope that the name-calling, fear mongering and smear tactics fizzle out before 2011 ends. The US electorate deserves better than what we have experienced in the last three weeks. They deserve substantive, rational discussions of public policy and philosophical differences. I still believe that even those mentioned above are capable of such responsible dialogue and debate.

Posted by: Micah Clark AT 04:52 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Saturday, September 10 2011

I didn't realize what a challenge that a weekly "lib-quote" would become. The good fortune is that there are so many "lib-quote" candidates each week. The challenge is picking one... or as I have done a few times, picking a few.


This week goes to columnist Amy Gesenhues. In the past, she has written in support of homosexual relationships, up to and including marriage. In fact, she implies that there is no wrong form of sexual relationship. The list of all things liberal that she supports is exhaustive. So it comes as no surprise that she would not be pleased if anyone breathed a thought that God could be active in any of the disasters that has struck America lately. Enter GOP hopeful Michelle Bachmann and radio talk show host Glenn Beck. Both are guilty of pondering that earthquakes, hurricanes, and other recent disasters could be related to God's will. Oh, the horror of such mean-spirited thought and talk.


I don't believe in a disciplinarian God that creates chaos along the eastern seaboard because our nation's budget isn't balanced. And I don't believe in a God that would end the very world it created because not everyone believes the same thing.

For a political candidate or pundit to claim that God ? their God ? caused an event that affected thousands of people, who may or may not believe in the same God, is disrespectful to all faiths and religions. Essentially, what you are claiming is that the God you believe in is more powerful than any other possible divinity. It's taking ownership of something that doesn't belong to you.

As usual, if a liberal expresses any concept of deity or spirituality at all, it is in this kind of imprecise gibberish. God is always some friendly force that fits into the image created by the "believer" and does not mind being completely ignored and disobeyed. All concept of divine sovereignty is destroyed in the minds of those living in the land of left-believe. And seemingly all liberals shudder at the possibility that there should reign any divine authority who wields a power meant to warn us to return like straying sheep into His protective fold.


The saddest piece of this story is that so many of those on the left have gained a large following that draws men, women, and children away from the love of the Living Lord. Who knows? Maybe He'll use an earthquake to get our attention... or an invading army.

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 04:20 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Saturday, September 10 2011

President Obama moves markets... that much we can say with certainty. The day following his jobs plan speech - the plan for which we have been waiting weeks for him to unveil - was alive with market activity. Europe markets closed down two to four percent. Asian markets were a little kinder with losses of less than one percent. Our own dear Dow Jones Industrial Average tumbled more than 300 points... a better than two-and-a-half percent loss.


The president moved not only America, but the world.



And what has he given us for our wait? Threats to Congress that they pass more taxpayer funded stimulus spending, taxpayer funded tax credits to businesses who hire specific classes of people, and no way to pay for any of this. That's to be the topic of his next job plan speech.


Which is to say, this poor sod has no plan. All of his economic advisors bail and trot back to their university palaces when they launch their arsenal and recognize that the American economic ship is still sinking. Mr. Obama has no clue what it takes to be responsible for a real payroll at a real business. All he knows to do is force more people to pay for his mistakes and delusions of grandeur. Oh, and get mad at business owners who choose to run their business as a business instead of as a government flunky.


I will say one thing about his "plan." Like all liberal politicians, when they actually have moments of sanity when they recognize that they really need to get something done - which is to say, when they are facing reelection time - they begin to implement conservative ideology like lower tax rates or offer tax rebates or some other scheme that allows at least targeted businesses to keep their own money! Imagine that... an economy working again because citizens and their businesses keep more of what they earn instead of pouring it down the government toilet.


In the last presidential election, 53% of voting Americans went for Obama's message of change. How's that been working out for you?

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 03:19 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, September 09 2011

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


I talked on the radio show recently about the B4U ACT conference to normalize child molesting in the same way the homosexual lobby sought normalization years ago for their particular form of sexual deviance. 


Vice President of Liberty Counsel Action and friend of the show Matt Barber actually attended the conference so that he could give a first hand account of what occurred.  It is as appalling as it is predictable:

Here are some highlights from the conference:


Pedophiles are "unfairly stigmatized and demonized" by society.



There was concern about "vice-laden diagnostic criteria" and "cultural baggage of wrongfulness."


"We are not required to interfere with or inhibit our child's sexuality."


"Children are not inherently unable to consent" to sex with an adult.


"In Western culture sex is taken too seriously."


"Anglo-American standard on age of consent is new [and ?Puritanical']. In Europe it was always set at 10 or 12. Ages of consent beyond that are relatively new and very strange, especially for boys. They've always been able to have sex at any age."


An adult's desire to have sex with children is "normative."


Our society should "maximize individual liberty. . We have a highly moralistic society that is not consistent with liberty."


"Assuming children are unable to consent lends itself to criminalization and stigmatization."


"These things are not black and white; there are various shades of gray."

Again, with as disgusting as this is, it is nothing but the logical outworking of the leftist and libertarian thought stream on issues of morality in the public square.  The sexual anarchists know that once their arguments have worked effectively for one form of sexual expression, it is only a matter of time before it works for the next.  It's only disengaged conservatives, Christians, or complacent and ignorant liberals who fail to realize this.


The shocking thing is that the pedophile activists don't have any shame in acknowledging their strategy is built upon the homosexual foundation, and yet there is no media attention given to it:

Dr. Fred Berlin acknowledged that it was political activism, similar to the incrementalist  strategy witnessed at the conference, rather than a scientific calculus that successfully led to the declassification of homosexuality as a mental disorder: The reason "homosexuality was taken out of DSM is that people didn't want the government in the bedroom," he said.


The DSM ignores that pedophiles "have feelings of love and romance for children" in the same way adults love one another.


"The majority of pedophiles are gentle and rational."


The DSM should "focus on the needs" of the pedophile, and should have "a minimal focus on social control," rather than obsessing about the "need to protect children."

When I read things like this, I am overwhelmed with anger and frustration.  This has been what so many of us have been saying was coming for years.  And we have been called every name in the book by homosexual activists who have said that our warnings were offensive and outlandish.  But beyond any sense of vindication I feel for being proven right about the logical end to sexual anarchism and its pursuits, I feel sick to my stomach as I read these words.


We have foolishly accepted the premise set forth that we cannot, as a free and tolerant society, discriminate or criminalize someone's personal sexual expression - no matter how bizarre, unnatural, or dangerous it may be. And now, with the road paved, the green light has been given to practices more depraved and unthinkable than ever.


Read this, if you can stomach it (warning: offensive content follows):

Self-described "gay activist" and speaker Jacob Breslow said that children can properly be "the object of our attraction." He further objectified children, suggesting that pedophiles needn't gain consent from a child to have sex with "it" any more than we need consent from a shoe to wear it. He then used graphic, slang language to favorably describe the act of climaxing (ejaculating) "on or with" a child. No one in attendance objected to this explicit depiction of child sexual assault. There was even laughter.


(In fairness, Dr. Berlin did later tell Mr. Breslow that his words might "anger" some people and that he [Berlin] is categorically opposed to adult-child sex with "pre-pubescent" children. When asked about the propriety of adult-child sex with pubescent children, Dr. Berlin did not provide a clear answer.)


So, am I just an intolerant, "pedophobic" bigot? Apparently so. In fact, Dr. Berlin says pedophilia is just another "sexual orientation." Some of the "minor attracted" conference-goers insisted that they were "born that way." Sound familiar?


This is sexual anarchy - fulfillment of the moral relativist dream.

There is no denying this reality: conservatives (and particularly conservative Christians) were exactly right about the consequences of accepting the homosexualist propaganda and the lies and deceptions of the larger sexual anarchy movement it represents.  And I can honestly say I have never felt so dismayed or disgusted at being proven right.

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

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


Well this is helpful.  It seems that the great arbiters of civil dialogue at the White House have had a change of heart.  No, this is more than a change of heart. This is a slamming on of the brakes, throwing it into reverse, drilling seven cars piled up behind you and you back away from what you once said was the destination.  Take a look at this about-face:

A top aide to President Obama says Americans must decide for themselves how to be civil with each other  -- a rather sharp departure from comments that Obama has himself made in the past. 



In an interview with the WMAL Morning Majority Wednesday, White House Communications Director Dan Pfieffer said the Obama administration is not going to be drawn into the "gotcha game" of reacting to comments made by Teamsters President James Hoffa, Jr.  At a Labor Day rally in Detroit, Hoffa urged the President to use unions as his army to fight back against the Tea Party and  "take these son-of-a-b****es out."


Pfeiffer told WMAL that President Obama is not going to "serve as the speech police for the Democratic party."


"What everyone should do is make their best judgment of how they be civil," said Pfieffer. "What I don't think makes sense is to distract from the major issues at hand to try to get everyone to go back and approve and disapprove of every single thing that every single person has said," he added.

How delightful.  Keep in mind, these remarks follow a day or two of flailing by this administration in their efforts to avoid being lifted on their own petard.  After pompously lecturing Americans as the agitated schoolmarm about the need to speak civilly with one another, President Obama was exposed as a fraud when Jimmy Hoffa introduced him using abusive, violent, and profane language about Obama's political opponents.  Amazingly, President Obama had nothing corrective to say to Mr. Hoffa, choosing instead to let the country know how "proud" he was of him.


Once this became mainstream media fodder thanks to the actual journalism of ABC's Jake Tapper, the White House began stumbling to come up with a response.  As I played on the radio show, Spokesman Jay Carney had no idea how to handle the contradiction.  DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz looked like a fool dancing around it on Fox.


It became clear that President Obama's eloquent speech for civility was what many conservatives knew it was at the time: posturing and pandering in an attempt to make it appear that only conservatives struggled with "uncivil" language.  It wasn't about civility, it was all about silencing political opponents.


Evidently this began to dawn on the crew at Obama, Inc. and so they've jumped out of the plane and pulled the ripcord.  Screw's up to the individual to decide what is civil and what isn't.  Unless, of course, that person is a conservative.  It's not Sarah Palin's call as to whether or not crosshairs are civil.  It's not Rick Perry's call whether he uses colorful descriptors in expressing outrage at the Fed.  No, they must be held to an Obama approved standard of decency that doesn't apparently apply to Obama or his friends.  Pathetic.

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

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


Barack Obama's Justice Department under Eric Holder isn't too interested in pursuing obvious voter intimidation violations by members of the New Black Panther Party.  They aren't comfortable in even uttering the phrase "Islamic extremism."  But they do know who the real villains are for sure:

A few blocks from the White House, outside a Planned Parenthood clinic in Washington, D.C., Dick Retta has reported for duty in a blue windbreaker, khaki pants belted high and brown shoes with thick soles. He's carrying rosary beads and a packet of brochures filled with information about the dangers of abortion.



"Please don't let them take your child's life. You don't have to. We can and will help you. Don't let them take your child's life. Let us help you," Retta says to a woman entering the clinic.


That front door shuts in his face. But Retta says he's not deterred by that, or by a civil lawsuit the Justice Department filed against him in July. Authorities claim Retta violated the FACE Act by blocking a patient early this year ? following her for 35 feet and standing in front of the door.  Retta disputes the allegations.


"We don't block women from coming in. That's not our policy," he says. "I teach it. I teach what I'm doing ... and I say one thing: Never block the women from going in. Never."


Retta, who has seven children and 11 grandkids, says he is moved by his Catholic faith to do what he calls sidewalk counseling. Retta says he has gotten pushed around outside the clinic, too. He says he was standing by the gate and a woman sprayed him with pepper spray in July, putting him "out of commission" for a while.

In case you were wondering, FACE Act is a law that was authored by abortion fanatic Ted Kennedy years ago, that folks on both sides of the abortion debate have long known is flatly unconstitutional.  It violates the freedom of speech, assembly, even petition in some cases.  For years, the Justice Department has ignored the law as anything remotely enforceable.  But not Obama and Holder.  Their devotion and obsession with the movement to kill kids for convenience trumps all - particularly that silly thing called the Bill of Rights.


I suppose if your conscience is so seared that it allows you to vote against requiring life saving medical treatment for children who survive an abortion attempt (like Obama did in the IL legislature), violating the constitutional rights of abortion opponents is no big deal.

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

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


This story made me nostalgic and sad.  At the same time it made me thankful that perhaps the conspiracy theorists about how moon landing was faked will just go away:

A spacecraft circling the moon has snapped the sharpest photos ever of the tracks and trash left behind by Apollo astronauts in their visits from 1969 to 1972.


Images taken by NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter from 13 to 15 miles up show the astronauts' paths when they walked on the moon, as well as ruts left by a moon buggy. Experts could even identify the backpacks astronauts pitched out of their lunar landers before they returned to Earth.


"What we're seeing is a trail," said Arizona State University geology professor Mark Robinson, the orbiter's chief scientist. "It's totally awesome."



However, the photos were not close enough to see individual bootprints, Robinson said.


The pictures were taken two weeks ago and show the landing sites for Apollo 12, 14 and 17. The closest images are of the 1972 Apollo 17 site, the last moon mission.


Apollo 17 Commander Eugene Cernan wrote in an email to The Associated Press that the photo gives him a chance to revisit those days, "this time with a little nostalgia and disappointment. Nostalgia because those special days are fondly etched in my memory and disappointment because it looks like now we will not be going back within the days I have left on this planet."

First of all, I'm hopeful that all the conspiracy nuts who continue to tell us that the moon landing actually took place on a soundstage in Hollywood will now zip it.  Of course they won't.  Like any good conspiracy people, they will explain how these images are faked and doctored, and that NASA has found a way to include an entirely new generation of workers in its global scam.  Whatever.


Regarding what really matters, manned space flight remains one of the great accomplishments and feats for which the United States should always be immensely proud for pioneering.  The challenge, the race, the hard work and dedication - it is truly a testament to the will and capability of man.  I am inspired every time I watch a Discovery channel special on virtually any aspect of the Apollo missions. 


Seeing these images should remind us that there was a time where America sought to do the impossible, and to borrow a tired cliché, reached literally for the stars.  I am a big proponent of government budget cuts, and the fiscal crisis we are now in calls for drastic hacking into the monstrously bloated federal budget.  I am not suggesting that now is a time to resurrect missions to the moon.


But I still hope that there will come a day when we have placed government back into its proper role, and when space exploration is something that we see as a worthwhile national interest.  These pictures make me realize how much I hope we will see Americans in space again.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:06 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, September 08 2011

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


In the moments immediately following the Republican debate last night, the Drudge Report had already immortalized it as the Mitt and Rick Show.  There's not much question that's what it turned into, much to the chagrin of the other contenders who all expressed their dismay at being relegated to second tier status by the moderators.


And before I actually discuss the debate itself, let's say a couple words about the moderators.  Not good.


Okay, in terms of the candidates' debate performances, I didn't come away thinking anyone did really poorly, though I was somewhat disappointed with Rick Perry.  I didn't think anyone set the world on fire either, save maybe Newt Gingrich who continues to demonstrate an extraordinary talent for being able to give well thought out responses in the silly one minute time limit.



I think maybe the reason I had that reaction (disappointment in Perry, and being impressed with Newt) has to do with expectations.  So let's get into my individual reactions.


First, the national frontrunner, Rick Perry.  Perry came into the race with great fanfare, and I think I was expecting him to be the conglomeration of Mitt's poise, Newt's intellect, Cain's charisma, and Santorum's convictions.  Those are lofty expectations that anyone would struggle to meet.  Most of the other political observers I read afterwards thought Perry did a decent job.  Let me also make all the requisite Perry excuses: this was his first debate on a national stage.  He didn't have the opportunity to ease into it, either.  As the frontrunner and the newbie, he was the focus of nearly every question.  There was no relaxing moment for Perry the whole night.  Let's also acknowledge that he is in the midst of dealing with some pretty tragic consequences in his home state that could easily have been distracting him. 


Still, I was disappointed.  I don't know why he wasn't more prepared to defend his record.  There were easy answers to some of the accusations that were made about Texas' unemployment rate and supposed "lagging" behind other states that he left on the table.  He hinted at them once when he referenced the influx of uneducated, non-English speaking illegals into the state.  But I felt like I could have defended his record better than he did, and that's not going to cut it.  It became clear with his shot at Karl Rove that Rick Perry is a far cry from a George Bush clone, but I felt an uneasy feeling watching Perry last night that I got every time Bush opened his mouth.  I don't like that.  I don't want that.  I want someone who is able to articulate forcefully and convincingly why conservatism is so much wiser and better than the alternatives.  Perhaps Perry will get there.  He wasn't there last night.


I will also add that while I very much appreciate Perry's defiant tones about the serious problem with Social Security and the attempt by neo-Marxists to wreck our economy through the environmental movement, Perry needs to close the gap between just being defiant and explaining why he's defiant.  He is right about both of those issues, but he didn't convince anyone of why he was right.  That leaves the door open for the fools on the left to make their asinine claims that he is "anti-science" (what a crock of bull) and that he wants to strip from seniors their livelihood (another big pile of bunk).  And if you think Obama won't make those arguments because he's got too much class, put down whatever it is that you're smoking.



As for Perry's closest competitor, Romney impressed me last night as a guy who is extremely comfortable in the debate format.  He's done this a number of times, and has spent several years preparing himself for this second go-around as a presidential candidate.  There's no question he came off more poised than Perry.  But Mitt doesn't generate energy the way Perry does, and that could cost him.  I think Mitt does an admirable job defending his record, but that doesn't change the fact that his record concerns me.  He is clearly not the most conservative candidate on the stage, and whereas I think he would do well with independents, there is a real concern that his flip-flops and lack of reliability on some core conservative principles will give pause to a base he will need to be on board with him.


Newt, again, was by far the winner of this debate.  He is reasoned, intelligent, forceful, and comes across as having staunch conservative convictions.  Had it not been for his bizarre forays into the world of Nancy Pelosi global warming commercials, and his serial infidelity issues, I think Newt would (and should) be taken a lot more seriously than what he is right now.


Michele Bachmann was polished and pretty strong.  But I agree with other pundits who say that Rick Perry's entrance has really taken the wind out of her sails.  He seems to be capturing many of the staunch conservatives who were backing Bachmann because they liked her politics, but were concerned about her electability (right or wrong).  I don't think her solid, but uninspiring performance last night did anything to change that.


I have to say that I thought last night's debate was one of Ron Paul's worst.  That isn't because of some kind of anti-Ron Paul bias I have in me.  I've warmed up to him in many ways.  But the moderators did to him exactly what the left would do to him if given the chance.  They treated him like a senile old man and simply threw hypothetical situations at him about how life could go on without government doing this or that.  Paul stumbled more than usual last night, and I think showed again why with as passionate as his followers may be, his candidacy is more about helping shift the debate than it is about winning.  I will also add that something really dawned on me watching him.  This will be misconstrued by some of his most ardent supporters, but it's true: there is a great similarity between the communists and the libertarians - just on total opposite ends.  Communists believe they can achieve utopia through total government control.  Ron Paul and the libertarians seem to believe they can achieve utopia through total and absolute freedom.  Neither are right, and in the fallen world we live in, both will end up destroying liberty and ushering in misery.


In terms of the "second tier": Santorum did well.  He showed he can forcefully defend conservativism in areas that are not social issues (though not as strongly as others on the stage like Newt).  I thought this was Herman Cain's best debate that I've seen.  He didn't have any moments where he seemed off message, and many times he cut through the rhetoric with actual proposed solutions.  And Jon Huntsman, well...why is he still in the race?  There were a couple of strong moments for him (particularly when he was ready to challenge both Mitt and Rick with his "better" record as Governor of Utah).  But overall he again showed his RINO stripes, and that isn't going to do it this time around.


So here were my grades:


Perry: C+ (taking into consideration I might have been expecting too much of him)

Romney: A-

Bachmann: B

Paul: C-

Santorum: B

Cain: B+

Gingrich: A

Huntsman: does it matter?  Okay, fine: D

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:09 pm   |  Permalink   |  1 Comment  |  Email
Thursday, September 08 2011

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


It is remarkable that anyone in the political world still believes that Obama is in a strong position heading into 2012.  It's almost as though political commentators like the stable of lefties on MSNBC, as well as liberal politicos like Debbie Wasserman Schultz live in a parallel universe from real Americans.



Nearly 3 out of 4 voters contend that the country is headed in the wrong direction, and President Barack Obama is becoming increasingly vulnerable to Republican challengers, according to a new Politico/George Washington University Battleground Poll.



The poll's finding that 72 percent of voters believe the country is headed in the wrong direction either strongly or somewhat represents a 12-point leap since May. Only 20 percent of voters say the country is going in the right direction, a 12-point drop in the same period.

That's an astounding number - 72%.  The truth is that it is beyond debatable that Obama is beatable.  The real discussion we should be having is whether or not Obama will be subjected to the humiliation of being a sitting president trounced in a landslide.


Oh, and for those race-baiters on the left that suggest that this is the result of resurgent racism among whites in America (as Chris Matthews shamelessly did not long ago), there's a bit of a problem with that analysis.  According to the same poll:

On the other hand, almost 75 percent said they still like the president as a person.

Wait a minute!  They like him personally?  That isn't indicative of racist thought.  White racists don't like black people as persons.  How is this possible?  Could it be that this is an indication that people like Barack Obama just fine and don't give a flip about his skin pigmentation, but just think he is doing a totally inept job at what he was hired to do?  Might it be that the American people are holding Obama accountable for his job performance in the exact same way they have done with other white presidents?  How very un-racist of them!


I'm sure we'll see that angle played up in the mainstream media real soon, aren't you?

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

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


Obama gives his much-ballyhooed "jobs speech" tonight.  In other news, the NFL season kicks off with the Saints taking on the Super Bowl Champion Packers.  Any guess which one would rank higher in the minds of the American people as a significant event?


Perhaps that's unfair.  The NFL is entertainment and the President's speech is political.  There's a high degree of likelihood that no matter who was president, and what the context of the speech was (short of war or some other national calamity) there would be a higher interest in the start of the football season.  But the reality remains that Obama's speech has hit new highs in terms of irrelevance to a great number of Americans.



When is the last time you recall a President's staff having to publicly try multiple times to find an acceptable time for him to speak to Congress and the people?  When is the last time a president worked around the schedule of others just to try to get invited to share his thoughts?  When is the last time major congressional lawmakers decided to publicly skip a presidents address to a joint session of Congress because they saw it as lacking in importance or gravity?


There's a palpable feeling in Washington and around the country that Obama is just way out of his league.  The hope and change fanaticism has been revealed for the shallowness that it always was.  This is the president's most recent attempt at putting forth a jobs plan - something that he has attempted numerous times by now.  The White House is already tamping down expectations, saying that it won't necessarily be any new ideas or the content of the speech that matters, but rather the way he says it.


Are you kidding me?  Is it any wonder that people take Aaron Rodgers and Drew Brees more seriously than Barack Obama?  Nearly three years into his failed presidency, and Barack Obama still believes being president is all about shallow emotionalism and turning a clever phrase.  He believes that a powerful sounding speech will stimulate jobs despite the fact that his foolish policies are destroying them faster than he can say jobs.


So don't expect anything new tonight.  Don't expect anything meaningful.  Expect the same mindless platitudes he has been offering for the last several years about the need for "shared sacrifice," "new investments in infrastructure," the "need to come together to get this economy working again," because "our economic recovery is too slow," which is of course the fault of "the worst recession since the Great Depression that he inherited."  Blah, blah, blah.


And he will follow the speech up with his renewed policy commitment to raise taxes, increase regulation and sustain his healthcare overhaul that injects more fear and uncertainty into the economy.  In other words, the exact recipe to prevent job growth and stunt economic recovery.  This isn't rocket science, and yet it continues to elude "the smartest president we've ever had."  Do yourself a favor: watch the NFL game, and confidently mark another day off the calendar in our countdown to the economic recovery that begins on Election Day 2012.  Just a few more months to go...

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

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


It's nice to see that's it's not just conservatives who now find all that silly "we are the ones we've been waiting for" Obama bluster from 2008 to be ridiculous.  In her recent New York Times column, liberal Maureen Dowd went after the big-talk, disastrous-performance president:

Obama is still suffering from the Speech Illusion, the idea that he can come down from the mountain, read from a Teleprompter, cast a magic spell with his words and climb back up the mountain, while we scurry around and do what he proclaimed.


The days of spinning illusions in a Greek temple in a football stadium are done. The One is dancing on the edge of one term.



The White House team is flailing -- reacting, regrouping, retrenching. It's repugnant.


After pushing and shoving and caving to get on TV, the president's advisers immediately began warning that the long-yearned-for jobs speech wasn't going to be that awe-inspiring.


''The issue isn't the size or the newness of the ideas,'' one said. ''It's less the substance than how he says it, whether he seizes the moment.''


The arc of justice is stuck at the top of a mountain. Maybe Obama was not even the person he was waiting for.

Wow.  Mocking the Teleprompter use, the Greek pillars, the jobs speech debacle, the MLK ?arc of justice" comments...all in one column?  Dowd is does this mean she's now a racist?


The most interesting part of that whole column to me was actually the remark about the upcoming jobs speech.  I hadn't heard or seen the White House comment that "It's less the substance than how he says it."  That's classic!


Not that it should come as a surprise: Obama had a grand jobs plan when he got elected.  We lost jobs as a result.  He had a grand jobs plan for when he got back from vacation in 2010.  We lost jobs as a result.  And here we go again.  It's pretty obvious that if the president had any clue how to "create jobs" (his first clue should come in realizing it's not the government's job to create jobs, but rather deregulate, cut taxes, create economic stability and get the heck out of the way for the private sector to do so), he would have told us by now.


This is a total failure of a presidency, and the left knows it.  People like Dowd are hoping columns and criticism like this will light a fire under the Obama administration to "do something" to fix the problem.  It isn't gonna happen.


Which brings up the great irony of this piece.  Dowd can mock this easily-mockable, pompous narrative of the Obama movement that has been present from the beginning.  Conservatives have been doing so from the start.  But remember, it was Dowd and her ilk who fell for it the first time.  And here in a few months, once there is a singular Republican to focus on, they will again.  Hook, line, and sinker.

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

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


If there's one label that is totally misappropriated in our culture it is the pathetic attempt of liberals to recast their failed ideology by giving it the hip, forward-sounding name, "progressive."  Look at the end result of so-called progressive policies and the last descriptor you would use to describe what you see is "progress."


Jeff Bergner took on that reality in his recent piece at the Weekly Standard:

Myth #7: Liberals take the country forward and conservatives take it backward. Behind all these illusions lies a deeper notion: History is moving "forward," and liberals are on the "right side of history." But there is no intrinsic forward and backward in the historical process; there are only competing visions of America, none of which is guaranteed to succeed. If history is marching somewhere, we don't know where. And at any given moment, the cold night of tyranny is just as possible as the clear day of enlightenment.


Liberals, of course, would deny this reality.  They would have you believe that because we fly the stars and stripes, there is no possibility of tyranny or authoritarianism coming to our shores.  Their own arrogance convinces them (and they hope it will rub off and convince you) that we can follow the exact same dead-end policies that Euro-socialist nations have taken, and we won't end up in the same pit.  It's why Obama touts the very fiscal agenda that has landed every other civilization in the toilet that has tried it.  It's why liberal college profs lecture on the wisdom of "visionaries" like Karl Marx, believing that we could do communism the right way here in America if it weren't for all these greedy conservative pigs.  They don't get that if we follow the same recipe, we're going to get the same crap sandwich.

And, by the way, wouldn't it be interesting to know where liberals find the metaphysical foundations on which to rest their notions of "forward" and "backward"? Liberal orthodoxy denies a God-given moral order to the universe. Its secular "progress" is nothing but the fantasy of long-dead German philosophers. 

I write about this very reality in my new book "78," 6,000 years and man's best attempt to create a basis for civilization that is superior to the moral order set forth by God has landed us right back in the Garden of Eden, buying into the serpent's deception that we can be as God.  Such is the "wisdom" of the left.


But this "forward and backward" myth liberals have concocted for themselves has another consequence.  It's what leads them to believe that they do not have to compete with conservatives on the battlefield of ideas (where they are conspicuously aware that they will lose):

Myth #10: No logical arguments need be made against conservatives. For liberals there are never two legitimate sides in a debate. There are only forward and backward, good intentions and bad intentions. It is not necessary to argue the merits of an issue with someone who is pointing backward; it is enough to locate that person as pointing backward. To do so is to make the case and prove the case. The result is predictable: The essence of liberal argument is ad hominem attack. Liberals do not confront arguments directly, any more than they confront religious claims directly; they go behind conservative arguments to vilify the messenger. If you disagree with liberal policy you are a xenophobe, a homophobe, an Islamophobe, a racist, an extremist, or lately a "terrorist." As the president has said, you are too scared to think straight. Instead of answering your arguments, liberals aim to shut you up with snarky TV entertainment shows. 

Such is the state of the modern liberal mind: full of contradictions, inconsistencies, double standards and contempt for what has made America unique to the world.  It's why they must be confronted.  Children who believe myths can be corrected.  Adults who believe them are many times too prideful to accept correction, and thus must simply be defeated.

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

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


One of the most appalling things to watch is the behavior of many so-called "civil rights activists" on the left (keeping in mind, of course, that the entire liberal movement in America sees itself as champions of MLK Jr.'s "dream") on the issue of racial politics.


Whether it's Tavis Smiley, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, or any of the gaggle of what Michelle Malkin calls "progressives of pallor" (Olbermann, Garofalo, Matthews, Bashir, O'Donnell...pretty much the entire staff at MSNBC past and present), the race-baiting these liberals engage in is nothing short of disgusting.  They will inject race where it doesn't belong, they will seek to defend Obama's horrid policies by dangling the racism charge in front of anyone who would dare criticize him, and worst of all, they outrageously suggest that one cannot be a minority and a conservative.  So much for diversity of thought.



In his liberal myth busting piece at the Weekly Standard, Jeff Bergner highlights this outrage:

Myth #5: Ethnic minorities must be liberals. Why then must liberals detect nonexistent racism in the Tea Party? Because they speak for the people.  They assume that, as groups which have suffered historical oppression, African Americans and other ethnic minorities simply must be liberals. Otherwise, the entire liberal narrative would be at risk. That's why it is completely acceptable for liberals to vilify conservative blacks, whom they see as traitors to their group. Liberals feel free to attack these "Uncle Toms" personally, viciously, with the zeal of one rooting out apostasy.

Liberalism thrives on the fuel of victimization.  Since it is an ideology based purely in emotion and not logic, there are few realms where emotionalism can be better whipped into a frenzy than in the creation of a victim mentality.  If you've done me wrong, I want restitution and I want everyone to know about it!  And what more perfect groups to target in their efforts to create a victim culture than those who have suffered in the past?


But, once again proving that the motto of the left should be, "Results Don't Matter," liberals believe that minorities will support them not based on what kind of difference their policies have made in the lives of these minority groups, but simply because they claim to empathize with them.  It's a sick dependency trap that liberals have been using for their own advantage for decades.  And where has it gotten these "victimized" groups you ask?

By the same token, liberals don't actually have to do anything to merit the allegiance of minorities. Take a look at minority joblessness, inner city schools, and social breakdown (72 percent of African-American babies born out of wedlock): These are the fruits of many decades of liberal kindness at the federal, state, and local levels. But if more minorities succeeded, liberals would lose their reason for being.

And it's not just racial minorities the left targets with their victimization routine:

Myth #6: Women are naturally liberals. Having suffered inequality, women too must be liberals, and conservative women must be traitors to their group. It's quite all right to call them the ugliest names. Let's be frank: In 2010 Republicans ran some pretty rough and ready, nontraditional candidates, both men and women. Who was singled out for special derision and condescension? Sharron Angle, Christine O'Donnell, Michele Bachmann, and of course Sarah Palin, who was not even running for anything. 

Liberal myths prove a pretty obvious truth: when it comes to sexism and racism, ain't nobody holds a candle to the race-baiting misogyny on the left.

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

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


Have you stopped to consider why the Tea Party popped up into existence?  Remember, the early explanation of the Tea Party by arrogant Democrats was that it was merely the manifestation of embittered Republicans who were trying to create this phony façade of a grassroots effort to resist ObamaCare and the left's agenda.  That worked until the Tea Party started tossing establishment Republicans out on their ear.


The truth is that the mere existence of the Tea Party disproves another myth that liberal talking heads and pundits and politicians have been attempting to spread of late.  Myths 3 and 4 of Jeff Bergner's piece at the Weekly Standard explains this better:

Myth #3: The Republican party is moving to the right. When things go wrong for liberals, as they did in last November's elections, and politics seems especially divisive, it is never because liberals have moved out of the mainstream. There's only one possible explanation: Republicans must be moving to the right. But in 1980, when Ronald Reagan was elected, Republicans stood for lower taxes, less federal spending, smaller deficits, less government regulation, a strong defense, free trade, limits on abortion, and First and Second Amendment rights. Sound familiar? This is the platform of today's Republicans.


It's always been a silly argument from the start, but one that the left must perpetuate.  Why?  We'll get to that in a minute.  First, recognize that on its face, the proposition that Republicans have moved dangerously rightward in recent years makes no sense.  In 2000, Republicans chose George W. Bush over John McCain in the primary for one reason: McCain wasn't conservative enough.  Now, before you think that proves the point about Republicans moving far right, answer this: who did Republicans nominate eight years later?  McCain.  Moving right?


So why does the Democrat left feel compelled to perpetuate this myth?  Simple.  If the two sides are growing more polarized, and the Republicans aren't moving right, that only leaves one other option:

The Democratic party, however, has careened far to the left. Who in 1980 could have imagined today's federal budget of $3.6 trillion, 25 percent of GDP? Or today's deficit of $1.3 trillion, up from just $161 billion in 2007? Or today's national debt of $15 trillion? Or today's defense spending below 4 percent of GDP? Or government control of health care and automobile companies and banks? Or marriage itself redefined? Who's kidding whom here?

And besides that, think about the Democrat narrative regarding the Tea Party:

Myth #4: The Tea Party is dangerous and extreme. How then to account for the erroneous belief that Republicans have moved to the right? Why, the Tea Party! It would be hard to conjure up a more ridiculous candidate for a sinister force than this generally well-mannered and pacific political movement. Indeed, there's a good argument that by focusing on the fiscal catastrophe staring America in the face rather than on social issues, the Tea Party has actually dampened political divisiveness. One more thing. Against baseless charges of racism, Tea Party defenders have done themselves no favor by responding, "Well, yes, there are fringe elements in all groups." At the Tea Party rallies I have witnessed, there were not a few racists in evidence, but no racists. The relatively few minorities who spoke or attended were more than welcome; they were very much appreciated. Tea Party members wish there were more.

Obviously, the Democrat left has way overplayed its hand when it comes to attacking the Tea Party.  Andre Carson is but the most recent example of liberals totally destroying their own credibility (as though many of these folks had any to begin with) in an attempt to assail peaceful, usually older, conservative activists. 


But notice how these two myths disprove one another.  If Republicans had truly moved far to the right, there would never have been a need for the Tea Party.  It's mere presence is an indication that the Republican Party had not moved far enough to the right for many conservatives.  Like all children, the left tells itself a lie, but then must tell another to cover the first, then another to cover the second, and so on.until the contradictions become hilariously self-evident.  We have arrived at that point.

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

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


A great piece by Jeff Bergner in the Weekly Standard provided an excellent resource for conservatives wanting to "bust" many of the myths perpetuated by the left about the differences between the two ideologies.  In 10 short, easily digestible paragraphs, Bergner set the record straight as another campaign cycle takes shape, and liberals crank up the silliness.


Using as a springboard David Axelrod's hilariously detached-from-reality comments where he blamed the credit rating downgrade on the one group in the country that has been warning about the consequences of our fiscal crisis, Bergner launches into 10 myths liberals believe.  Each should be read and understood.


Numbers one and two:

Myth #1: Conservatives are outside the American mainstream. Conservatives can't be mainstream because it is liberals who speak for the American people. The fact that 41 percent of Americans identify themselves as conservative and only 21 percent as liberal doesn't matter?liberals are the guardians of the genuine interests of the American people. In the liberal imagination, the political spectrum consists of left, center, right, and far right.

This is simultaneously one of the most humorous and most maddening aspects of liberal media: the belief that everyone thinks like them.  They castigate conservatives with whom they disagree as "radical" either blissfully unaware, or intentionally condescending to huge portions of their viewers/listeners/readers who believe the same as those termed "radical."


This point goes back to one of the things that I've pointed out on my radio show repeatedly, particularly during the debacle with Dr. Wysong at Indiana University Kokomo (the professor had marked a student's answer that Nancy Pelosi was a liberal incorrect and had drawn a corrective arrow to "moderate"): the left attempts to redefine the political spectrum.  As Bergner pointed out:

The most conservative senators?the Jim DeMints and Rand Pauls?are far right. But notice the absence of far left. In 2007, the most liberal of all 100 senators was Barack Obama, yet you will comb the mainstream media in vain to find a single reference to him or anyone else in American politics as far left. Liberals simply define the center as somewhere near where they are and consign vast swaths of the electorate to a place outside polite society called the far right.

Precisely.  From leftist academia to leftist media, far left becomes liberal, liberal becomes moderate, moderate becomes conservative, and mainstream conservatism becomes the "radical far right."  It's totally bogus.

Myth #2: Conservatives represent special interests. If liberals represent the American people, whom do conservatives represent? They are in bed with "special interests."

Nary a Pelosi press conference goes by without hearing Nancy drone on about conservative lawmakers being in bed with "Big" Something.  Big Oil, Big Pharm, Big Business, Big You-Name-It.  How about Big-Pot-Meeting-Kettle?

Listening to liberals, you would never guess that the titans of Wall Street regularly fill the coffers of Democratic candidates, or that the pharmaceutical industry couldn't wait to cut a special deal on Obamacare, or that well-paid public-sector union leaders regularly extract generous salaries and benefits from their Democratic allies, or that the education unions put their own interests ahead of American youth, or that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bask in the protection of Democrats in Congress, or that many so-called leaders of minority communities actually have few real followers but rely on liberal policies and laws for the status they claim. In fact, liberalism is one nonstop orgy of special pleading and identity politics. 

Let's put it this way, if we truly had an objective media (which we OBVIOUSLY don't), and they reported honestly on interest groups and lobby groups, we would quickly see the phony charade of the Democrat left being the movement for the "working man" implode into the pile of horse hockey that it is.

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

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


I called last week for the Congressional censure of Indiana's disgraceful Representative Andre Carson for his inexcusable and unparalleled hate-filled accusation towards his colleagues and fellow countrymen.  Representative Carson slandered his Congressional colleagues who happen to believe the runaway spending Carson and his left-wing posse have been indulging in is a threat to our country, by suggesting that their yearning for fiscal restraint somehow equates to them wanting to lynch black people.

It would be laughable if it wasn't so offensive.  It would be hilarious if the imagery wasn't so disturbing.  It could be passed off as yet another indication of how Mr. Carson is about 63 Crayolas short of a 64-box if it wasn't so potentially dangerous.  Mr. Carson's words have the extreme potential to spark violence towards the peaceful members of the Tea Party movement.


Yet, how is the media playing it?  The same way they played it the last time Carson played the race-baiting game without a shred of proof and was later found to be a liar.  They are either ignoring his divisive hate, or they are defending it.


For an example of the latter, check out the words of Indy Star columnist Erika Smith.  I was unaware that this kind of shoddy journalism and mindless hackery could get a job at the Star.  They've certainly demonstrated how low they set their bar:

In recent days, I've tried to explain to many of my white friends and colleagues exactly why I support what Rep. Andre Carson said. And why I hope that he never takes it back.


My reasons, I've discovered through some friendly debates, aren't entirely logical. They're emotional.

This is the opening of the piece.  There is no reason this should have ever made it past the editor after just two paragraphs.  Smith is acknowledging that the content of what follows rests not upon research, facts and logic.  We will not see an inquiry into the truth of the incident, nor read an analysis of what should happen to a sitting Congressman who accuses his colleagues of lynch-mentality without a shred of proof.  No, we will be treated to Ms. Smith's race-driven emotional ramblings.  Is this what makes the grade at the Star?



Apparently so, because in the very next four paragraphs:

When I opened my Web browser Wednesday morning and read the headline "Rep. Carson: Tea party wants blacks 'hanging on a tree' " on, my first thought was: "Yup! That's about right." My second thought was: "It's about time somebody said it."


I went on to read that he also accused "some of these folks in Congress" of wanting to see blacks as "second-class citizens" because they're attacking social programs that affect the poor.


That was before I even opened the article.


I admit that the details of what he said didn't concern me. Are there members of Congress who literally want to lynch black people? I don't know. And to be honest, I really don't care.

Uh...can you believe this?!  Tom Blumer reminds us of the definition of prejudice: "an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason."  Is that not EXACTLY what Ms. Smith is engaging in here?  She doesn't care what the evidence for Carson's statement is, she just wants to believe it because she harbors resentment and animosity towards the Tea Party.


Again, I ask, is this what the Indy Star finds to be responsible journalism?

The point is that the essence of what Carson said is true. There is racism in Washington and a lot of it is coming from an extreme faction of the tea party -- a faction that mainstream Republicans have chosen to indulge and no one, until now, has bothered to check. The GOP would rather pretend that faction doesn't exist and silence anyone who dares to point out the obvious by calling him a "racist." Talk about doublespeak.

Great, so now it's not just Andre Carson that is responsible for a slanderous smear of millions of his countrymen without we have Erika Smith, and by extension the Indianapolis Star guilty of the same.


Is there no requirement anymore for journalists (or Congressman for that matter) to provide any source or evidence for their claims?  Tom Blumer excoriated her for this hate-filled race-baiting:

Y'know Erika, and Congressman Carson, and all who are giving Mr. Carson media cover, if you're so convinced that there is a "faction" of racist Tea Party-sympathetic congresspersons in Washington right now -- racist to the point of being comfortable with seeing Congressional colleagues killed solely because of their race -- you should be able to name at least one of them. Either you can't, because there aren't any, or you won't, because you're gutless cowards who apparently would rather let the alleged racism continue than identify it with a person or persons so it can be addressed. Instead, you've chosen to smear every Tea Party-sympathetic congressperson (definitely including Allen West) with the charge that they're death-wishing racists themselves or are comfortable being philosophical brothers and sisters with those who are.

Just like Carson should be forced to produce names and evidence for his outlandish accusation or face censure, Erika Smith should be forced to produce the same.  If she can't, she proves herself to be yet another obstacle our society must overcome in our pursuit of a colorblind society - something that race-baiters like Carson and Smith simply won't allow.  And the Indy Star should be forced to explain why they give space to such drivel and provide a platform to someone seeking to stir racial division and defend hate.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:08 pm   |  Permalink   |  6 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, September 06 2011

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


The latest from Barack Obama and the left's ongoing quest for more civil debate and dialogue, here's Teamsters Jimmy Hoffa at an anti-Republican rally over the Labor Day weekend:

"We got to keep an eye on the battle that we face: The war on workers. And you see it everywhere, it is the Tea Party. And you know, there is only one way to beat and win that war. The one thing about working people is we like a good fight. And you know what? They've got a war, they got a war with us and there's only going to be one winner. It's going to be the workers of Michigan, and America. We're going to win that war," Jimmy Hoffa Jr. said to a heavily union crowd.

"President Obama, this is your army. We are ready to march. Let's take these son of b****es out and give America back to an America where we belong," Hoffa added.


Besides the profanity that is typically lacking at Tea Party rallies, is there much more violent imagery one can conjure up than war?  Yet these are the folks that love to pretend that the peaceful tea party protests are fulminating with hatred and aggressive violence.  What jokes.


Add to that the patently absurd proposition that Jimmy Hoffa somehow speaks for "workers" of America.  It's yet another of the left's hijacked terms (see what they've done with racism, bigotry, science for reference).  I am a working man...and Jimmy Hoffa does not speak for me.  Not even close.  With the increasing exodus from unions everywhere in the country, his assumption to the contrary is as dumb as it is wrong.


But it would be wrong to hold Obama and Democrats accountable for the buffoonery of labor union leaders like Hoffa though, right?  I mean, his violent rhetoric, his offensive assumptions and irresponsible aspersions hurled at millions of his countrymen can't be hung around the necks of liberal politicians just because they get all their money and do their bidding, right?


Obama, Mr. Civil Dialogue himself, spoke moments after Hoffa and set the the labor union leader straight over his referring to millions of patriotic Americans who just happen to disagree with his politics as "sons of b****es:

When he took the stage, President Obama said he was "proud" of Jimmy Hoffa and other labor leaders.

Ahem...or not.

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

The Kokomo Area Tea Party is launching a new effort to fulfill their strategy to Educate, Empower, and Engage the citizens of central Indiana, and they are using a major event this Thursday evening as a kickoff for it.

Tea Party organizers Kenlyn Watson and Deb Hearn joined Peter on the show today to discuss the new plan, as well as talk about the event that will feature friend of the show, and radio personality Jay Ferguson (WWKI).

Hear the full conversation here.

Posted by: Anna Anderson AT 05:06 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Monday, September 05 2011

With Labor Day weekend comes a battery of pro-labor columns. In this context, "pro-labor" means the support of policies that harm every American worker except for union officials and the politicians they support. Both groups achieve generous and lavish lifestyles by siphoning off hard-earned resources from the very people they claim to defend.


In one such column, labor journalist Steve Early makes some very telling revelations about how organized labor leadership encourages ignorance.


Addressing the topic of the shift from business-funded pension plans to individual plans, Mr. Early writes:

To cut costs, corporate America has ditched this important fringe benefit, with public-sector employers following suit. In place of defined benefit pensions, employers offer a riskier retirement savings vehicle: the 401(k) plan. It's an individual account funded by employee contributions management matches to varying degrees. The burden of managing this money and ensuring it's still there at retirement is shifted to employees. There is no federal insurance covering such individual accounts.

Ahhh! What a terrible thing to do... making employees assume the responsibility of managing their money. After all, professional pension fund managers have done such a bang-up job ensuring that these lifetime pension benefits never dry up that in 1974, the federal government (ie, American taxpayers) created the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. Thus, in one deft stroke, all Americans everywhere get the wonderful experience of contributing to the retirement benefits of a smaller number of their neighbors. Yes, it's certainly too bad all Americans can't get on this dole. But then, like every other Ponzi scam and socialist scheme, other people's money eventually dries up.


Mr. Early, like every other liberal, then goes on his rant about how the stock market has lately wrecked these individual retirement plan accounts. What Mr. Early eagerly sidesteps is that the policies espoused by the likes of him and implemented by his politicians of choice have contributed significantly to the wrecking of our economy that is reflected in our markets' activities.


This is why Mr. Early and company must work to keep their constituents in the dark because as soon as light is shined upon their falsehoods, then they would be out of a job. And who wants that?
Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 09:01 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Monday, September 05 2011

I respect the normal wage-earner. I have been one, after all, and my current position requires the gracious generosity of those who are making or have made their living from wage-paying jobs. None of my criticism of those who constantly seek to undermine free commerce is meant in any way to be disrespectful toward the working American.


In spite of the importance and significance of the so-called laborer - in spite of how vital he or she may be to the company for which he or she works - without the business, there would be no employee. Without those who create new businesses or operate existing businesses, there would be no employees. No amount of left-wing wishful thinking is going to change reality.



Thus when someone like columnist Chuck Collins expresses contempt that some companies pay their Chief Operating Officers (CEO) more than they pay in taxes, I can only wonder how he has managed to finagle a position that affords him the opportunity to mooch off of others, because he apparently has too much free time.


His recent column goes on about how corporate executives, including the President's beloved General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt, are being rewarded for reducing their corporations' taxes. What is always bizarrely funny about liberals like Mr. Collins is that they treat a corporation as if it is a living, breathing carbon unit.


Guess what, Mr. Collins and all you other residents of the land of left-believe? Corporations do not pay taxes; people pay taxes. Only people are taxed. While I am not suggesting that the accounting shenanigans of the corporations he cites are ethical, fair, or even legal in all instances, I do plainly state that any and all tax liabilities of any corporation to any government are taxes paid by the people they serve; to wit, their customers and even their employees.


Corporate executives pay taxes. Corporate employees pay taxes. Corporate customers pay taxes. And when the corporation "pays" taxes, all of the just-mentioned folks pay more taxes directly and indirectly. Yet, liberals rant and rave that corporations are not "paying their fair share." Does that make any sense at all? Only to those residents living in the land of left-believe, of course.


But go ahead, liberals. Push through your policies aiming to transfer as much wealth as possible from the private to the government sector. Make everyone pay their "fair share," meaning, of course, making those with job-creating abilities less able to create new jobs. Go ahead and tax, tax, tax.


Your policies are all job stoppers, and as Americans finally return to reality and common sense, we will rediscover the wondrous world of determined private enterprise, free markets, and successful ventures for both entrepreneurs and employees alike.
Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 08:36 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Monday, September 05 2011

I had intended to write more in depth about this, but due to space I will be brief. There is a move to remove pedophilia from the list of the American Psychiatric Association's manual of mental illnesses in the same way in which homosexuality was removed in the early 1970's. That change has now made the treatment of homosexuality, once a common practice, even more taboo than the behavior itself.

A small group of mental health professionals held a conference in Baltimore, MD on August 17th discussing how they could play a role in removing pedophilia from the Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM IV) when it is revised in 2013. These mental health leaders believe, as did Alfred Kinsey and his team, that the biggest problem with pedophilia is not its harm to children, but rather the harmful stigma's society places upon the behavior. They want to decriminalize the behavior and change the APA's definition of the behavior as abnormal.

Some of the discussion points recorded by those who attended this conference state: Western culture takes sex with children too seriously; the notion that children cannot consent to sexual relations is false; pedophiles are treated unfairly by society; America's age of consent laws are puritanical; adult child sex has existed in cultures throughout history; an adult's desire to have sex with children is normal; the majority of pedophiles are gentle and rational; political activism is needed in support of changing attitudes against adult child sex because it was politics which led to the removal of homosexuality from the DSM in 1973 rather than psychiatric reasons.

There are a lot of political and moral battles taking place today that were once unthinkable. Not that long ago, if someone suggested that two men should be allowed to get married, he would be laughed out of the room. It has not been all that long ago that even homosexual activists were saying they didn't want marriage, or to teach children about homosexuality in elementary schools. They claimed that they just wanted to be left alone. This conference should be a warning that it may not be long before we are fervently debating and fighting over the values that protect children from sex predators.

Posted by: Micah Clark AT 06:01 am   |  Permalink   |  1 Comment  |  Email
Sunday, September 04 2011

Normally, it is a privilege and honor to have the President of the United States of America visit and give you a plug. Who wouldn't want that?


No one... except maybe a business trying to survive.

President Obama made a high-profile visit in May 2010 to Solyndra Inc., a solar-panel manufacturing plant in Fremont, Calif. The company received $535 million in loans from the Energy Department and was a centerpiece of the Obama administration's economic stimulus effort. "Companies like Solyndra are leading the way toward a brighter and more prosperous future," Mr. Obama chirped. On Wednesday, Solyndra closed its corporate headquarters, announced that it's filing for bankruptcy and laying off 1,100 workers.


The talking point of all too many Americans, inside and outside of politics, is the creation of jobs by government. Even Republican and conservative leadership discuss how government can create jobs.


The reality is that government cannot create jobs. Oh, it provides jobs to those running its multiple layers of bureaucracy, but they are necessarily funded with taxpayers' money; they are far from self-sustaining. Only viable business ventures create sustainable, productive jobs.


Solyndra is but one example of government-driven job creation. What did it need to survive? Capital. Money. How were they getting theirs? From the American taxpayer, which eventually began drying up. Solyndra's plan to raise capital from the markets ran into quick trouble because they could not make a profit by grossing $59 million income against $108 million in production costs. And this after Solyndra sent half its manufacturing to China, which sort of undercut Vice-president Joseph R. Biden, Jr.'s enthusiastic declaration, "These are jobs that won't be exported."


Want government job creation solutions? Try this: government provides for the public safety and then gets out of the way of private sector innovation, productivity, and competition. But liberals and Democrats (redundancy alert) do not accept that, and the American public is left twisting in the wind.


This is job creation... Obama style.


This is prosperity... Obama style.


This is America's future... Obama style.
Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 08:33 am   |  Permalink   |  1 Comment  |  Email
Sunday, September 04 2011

Congressman Pence will be the keynote speaker for Advance America's 30th Anniversary Banquet on Friday, September 16th at the Ritz Charles on US 31 in Carmel. The dinner cost $50 per person or $400 for a table of 8. You can register to attend at

My good friend, Eric Miller, has led Advance America for thirty years. This is a remarkable accomplishment for any organization and individual. Advance America is and always has been one of the strongest state pro-family groups in the nation with a long record of pubic policy successes and accomplishments. You may want to make plans to come celebrate with them on this historic occasion.

Posted by: Micah Clark AT 07:20 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Sunday, September 04 2011

"Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, his body, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near to God with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold unswervingly to the hope we profess, for he who promised is faithful. And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds." - Hebrews 10:19-24


In September 1991, Billy Graham wrote:

This is the generation that will pass through the fire. It is the generation... ?under the gun.' This is the tormented generation. This is the generation destined to live in the midst of crisis, danger, fear, and death. We are a people under sentence of death, waiting for the date to be set. We sense that something is about to happen. We know that things cannot go on the way they are. History has reached an impasse. We are now on a collision course. Something is about to give.



He then went to reveal in his book, Hope for the Troubled Heart, "I wrote this in 1965!"


His observation was as relevant 26 years later as it was the day he wrote it. In another decade, they were even more relevant as America reeled from the shock of the 9/11 attacks. With the passing of yet another decade - with the 10th anniversary memorial of 9/11 just a week away - they remain relevant.


I tell my congregation regularly, "The more things change, the more they stay the same." How many exciting and wonderful medical advances have occurred in the nearly 50 year timeframe since 1965? How many new technologies and inventions have we witnessed? How many despots have been overthrown?


In spite of all the amazing wonders to which we can point, Americans face the future with as much uneasiness and angst as ever before - maybe even more. Why should that be?


One significant reason is because many Americans are being drawn away from the wonderful love and amazing grace of the Lord. They are being thrown upon the devices of human reason alone which fails to give any real or lasting hope for what may come. I am not here going to enumerate the many ways that America has strayed from the wondrous will of God. That is a simple, straightforward exercise for the reader.


No matter what else it may mean, one clear result is a people without much hope. It is certainly clear that as Americans strive to operate without everlasting hope, they begin to falter and fail. Strength flows away from us like the swollen rivers left behind the wake of Hurricane Irene flow away from their banks. Dr. Harold Wolff, professor of medicine at Cornell University Medical College and associate professor of psychiatry, said, "Hope, like faith and a purpose in life, is medicinal. This is not exactly a statement of belief, but a conclusion proved by a meticulously controlled scientific experiment."


Without hope, we die. Read once again, the Hebrews Scripture cited above and contemplate anew the deep meaning of the certain, eternal hope spoken of there and throughout the Bible.


Gracious and merciful Lord, You alone are faithful. Your words are truth, for You cannot lie. Your very nature is righteous and holy, and from You all things receive their life. Forgive us Father, as both individual and as a nation, for our disobedient revolt against You. Pour out Your everlasting Spirit to give us once again the courage, strength, and fortitude to return to Your fold. May we know once more that as we find You, so we find hope. As we find hope, we find life. Bless us in the days to come. In the name of Christ our Lord we pray. Amen.

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 06:26 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Sunday, September 04 2011

One of the narratives of the political left, reiterated occasionally by certain media outlets, is that since the election of Barack Obama and the rise of the TEA Party movement there has been a marked increase in hate crimes, hate groups and right wing violence.

One of the primary sources of this claim is the liberal Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). It has claimed that the number of "hate groups," which is a label they use to describe AFA because we do not agree with the agenda of the homosexual demands groups, has increased 66.4% from 2000 to 2010. There is one problem with this claim.  FBI statistics show a 30% decline in hate crimes during this same time period.

How can this be? One reason is that the SPLC uses an undefined and arbitrary "hate group" label to stigmatize groups they don't agree with and then claim that these groups are increasing. In contrast the FBI uses a defined, measurable term of hate crime and then reports those incidents.

For example, the SPLC claims that hatred is increasing against specific populations such as Hispanics. They point to "heated rhetoric" around the issue of illegal immigration as proof of their claim. Yet, the number of hate crimes in 2000 against Hispanics was 763. In the most recent year of FBI statistics, 2009, there were 692 hate crimes against Hispanics . . . a decrease of 34%, while the Hispanic population grew. 
      (By the way, there was a total of 55 hate crime incidents in Indiana in 2009 for any reason; race, sexual orientation, religion, etc. We hear a lot about hate crimes. They certainly have their place for concern, but for comparison, there were 21,404 violent crimes, 310 murders, 1,640 rapes, 7,352 robberies, 48,910 burglaries, and 137,879 vehicle thefts in Indiana in 2009.)

The notion that America is suddenly boiling over with hate, and hate groups, due to the rise of the TEA Party or a conservative reaction to liberal election gains in 2008 makes for a sensational story, but it is not backed by the facts.

Posted by: Micah Clark AT 06:00 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Saturday, September 03 2011

There is never a lack of lib-quotes to highlight every week. In fact, there are too many targets most of the time. A case in point happened last Saturday when I saw "the one" for my commentary this weekend. Then the very next day, there was another "the one." So in all fairness, I'll include them both!


The opinion page in my local newspaper features a question that receives commentary from a writer "from the left" and "from the right." Last Sunday's question: "Should Congress ban old-fashioned light bulbs?" In this context, Dr. Matthew Auer wrote:

But times change and one big change since 2007 is the ascendance of advocates for liberty at any cost. Their influence is apparent in bills with titles like, "Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act." Freedom to choose is great in the abstract, and frequently in practice.



Dr. Auer apparently has missed the part in our nation's history in which liberty has been attained "at any cost." Most Americans know this as the American Revolution. Afterwards, liberty has been expanded and/or maintained "at any cost." I'll mention the Civil War; faithful readers can add voluminously to that beginning. "Freedom to choose is great in the abstract"? How can any liberal possibly utter such a thing and keep a straight face? Freedom to choose death for a fetal stage human? Libs demand yes. Freedom to choose your sexual behavior? Libs demand yes. Freedom to choose bizarre clothing, tattoos, and piercings? Libs demand yes. Liberals like you demand the freedom to choose immorality all the time. Nothing abstract about this at all, Dr. Auer. Freedom to choose your own light bulbs? Libs demand no.


One consistency with liberal ideology: no matter how hard they try to hide it, liberals despise liberty for the so-called common citizen. Liberty is reserved only for the enlightened elite who are the only ones capable of making decisions for the common good.


The other lib-quote comes from an answer to a "Celebrity Cipher" puzzle. This one comes from Whoopi Goldberg:

Normal is in the eye of the beholder... normal is nothing more than a cycle on a washing machine.

Really? I can think of a number of issues that Whoopi expresses as "normal" on The View. However, what I really wonder is if Whoopi applies her weak-minded ideology to her paycheck. If so, then she really would not mind if they reduce her amount by a few thousand and add it to mine, would she?
Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 08:26 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Saturday, September 03 2011

As you probably know, 6th District Congressman Mike Pence is making a run for Indiana Governor in 2012. I have known Mike for nearly two decades. It is almost impossible to not like Mike. He is a gracious and engaging personality. Yet, one of the rumblings just under the surface that I sometimes hear is that "Mike is just too religious."

First of all, if you expect the Congressman not to have his Christian faith seep into his conversations from time to time, then you don't know him very well. It simply is who he is. For that matter, this would not even have been an issue for the first 200 years of our nation's existence. Only recently has personal expression of a candidate's faith seemed to worry certain segments of the electorate.

Another part of these whisperings which are humorous is that in terms of conversation (not necessarily always reflected in policies or positions) his Democratic opponent, former House Speaker John Gregg is just as likely to talk in the same religious terms in certain circles as is Rep. Pence.  It should also be noted that Rep. Pence has a Republican primary challenger, businessman Jim Wallace, who some have mistakenly assumed because he is running, he must therefore be a social liberal or more of a secularist, Libertarian. I have been assured that such is not the case or the motivation behind his candidacy.

Why bring all this up?   I have wondered if such a discussion would ever occur within Texas or deep in the Bible Belt of Mississippi or Alabama. My assumption is no. Yet, here is what is interesting. I recently stumbled across some electoral data that may surprise you. The story was carried in a blog from Christianity Today, but it centered on an electoral map created by CNN using state-by-state 2008 election data. The data reveals that 43% of voters in Mississippi identified as "evangelical or born-again Christians." In Alabama that number is 46%. In Texas, it is 31%. In Georgia 36% of voters identify as evangelical Christians, and in South Carolina the share is 39%.

Up north in Indiana, that number is a whopping 41%, nearly identical to that of Mississippi and notably higher than even Texas or Georgia. In Illinois the percentage of the 2008 vote identifying as evangelical or born-again Christian was only 22%. (It was 27% in Michigan and 30% in Ohio.) This is why those that AFA of Indiana represents are not a "wing" or a "fringe" or mere faction, but the base of a large political constituency. (One notable religious difference in this electoral data is that a higher percentage of evangelical voters in Indiana, (30%) voted for Barack Obama, compared between 9% and 19% of voters in the Bible Belt Southern States.)

The large number of religious voters represented in Indiana should put to rest any idea that a Hoosier candidate's occasional mention of his or her Christian faith will scare away voters. Those who would not vote for a candidate due to his occasional faith expressions probably wouldn't vote for him due to other reasons as well.

Posted by: Micah Clark AT 07:17 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Saturday, September 03 2011

In this day in which morality is rejected at every point in our culture it is a little surprising that there is a national consensus on what is morally wrong among a controversial social issue. That is exactly what a new Rasmussen poll has found in regard to abortion. Fifty-five percent of Americans believe that abortion is morally wrong most of the time. This majority first appeared in 2007 when the polling firm began asking the question. In contrast, only 30% of Americans think that abortion is morally acceptable in most cases.

The national poll conducted on August 23rd and 24th looked at political affiliation in this sometimes hotly debated social issue. Seventy-two percent (72%) of GOP voters and 60% of unaffiliated voters think abortion is morally wrong most of the time. The plurality (46%) of Democrats disagree and feel that abortion is not morally wrong in most instances. Most Democrats (70%) say that they are pro-choice, while the majority Republicans are pro-life.   By an eight point margin, there are more pro-choice Republicans than there are pro-life Democrats.

In spite of this pro-life reaction, 48 percent of all likely voters still classify themselves as "pro-choice" on abortion while 43 percent say they are "pro-life."  Fifty-one percent (51%) of female voters said that they're pro-choice, but just 44% of male voters said the same. Voters under the age of 40 are more likely to be pro-choice than their elders, the survey shows.

Forty-one percent of voters say it's too easy to get an abortion in the United States. Only 16% feel it's too hard to get one, and another 29% say the level of accessibility is about right. Republicans are nearly three times as likely as Democrats and nearly twice as likely as unaffiliated voters to think it's too easy to get an abortion in America today.

Posted by: Micah Clark AT 06:07 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, September 02 2011

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


This may be my favorite Ann Coulter column ever.  It is so rare to see even staunch conservatives scoff at the silliness of the Darwinists...and laugh at their arrogant confidence in such a thoroughly discredited (by scientific evidence, that is) theory.  For some reason, conservatives feel daunted or intimidated by the people who believe they share a great grandpa was an oak tree.


Ann Coulter let them have it.  With a blend of intellectual analysis and classic Coulter wit, she left them in tatters.  She started by pointing out the humor in the fact that while criticizing Governor Perry for saying there are holes in Darwin's theory, the New York Times rebutted him with the wisdom of a nine year old.  Coulter observed:

There's a reason the Darwin cult prefers catcalls to argument, even with a 9-year-old at the helm of their debate team.


Darwin's theory was that a process of random mutation, sex and death, allowing the "fittest" to survive and reproduce, and the less fit to die without reproducing, would, over the course of billions of years, produce millions of species out of inert, primordial goo.

The vast majority of mutations are deleterious to the organism, so if the mutations were really random, then for every mutation that was desirable, there ought to be a staggering number that are undesirable.

Otherwise, the mutations aren't random, they are deliberate -- and then you get into all the hocus-pocus about "intelligent design" and will probably start speaking in tongues and going to NASCAR races.

I really advise you to read the whole piece, which is too long to post in its entirety here.  She decimated the Darwinians on the fossil record and transitional links with precision.  Again, read the entire column.


She concluded by setting the record straight on who is scientific and who is not:

Intelligent design scientists look at the evidence and develop their theories; Darwinists start with a theory and then rearrange the evidence.

These aren't scientists. They are religious fanatics for whom evolution must be true so that they can explain to themselves why they are here, without God. (It's an accident!)

Any evidence contradicting the primitive religion of Darwinism -- including, for example, the entire fossil record -- they explain away with non-scientific excuses like "the dog ate our fossils."

Amen, and amen, Ann!  There are no people more dogmatic and rigid about their belief, no people who lock out of their brains any possibility that answers could exist outside the little parameters they pre-establish for themselves, no people who more aggressively trample freedom of thought or diversity of ideas than the Darwinists.  That ain't science, folks. 


No conservative - whether they are an average Joe or a presidential candidate - should ever feel intimidated by this Darwinian cult.  I'm thrilled to see an accomplished and prominent commentator like Ann Coulter broadcast as much.

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

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


I really believe that the word "science" is quickly becoming one of the most hijacked words in existence.  And what the left has done to words like racism and bigotry (rendered them meaningless by consistently and persistently applying them to people and situations that aren't remotely racist or bigoted), they will soon have accomplished with the word science.


After all, the population can only hear that "science" confirms global warming or that "science" confirms Darwinian evolution so many times before they eventually start to get it.  The reality is that "interpretation of scientific data by those who presuppose man-made global warming" confirms global warming.  Or that "interpretation of scientific data by those who presuppose the non-existence of God" confirms Darwinian evolution.



But the left has conflated their interpretations of science with the word science itself.  Obviously this is done for a reason.  It's done to portray the idea that leftist beliefs are scientific, and anything else just isn't.  Hogwash. 


Along those lines, yet another attack leveled against Republican presidential front-runner Rick Perry has emerged:

To Time magazine, apparently, it's "weird science" to believe that abstinence is a sure-fire way to avoid pregnancy.

Writing about "Gov. Rick Perry's Weird Science," reporter Meredith Melnick promised readers a look at the Texas governor's penchant for "weird science" including his enthusiasm for experimental adult stem cell treatments -- never mind the mainstream media have for about a decade hyped the similarly uncertain promise of embryonic stem cell therapies.

It's a world turned upside down with liberals:  Encouraging kids to have sex by plying them with condoms is a good way to stop teen pregnancy.  Abortion on demand is a great way to cultivate the value of life in your culture.  And you know it's's all backed up by science!

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:08 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, September 02 2011

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


I am amazed at this story, unearthed and reported by Humberto Fontova over at  Liberal Congresswoman Maxine Waters made waves recently with her civil and polite pronouncement that the Tea Party can go "straight to Hell." 



One might be inclined to think that Ms. Waters, in our newly christened era of civility post-Tucson, might be shamed into apologizing for such a provocative and mean-spirited outburst.  So when I saw the headline that Maxine Waters apologized, I naturally assumed it was to the Tea Party.


Silly me.


Maxine is a died-in-the-wool liberal, and as we all know, they make no mistakes - particularly in the area of political discourse.  Just ask them.  But when they do acknowledge faults, it's almost always for not being liberal enough.  Or in Maxine's case, not communist enough.


Dear, sweet Maxine's apology that I saw listed in the headline wasn't a recent one, but rather one that occurred eleven years ago (probably the last time she acknowledged a fault).  And the object to which she was apologizing was no conservative, fiscally responsible, balanced budget-minded American citizen.  No, she was apologizing to communist thug dictator Fidel Castro.  She wrote to him to ask his forgiveness for an unintentional vote she made in Congress that called on Castro to return wanted felons (including a cop-killer) to the United States.  Ms. Waters was quite repentant:

"Dear President Castro," she wrote on September 29, 1998, "I am writing to clarify my position on a resolution recently passed by the United States House of Representatives on September 14, 1998. I, and some of the Members of the Congressional Black Caucus, mistakenly voted for House Concurrent Resolution 254 which called on the Government of Cuba to extradite to the United States Joanne Chesimard and all other individuals who have fled the United States from political persecution and received political asylum in Cuba. Joanne Chesimard was the birth name of a political activist known to most Members of the Congressional Black Caucus as Assata Shakur. For the record, I am opposed to the resolution. I unequivocally stated that a mistake was made and I would have voted against the legislation."

Interesting that Waters would describe Chesimard as an "activist."  Here's how the New Jersey police department describes her:

On May 2, 1973 New Jersey State Troopers James Harper and Werner Foerster were patrolling the New Jersey Turnpike in the area of East Brunswick and stopped a car with three occupants. The Troopers were questioning the occupants when the driver and female passenger suddenly came up with semi-automatic pistols and opened fire. Trooper Foerster was struck twice in the chest, and Trooper Harper was hit in the shoulder. The female (Joane Chesimard) then proceeded to take the service weapon from the injured Trooper Foerster's. She pointed it at the wounded Trooper and shot him twice in the head, execution style. The thirty-four-year-old trooper with just three years on the road died soon after. He left a wife and family behind.


So how did this cop-killer get "asylum" in Cuba, you ask?  How did she escape the arm of justice in the United States?  Here's how:

In 1977 the female shooter was convicted and sentenced to life plus 26 to 33 years in prison. On November 2, 1979 in the daylight hours this convicted murderer was serving her time when she was taken from her cell to the visitor's area to meet with four people who had come to see her. It was a setup. The four visitors took a Corrections Officer hostage. They then took a prison driver hostage. Using the hostages, the visitors helped her escape. She eluded capture for several years until 1986 when she made her way to Cuba. There she was granted political asylum. She has been there ever since.

So, liberal Democrat Maxine Waters has no remorse over telling her fellow countrymen with whom she disagrees politically to go "straight to Hell," but she does feel just awful about asking Castro to return a vicious cop-killer to the United States so that the officer's family can see that justice is served?


I don't know how someone's conscious allows them to continue to support the left - who they are and what they stand for - in this country.  I truly don't.

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

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


There remains a lot of chatter about Sarah Palin's upcoming September 3rd speech in Iowa.  Some close to the former VP candidate suggest that the speech will contain a surprise announcement: that she's running for President.  As I expressed on the show, I have my doubts, if only because the moment you think you have Sarah Palin figured out, she does the exact opposite.



But whether it's September 3rd or not, many political insiders believe that she'll get in the race.  Polls that include her among the nominees show that she would come in somewhere around 3rd place (behind Perry, Romney, and roughly tied with Ron Paul).  Obviously those polls can be off.  Perry was seen as a distant second, and in some cases third to Mitt Romney, before he jumped in the race.  The moment he did, he catapulted ahead of Romney and has a commanding lead at this point.

But supposing the polling data is true, there are some things for Palin to think about.  A recent story gave Iowa strategists an opportunity to provide a list of reasons Palin should not run for president.  Some made more sense than others:

1. HIGH NEGATIVES: Palin generates negative scores in polling that are sky-high, and that can take millions of dollars to counter, Iowa strategists said.


2. QUESTIONABLE STAYING POWER: Winning a nomination is not a national race ? it's about getting 40,000 or so Iowans to support you in the caucuses, and then tackling turnout in the other early states.

Iowa can be a springboard to other states, but it isn't always a guarantee.  Ask Mike Huckabee.  There's no doubting that Palin would be a major force in the Hawkeye state, something that would probably tube Bachmann's shot at the White House.  But outside of that state, Palin would have much work to do.

3. INDECISION A TURN-OFF: Palin is the Brett Favre of politics, keeping everyone guessing about her plans.

I don't think this is an issue.  People in the game of politics know that Palin can make a grand entrance to the race later than others and it could actually work to her benefit.  The fact that everyone is guessing is only an indication of her influence.

4. ALREADY A KINGMAKER: Palin can alter the presidential race, and thus American history, in the role she's already in: spokeswoman for a conservative movement, several Iowans said.

This is very true, and to me it is the most serious question Palin should have about running.  I'll elaborate in a minute.

5. HALF-TERM GOVERNOR: The fact that Palin quit the Alaska's governor's office in the middle of her first term will be underscored in a race that includes Texas' longest-serving governor.

An effective campaign can be made around being "an outsider."  But Rick Perry is certainly a Washington "outsider," and he brings with him a lot of executive experience that Palin lacks.  I don't know that I think experience is the biggest issue to primary voters, but after seeing with Obama what inexperience can do, some will be leery.

6. ALLERGY TO REPORTERS: The live-by-the-sword Palin sometimes finds herself at war with the media. But she did a better job of working with the press during her daylong visit to the Iowa State Fair, Iowa Republicans noted.


7. ATTACKS ON FAMILY: The national media are ruthless in their scrutiny and criticism of Palin, and several Republicans in Iowa said they think that has taken a toll.

I see Palin's relationship with the media as a wash.  They have been brutal.  She has antagonized them.  Yes, media coverage is important and crucial to any campaign (Rick Santorum would LOVE to get some negative attention thrown his way...any attention is better than being ignored when you're trying to make a run).  But Palin already commands media attention.  They chase her bus around New England, for crying out loud.  I don't think she needs to worry about anything media related other than focusing as much energy on the screwed up economy as she does on the screwed up press.

8. WHERE'S HER TEAM?: Palin has reached out to few people who are professionals at organizing, even as she mocks them at every step, strategists in Iowa told the Register.


This is one of the more serious realities that lead people to believe she's not running.


Let me give you my thoughts about what Palin needs to be considering most.  A failed run for the Republican nomination could damage her "street cred" among conservative activists.  They would still love and respect her, no doubt.  But her influence would be seen as taking a blow.  So, if she cares about such things, now is the time for Palin to be considering what she sees as the most effective way to advance the cause she believes in.  Becoming president would no doubt be the best option.  But failing in a bid for president would be perhaps the worst.

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

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


As the economic growth for the country remains anemic, and the CBO projects that it won't get much better by election day, the re-election hopes of Barack Obama are getting weaker by the second:

The latest bad news for Team Obama: Economic growth for the second quarter was revised downward from 1.3 to a mere 1 percent on Friday -- far below the level of activity required to put a dent in the nation's chronic, high joblessness.

Those slumping GDP numbers followed an economic-outlook report by the Congressional Budget Office that likely touched off alarm bells in Obama's campaign. Despite optimistic assumptions about GDP growth, inflation, and deficit-spending, the CBO projected U.S. unemployment to be at or above 8.5 percent through the fourth quarter of 2012.


That means President Obama will have to earn a return engagement to the White House under virtually unprecedented circumstances. And he'll likely have to alter his campaign strategy to do it.

"It becomes a game changer," says Matt Towery, CEO of the nonpartisan InsiderAdvantage polling company, "in the sense that he and the White House had every expectation two and a half years ago that unemployment would be well under 8 percent, that the stimulus package would work, and that [high unemployment] would not be an issue for him."

But unemployment isn't under 8 percent, the stimulus didn't work, and all that is very much the issue on voters' minds heading into the 2012 cycle.  Not that there aren't brave little Democrat warriors out there trying to solace themselves with the manipulation of historical reality:

Much has been made of the fact that Ronald Reagan won re-election in 1984 with an unemployment rate of 7.2 percent. But that precedent now offers little encouragement for Obama, for two reasons. The obvious consideration is that the economy is expected to be in significantly worse shape in November 2012 than when Reagan won re-election. But equally significant is that unemployment dropped while Reagan was in office and was heading down on Election Day.

When Obama took office, unemployment was 7.8 percent. The CBO report predicts it will still be well above that level when voters pass judgment on Obama.

To better understand why the CBO projections are a game-changer, consider this: The last time voters sent a president back to the White House when unemployment was north of 8 percent was 1940.

That year, Franklin Delano Roosevelt was re-elected despite a Depression-era unemployment rate of 14.6 percent. But that example doesn't provide much succor to Democrats either. After all FDR, like Reagan, earned the voters' patience by substantially lowering the unemployment rate from what it was when he took office.

So set aside all the silliness of the View ladies declaring that there is no need for a campaign because Obama has it sewn up, or the nonsense of Debbie Wasserman Schultz who suggests that Obama is in really good shape.  The truth is that the man will have to rewrite the history books in order to pull this off.  That is the position of strength the Republicans should be operating from...not underestimating or taking it for granted, but understanding that there is no reason to cower in fear at the prospect of facing Obama.



Republicans are also benefitted by these circumstances because it's fairly safe to assume Obama's strategy is going to be going real negative.  Towery made some observations of what Team Obama could try to do to reverse the momentum against him...notice the common thread:

Rough up the GOP nominee and Republicans in Congress by painting them as extremists who would be too risky to trust with the presidency. "President Obama is weak," Schoen says, "and I think what he is counting on is that Republicans will be weaker and less well regarded than he is."

Unless the Republicans shoot themselves in the foot big time, the economy will seemingly dictate that won't be an issue.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:09 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, September 01 2011

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


I was reading an interesting piece by a scientist named Bodie Hodge the other day and it brought up something that I think a lot of people don't realize about the so-called "scientific dating systems" that are used in the world today.  The author pointed to the reality that when we date a rock or a fossil, the date we assign to it is predicated almost entirely on an assumption we make about the age of the earth.


What does that mean?  How often have you heard of a rock or fossil being 50 million years old, or something like that?  Have you ever wondered how they know that the object is that old?  Many times, they give a date like that because of the rock layer that it is found in.  Hodge explained:

Most of the time, secular reports give an "age," not a rock layer. This age is an interpretation of a rock layer?keep that in mind. This age is not a measured quantity but an interpreted one (from chemical analyses or position in the strata sequence's uniformitarian timeframe). And how is it interpreted? It is interpreted in light of millions of years being an absolute fact that cannot be questioned. So sometimes you have to do some searching to find out what rock layer the fossil was found in.



Sometimes you can do some "reverse engineering" by taking the age and back translating it to what rock layer the fossil was found in. For example, if someone says the fossil is 73 million years old, then this would be Cretaceous rock.

What he means by reverse engineer is to take the alleged "age" of the rock, and then assign it to what rock layer the secular scientists have said corresponds to that era.


Think about what all this means.  Darwinian evolutionists begin with the dates assigned to various rock layers.  Then when they find a fossil in a certain rock layer, they "date" the rock to be however old they claim the layer to be.  In other words, the "age" of the rock isn't really a quantity of time, it's just a location in a certain layer.


So let's suppose there was a giant, global cataclysm called the Flood that laid down layer after layer of rock sediment in a relatively short period of time rather than millions of years (an idea that is born out in the rock record when you see trees and fossils jutting across what we are told are layers separated by millions of years...that's one slow burial of a creature!).  The creatures trapped in those rock layers then, might not have been spread over the evolutionary span of millions of years, but rather all been living at the same time of the global flood, wiped out and deposited in various layers of sediment.


Once again, what we find is that the entire premise of the Darwinists is built upon a preconceived faith and narrative that they have established apart from "science."  Do they use science?  Of course they do.  But their scientific finds and discoveries and interpretations are all based upon the large assumptions they make about the origin of the cosmos, the planet, and the life therein.  You know...kind of like Creationists do...just with a different set of assumptions.

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

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


I suppose this was supposed to be some kind of an apology, then?  Representative Andre Carson, feeling the heat for what has to be one of the most outrageously offensive and inappropriate comments by a member of Congress in decades, has attempted to defend his despicable remarks that members of the Tea Party (including current Congressmen) would like to see black people, "hanging from a tree."



One of the more offended Congressional Tea Party members would be Rep. Allen West...who is black.


In Carson's defense, this is the type of stuff that the left has gotten away with for years: make incendiary slurs and smears towards conservatives without a shred of evidence.  I'm sure he probably thought that this mindless attack would earn him some street cred with his fellow liberals, some love from the mainstream media (that has decided to play up any racial division they can to help Barack Obama), and life would go on.


If Carson hasn't noticed, the Tea Party types are not those who sit idly by and be run over by the status quo.  As a result, Carson has been exposed for his inexcusable and highly ignorant remarks.  And so he has been forced to follow them up with a form of apology.  Is anyone surprised that it was highly ignorant as well?

Carson offered an apology for his remarks Wednesday, saying, "If I hurt anyone that wasn't my intention. But the passion was there and the truth of what I said stands on solid ground. Having said that, I think we have to stay focused and know that the issue is jobs, jobs, jobs. There are some members in Congress who are hurting the American people. They are hurting their own constituents. They're passing legislation and supporting legislation that supports big business and corporate interests and I think they're gonna see their constituents are gonna disapprove greatly once they understand the impact it will have on their districts."

Uh...then you should have said that, Congressman!  Does anyone really fall for this garbage?  Even though I disagree with Carson's assessment (if that's what you want to call it) of the economy and his political opponents' approach to how to deal with it, the Congressman has every right to express his displeasure with that approach.  But saying that Republican or Tea Party types are hurting their constituents by voting for unwise legislation is a far cry from saying they want black people to hang from trees.


That isn't imagery that should be used flippantly, and if Congressman Carson doesn't realize that, the last place he belongs is Congress.  But he's there anyway...embarrassing his constituents, disgracing the institution, and amazingly trying to use this opportunity to lecture the rest of us on the need for civil dialogue:

"What I'm deeply concerned about is the rhetoric involved - the divisive rhetoric that has separated the races. The divisive rhetoric that separates Americans, that has diverted us from getting back on track, investing in infrastructure, investing in our schools and making sure we reclaim the crown of being the greatest nation on planet earth."

Wait, wait, wait...did he honestly just say that he is concerned about "divisive rhetoric?"  That is simply incredible.  He accuses conservatives in Congress of wanting to hang blacks without any evidence for such a claim.  Then he tells the rest of us it's time for civil dialogue and we need to tone down the rhetoric.  What planet is this man from?  Planet liberal, where responsibility is the enemy and where there are no standards but double standards.


Andre Carson should be censured. 

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

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


Whenever we talk about the threat against marriage, the conversation usually gravitates into a discussion about the homosexual agenda.  But if there's one thing that I've tried to concentrate on every time the homosexual movement comes up, it's that the LGBT push we're seeing right now is nothing but the current manifestation of a much larger movement towards sexual anarchy that has been present since the late 1950s.



The timeless institution of marriage and the traditional roles of parental responsibility in the home are major obstacles for this movement to overcome.  So they have focused on obliterating them.  Relentlessly.  The weapons have been many: attacks on the authority of the Bible (where many of these marital notions originate), the advent of no-fault divorce, and certainly now the politically correct nonsense about what constitutes the "modern family."


Another insidious weapon against the framework and structure of society's most important unit (the family) is the movement towards cohabitation.  The argument is well framed by its proponents: "Hey, the kid has two parents, so why does it matter if we have an official piece of paper?"  But the results should not be surprising for anyone with their head screwed on straight:

According to a new study by the Institute for American Values and the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia, cohabitation has increased 14-fold since 1970. About 24 percent of children are born to cohabiting couples, more than are born to single mothers, while another 20 percent experience a cohabiting household at some time in their childhood.

On the face of it, this doesn't seem alarming. At least there are two adults there for the kids. Except the research says it isn't enough. Children in cohabiting households tend to lag children in intact married families on key social indicators and are not much better off than children in single-parent families.

We want to believe that all relationships, so long as they are loving and well-intentioned, are equal. It feels like an offense against 21st-century mores to say otherwise. Who are we to make invidious distinctions among loving adults? But there is simply no substitute for marriage, for the relative stability and commitment it provides, and for the environment it creates for children.

"No substitute for marriage."  Those on the left (and the libertarians) who continue to perpetuate this stupid idea that we can tamper with the playbook that God gave us for healthy, happy, and well-adjusted lives, and not reap negative consequences are beyond blind.  Time and again the statistics, the studies, the anecdotal stories, all tell the same tale about our best efforts to do things better than God's design: they end up with more suffering and misery.  The cohabitation movement is no different:

They are in altogether more tenuous relationships. Cohabiting couples with a child are more than twice as likely to break up as married parents. Only 24 percent of children of married parents experience a change in the relationship status of their mothers by age 12. The figure for the children of cohabiting couples is 65 percent.

This is especially consequential for the affected children. The study notes "an emerging scholarly consensus that family stability in and of itself is linked to positive child outcomes." Children who experience a divorce or some other ? to use the jargon ? "maternal partnership transition" are more likely "to experience behavioral problems, drug use, problems in school, early sex, and loneliness."

As we have moved from the "Fathers Knows Best" era into that of the "Modern Family" we've seen marriages suffer, kids suffer, and society suffer.  Yet our pride keeps us marching down this path to oblivion rather than acknowledge the opposite:

The advantages of marriage run much deeper than merely having two adults in the house. It is an irreplaceable source of social capital. As we move away from it and social scientists study the consequences, we learn more about why it was such a timeless institution ? once upon a time.

You think we would have learned since the Garden of Eden...we aren't smarter than God.  His model for happiness isn't there to ruin our fun, it's to prevent us from being ruined by our "fun."

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