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

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

Tuesday, January 31 2012

Hear the audio version (and the 500th call live on the air) here (segments older than 3 weeks may be unavailable)

 

Believe it or not, Congressman "Silent Joe" Donnelly has not always been silent when it comes to the listening audience of the Peter Heck Radio Show. In fact, Congressman Donnelly appeared twice on the program in its early years (and his early years in Congress).

 

It all started in 2006, when Silent Joe was elected by the good people of the then-gerrymandered 2nd Congressional District in Indiana. After running a successful campaign against then incumbent Chris Chocola that accused the Republican of not being the Congressman for all his constituents - Democrat, Republican or Independent - Donnelly held a victory party in Kokomo, IN that was open to the public. Peter decided to go.

 

 

As Silent Joe greeted the crowd, Peter waited patiently in line and was warmly received by the newly elected Congressman even after Peter had informed him that he had supported the incumbent Chocola. Donnelly said to Heck in front of a crowd of onlookers that he was going to Washington to represent all of his constituents, not just the Democrats. Keeping the exchange brief, Peter shook Donnelly's hand and told him that he hoped Donnelly would remain true to his campaign promises to represent the traditional pro-family, pro-life values of his district even in the face of a hostile party leadership. Donnelly's response now seems just a tad peculiar: "I will, and I want you to hold me accountable."

 

That's exactly what Peter attempted to do when he hosted Donnelly on his radio show twice in the months that followed. After the first interview, the Donnelly camp seemed so pleased with the opportunity to be on the program that Donnelly's press secretary - then a woman by the name of Samantha Slater - contacted the radio show to establish a standing, monthly interview.

 

That lasted one month.

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Anna Anderson AT 05:09 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, January 31 2012

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

 

Well this is shaping up to be an election year fight that the President does not want to have. Yesterday I talked about the Democrats' assault on the Catholic Church and Christianity in general with the ObamaCare requirements to fund abortifacients and even contraceptives in all health care plans. Remember, of course, that this was the bill that Bart Stupak and the supposedly "pro-life" Democrats (the quotations are warranted since a person who truly saw abortion as the horrible evil it was, would have deep reservations with ever associating with a party that has made it part of their agenda and platform for four decades) promised they wouldn't vote for if it could do what it's now doing.

 

Good work, Bart!

 

 

The only "compromise" Mr. Divider-in-Chief was willing to offer was that Catholic hospitals or religious organizations be given one more year to implement the requirement. My vote for the best response to that was this:

"In effect, the president is saying we have a year to figure out how to violate our consciences," Cardinal-designate Timothy M. Dolan, archbishop of New York and president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, recently said.

Bishops around the United States sent out letters to all of their churches, personalized, but all having the same general message: it's time for a line in the sand. This is potentially huge. The Catholic Church - and I guarantee you there are going to be a great number of Protestant denominations join them - are prepared to paint this battle as Christians vs. the secularist state trying to impose immorality on them. That is exactly what it is, but it's a public fight Barack Obama does not want to have in an election year.

 

Here's the text of one of the letters:

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:08 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, January 31 2012

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

 

There's a report out and the conservative blogs are a'twitter right now with word that the Republican machine in Florida is trying to gerrymander conservative Allen West out of his Congressional seat. What's odd about this is that Florida is actually gaining 2 electoral votes, so it shouldn't really be an issue. But the redistricting seems to be taking place in a way that has conservative, tea party supporters, and Allen West fans very concerned. In fact, the guy who is the Florida House Speaker -designate (the one in charge of this whole thing), Will Weatherford, is a big Mitt Romney guy. So then there's the connection that maybe Mitt is behind it all. Weatherford has denied the whole thing and says he is a big Allen West fan.

 

 

Here's my thought: if they do put him in an un-winnable district for some reason, let's compromise. Make him the party's VP candidate. There are a number of reasons I think that would be a dynamic and brilliant pick. Not sure I think Romney would do it, but I could see Newt doing it or Santorum doing it for sure.

 

You'll remember how I've talked about this Newt phenomenon before, and why I think he's surging. Right or wrong, I think it's because people see him as a fighter. They see him as someone who will go to the mat for conservatives against the liberal machine in media, government, and the culture. Would he? No one knows for sure. But he's surging because conservatives are getting that impression. That's the precise reason that West would be a great VP pick. He's got conservative blood that runs deep. And he's as bold as anyone in defending it.

 

If you don't believe me, check out this line from West's speech at a Lincoln Day Dinner in Florida:

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:07 pm   |  Permalink   |  2 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, January 31 2012

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

 

I was asked a question that I couldn't answer this weekend. Sitting at lunch after I spoke at the Allen County Right to Life March for Life event, I was asked, "How is Richard Lugar different than Charlie White?" For those who don't know, Charlie White is the recently elected Indiana Secretary of State who has had felony charges filed against him by a special prosecutor. The charges state that White voted at the wrong precinct, thus committing a form of voter fraud.

 

 

So when I got asked the question, at first I thought it was the set-up to a joke. It wasn't. Well, except for the joke that Senator Richard Lugar seems to have been playing on Hoosiers for some time now. I knew that for all intents and purposes Lugar had resided in Virginia for some time. That isn't uncommon for members of Congress who want to keep their families together. But I also was under the impression that constitutionally they have to maintain a residence in the state they are supposedly representing. Apparently Lugar is not under the same impression, and it's making an interesting election year issue in an already tight primary race against State Treasurer, Richard Mourdock:

Sen. Richard Lugar's voting habits and residency might be getting a fresh look after a complaint was filed with the Indiana Election Commission last week.

 

A number of political blogs have reported that tea party enthusiast Greg Wright filed an election fraud complaint against Lugar and his wife, Charlene.

 

Wright alleges that the senator and his wife may have committed multiple felonies for voting in a Marion County precinct, using an address for a home they do not own.

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:06 pm   |  Permalink   |  1 Comment  |  Email
Monday, January 30 2012

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

 

Well this has instantly become a classic, and certainly one of my favorite pieces of audio/video that's out there right now. Al Sharpton, one of the great beacons of wisdom that MSNBC puts on their Mount Rushmore of liberal commentators, hosted Representative Tim Huelskamp - that's Huelskamp - from Kansas. After introducing him as Congressman Tim Hhha-yools-camp, Sharpton proceeded to the very rigorous line of questioning that has made him famous, asking, "Do you think it's fair that billionaires pay a lower tax rate than their secretaries?"

 

 

Given that this was lifted straight from President Obama's talking points and re-election strategy to drum up dissension and envy among Americans - all part of that hope and change thing apparently - Congressman Huelskamp began dissecting the State of the Union Address where Obama gave yet another public birth to this tired defense. Sharpton interrupted and re-directed: he wasn't wanting an assessment of the state of affairs in the nation. No, he was interested in asking hypotheticals.

 

After the two went back and forth a little bit, Sharpton pressed:

"Is it fair for billionaires to pay a lower tax rate than their secretaries."

Huelskamp answered brilliantly:

"Well they actually don't according to the IRS."

Classic! Right there on his own program, Sharpton is called out for making stuff up. The entire premise of his question is completely flawed. But, and this is why we love Al Sharpton, does that deter him? Not a bit! After some back and forth, Sharpton responds by asking "if those statistics" I reported WERE true, would it be fair? For crying out loud, is this what the left has resorted to?

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:09 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Monday, January 30 2012

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

 

A very interesting piece appeared in the DC Examiner a few days ago written by Gene Healy. It basically acknowledges the point I made in a recent commentary about why Newt Gingrich has shot to the top of conservative polls in this presidential race. I caught some flak for it because there were those who felt like it was some sort of vague endorsement of Gingrich. Of course, those who remember how I feel about endorsements would know better, but nonetheless, the point I was trying to make was that right or wrong, the reason Newt is riding high is because he has convinced conservatives he is a fighter for them.

 

 

Healy is basically acknowledging my point and granting it in his column, but thinks that while that's the reason Newt is doing well, it's totally illogical. Maybe illogical isn't the right word. Healy believes that Newt is pulling a classic snow job on the right. Take a look:

On the eve of Newt Gingrich's landslide victory in the South Carolina primary, CNN's Erin Burnett let the former speaker expound on the success of his "kick the moderator" debate strategy.

 

"I think there's something going on here that's very deep," Gingrich said. "People want a leader who's forceful. ... Part of it is, you know, if I'd said 'The color is blue!' -- it's the forcefulness. ... That delivery, that clearness is as important as the specific topic," he explained.

 

Watching the interview, I had a disturbing thought: Has Newt Gingrich become self-aware?

 

I've never heard a better explanation for the former speaker's ability to cloud conservatives' minds. How, after all, did a man who's the very model of a Beltway-consensus influence-peddler convince Tea Party voters he represents "real change"? It's the "forcefulness," stupid!

 

Unfortunately, what's going on here is not "very deep." Gingrich's rise represents the triumph of rhetorical style over substance. In a way, it's the ultimate tribute to Barack Obama.

Healy's point is one to ponder for conservatives. I remember early on in the presidential contest, Newt was being regarded by the electorate as one of the moderate competitors. You had the conservatives: Cain, Bachmann, Perry, Santorum; the libertarians: Paul, (Gary) Johnson; the moderates: Romney, Huntsman, Gingrich. As the other conservatives began to hit the skids, you could almost see the intellectual calculation being made by Newt. Taking on Romney for the moderate vote was not going to work - why take the risk on a guy with Newt's baggage when there was Romney as an option? So Gingrich began tacking to the right.

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:08 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Monday, January 30 2012

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

 

It's not a great year for Notre Dame athletics - and thus, not a great year for us Notre Dame fans. But more serious than the defeats ol' ND has suffered on the athletic fields, Barack Obama (the man they actually invited to speak at graduation despite the fact that he attacks the Catholic Church's position on the sanctity of life more viciously than any president in history) is taking it to them even worse. And to rub a little more salt in the wound, his attacks have been made possible by Notre Dame alums like Joe Donnelly.

 

 

Kathleen Sebelius and Barack Obama have put the smack down on Notre Dame, Catholic Charities and other Christian organizations, schools and hospitals around America: you will pay for abortion, and you will like it. Could I have a show of hands of anyone who is surprised by this turn of events? And I want to know if Notre Dame alum, professing Catholic, and shameless ObamaCare supporter Rep. Joe Donnelly (IN-2) has his hand up.

 

Remember it was Donnelly who assured constituents that he would not vote for the ObamaCare bill if it involved the expansion of abortion services. Given the fact that it represents the largest expansion of abortion services since Roe v. Wade and that Donnelly voted for it, either he is an ignorant boob or he thinks the rest of us are. And remember, Donnelly has put himself in the position of it being one of those two options because he is the one member of Congress who brazenly (and absurdly) suggested to his constituents on multiple occasions that he read the entire bill. I'd call bull, but it's actually more useful to assume he's telling the truth. If he did read it, how did he miss this little conscience destroyer that Sebelius just reiterated?

 

As you know, ObamaCare puts the federal government (Health and Human Services Department) in charge of outlining the guidelines for EVERY insurance plan that is offered to Americans. And as you know, every American is forced to purchase one of those insurance plans or be fined or imprisoned. Then, with the framework in place courtesy of men like Donnelly, this happened:

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:07 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Monday, January 30 2012

The left's logical case for abortion rights had officially collapsed. We can thank CNN's Piers Morgan for administering last rites when he resorted to the tired, sensationalized, "Yeah, well, what if your daughter was raped?" argument with Rick Santorum in a televised interview.



There's a reason why any time we seek to settle a bitter dispute between two feuding parties, we turn to a disinterested third person to act as the arbiter. There's a reason that courtroom litigants plead their case before an unbiased, dispassionate jury of their peers. There's a reason that the president and the public evaluate the temperament of a judge before appointing or electing them to office. The reason is because we know that when attempting to come to a clear, rational, sound conclusion about serious and many times controversial issues, emotional connections to either side can cloud our judgment and confuse our thinking.

 

And that's also the very reason why on the great moral dilemma of our day - the legality of abortion - those holding to the ethically, scientifically, and constitutionally inferior position known as supporting a "woman's right to choose" (notice the habitual omission of what it is that women should have the right to choose to do) seek to inject as much emotion, as many exceptional cases, and as much passionately sensational rhetoric as possible. They may be short on logic, but they're not stupid when it comes to winning the battle for public opinion.

 

That's why you see virtually no liberal willing to speak to the most fundamental question of the entire controversy: the humanity of what is in the womb. They simply declare any discussions of humanness, biology, and personhood rights to be above their pay grade, and thereby dismiss themselves from any expectation or obligation to answer questions that would expose their logical bankruptcy. Instead, they set the parameters of the debate, and draw conservatives into wildly emotional exchanges that inflame passions rather than engage intellects.

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:06 pm   |  Permalink   |  4 Comments  |  Email
Sunday, January 29 2012
Robert Redford is for the average Joe in America. My goodness, he is just one of us. Who says so? Why, he does, of course. Concerning his Sundance Film Festival, Mr. Redford declares:

"We show stories of what people in America are really dealing with, and really living with, against a consequence of having a government that's let them down. People can come and say, ?God, at least we're seeing how people are really living in America, and what they're up against.' We square away on the 99 percent."


Yep, he's one of us, and his celebrated film festival is devoted to the 99 percenters. That's life in the land of left-believe.

 

Then there's reality. Mr. Redford is showing "stories of what people in America are really dealing with, and really living with" while enjoying a plush, opulent life. Reports Hollie McKay:

But the scene in Park City, Utah, where Sundance is held, would seem to run counter to Redford's characterization, with big corporations sponsoring virtually every event and venue, and super rich celebrities racing each other to scoop up corporate sponsor freebies.

As has become customary and habitual, Mr. Redford is just full of liberal pap. I invite you to read the entire column to gain a feel for who it is that is highlighted and benefited at the Sundance Film Festival. Trust me, it is not a venue that "squares away on the 99 percent."

 

Indeed, there is even an Occupy Sundance camped out in Park City who are doing their best to represent the "99 percent" independent films that never receive a screening.

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 11:49 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Sunday, January 29 2012

A simple, one-sentence bill passed out of the Senate Education Committee on an 8-2 bi-partisan vote yesterday afternoon. However, the emotions and reactions to Senate Bill 89 are much larger than one might expect from such a simple bill. SB 89 has virtually no impact upon education unless a local school chooses to endure the scorn of the far left and educational elites. The bill has a long way to go before becoming law, but this fact won't prevent heated debates over its implications.

The bill states that a school corporation may choose to allow the teaching of other origin of life theories including creation science. This would allow alternatives to the theory of evolution presented and discussed. Based upon the reaction this bill will generate, you'll probably be surprised to learn that 200 years after the birth of Charles Darwin and the total domination of his theory being taught in public schools as fact for decades, only one-in-four Americans say that they believe in evolution.

I find the vocal opposition to this bill interesting. If evolution is true and creation is just so ridiculous, then what is the worry? If all the scientific facts support evolution, then truth will easily prevail, right? It reminds me of William F. Buckley's political observation, "though liberals do a great deal of talking about hearing other points of view, it sometimes shocks them to learn that there are other points of view."

I was thinking of this topic a while back. Have you ever wondered why God created women? (This is not the start of a joke.) God made Adam, gave him tasks and later made a helpmate for him. Why was it a woman? Why not another man? Obviously we would say because of reproduction, but that's due to our view now. It seems perfectly logical to us. Yet, God could have replicated Adam and all men thereafter through another manner. God is God and can do things however He chooses. Thankfully, God made woman and complimented men and women in different ways to go together for a unique and important complimentary union, which is the foundation for marriage.

KEEP READING

Posted by: Micah Clark AT 06:28 am   |  Permalink   |  9 Comments  |  Email
Saturday, January 28 2012

I attended the Senate Health Committee's hearing on a revamped abortion bill recently. Various proposals from Senators Greg Walker and Jim Banks were rolled into a vehicle bill held by the Senate President and then given to Senator Travis Holdman. Senate Bill 72 sets some basic requirements for the distribution, oversight and stricter physician follow-up for of the abortion drug RU-486. (Testimony from a brave young woman on what happened when she took the abortion pill was nothing short of gruesome.) SB 72 also requires the state to have uniform written information from the Indiana State Department of Health distributed to women seeking an abortion.

Perhaps the most interesting item in the bill was an amendment to address the lack of enforcement of a law passed by the legislature a few years ago. The legislature had previously applied ambulatory surgical outpatient center guidelines to abortion clinics, which have always been uniquely exempted from such Department of Health provisions. The bill grandfathered (a big mistake, but perhaps one that was needed for passage) existing clinics and applied the safety standards only to new abortion clinics or whenever any changes were made to a clinic. Those changes included physical structure changes and other things that should have caused the guidelines and ISDH inspections to apply. One of those expected triggers was a change in ownership, or closing and reopening of a clinic, even if location did not change.

KEEP READING

Posted by: Micah Clark AT 06:04 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, January 27 2012

After the Indiana House of Representatives passed the Right to Work bill this week, it is all but assured that the Hoosier state will become the 23rd state to enact this legislation. There's no question that the law is contentious in a supposedly "Rust Belt" state where union leaders hold more sway than other places.

 

 

On today's show, we had Mark Mix, the President of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and President of the National Right to Work Committee (a 2.2 million member public policy organization) on to talk about why this will be good for Hoosiers.

 

I asked Mix about some of the common arguments and concerns that have been raised by those in labor union leadership - is this really about busting unions, don't the statistics demonstrate that it lowers worker wages, won't this allow workers to receive the benefits of a union for free?

 

Click here to hear the full interview.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:09 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, January 27 2012

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

 

With all the focus on the passage of Indiana's Right to Work bill through the state house of representatives, not many people have noticed a state senate committee passed through a bill that would allow local school districts to "require the teaching of various theories concerning the origin of life, including creation science." That's most people who haven't noticed. Not surprisingly, the folks over at the Darwin-worshipping National Center for Science Education are paying attention.

 

 

This NCSE is the outfit that believes science education in schools needs to counter the "myths" of religion that are really just "crackpot ideas." In other words, it's the stated objective of the NCSE to harness the power of the government school system to teach the nation's children that their parents' views on the origin of life is kooky, and that young people should instead buy into the religious views of the NCSE - the religion of Darwin.

 

Could someone please explain to me how this is not violating the same principle of separating church and state that they complain about? Why is the Church of Christ not acceptable, but the church of Darwin is? Remember, science itself is about observing data, forming hypotheses (no matter how crazy they may seem), testing evidence and retesting theories. The interpretation of scientific data is something different than science itself, and it has a lot to do with our worldview and religious beliefs.

 

Christians begin with a presupposition - the existence and the authority of God. But the NCSE begins with a presupposition as well - the non-existence and non-authority of God. The two sides then reinterpret the same scientific data based on their presuppositions. The NCSE would have us believe that their interpretation is "science" while the Christian view is "myth."

 

And it goes beyond just the creation/evolution stuff. Check this out.

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:08 pm   |  Permalink   |  2 Comments  |  Email
Friday, January 27 2012

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

 

One of my friends involved with the pro-family movement at the national level sent this story to me.  It seems controversy is swirling up in Wisconsin where the thought police are on the loose.  No surprise that leftist homosexual activists are going after a Christian kid for expressing opposition to homosexual adoption. 

 

 

As bad as I feel for this kid, the story is useful in once again depicting that free thought and free speech is embraced by the left as long as it's leftist though and leftist speech.  Anything else is "hate speech" and therefore must be silenced.  And this story has an added twist: it demonstrates the lie about the "anti-bullying" cloak that these homosexual activists use to get into schools.  The only person bullied in this story is the Christian kid.  And guess who is doing the "bullying?"  The politically-correct, left-wing school administration.  Here's the scoop:

School officials at Shawano High School in Wisconsin have censored and punished Brandon Wegner, a 15-year-old, for writing an op-ed article explaining the Biblical view of homosexuality and supporting natural mother-father adoption, according to Liberty Counsel.

 

After Brandon wrote this article he was pulled into hours of meetings with school administrators and staff, without his parents' knowledge.

 

Superintendent Todd Carlson told him that the column "went against the bullying policy," and asked him if he "regretted" writing it. According to Liberty Counsel, when Mr. Wegner stated that he did not regret writing it, and that he stood behind his beliefs, Superintendent Carlson told him that he had "to be one of the most ignorant kids to try to argue with him about this topic," that "we have the power to suspend you if we want to" and that the column had "personally offended me, so I know you offended other people!"

 

Brandon's opinion was a part of an editorial page which presented viewpoints both for and against homosexual adoption, each articulated by a student. After the school newspaper was published in the local town paper, a homosexual in the community complained to the school. School officials then censored Brandon's article, forcing him and his classmates to pull the page out of the newspaper before distribution at the school.

Okay, let's acknowledge a few things.  First, this is a 15 year old kid, so it's to be expected that his arguments may not be fine-tuned, they may have logical holes, gaps, and may even lack tact (as, believe it or not, 15 year olds sometimes do).  And as I read this line from Brandon's opinion piece, I cringed:

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:07 pm   |  Permalink   |  3 Comments  |  Email
Friday, January 27 2012

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

 

Was it Cool Hand Luke that had the line, "What we have here is failure to communicate?" Chalk one up for me on that idea, apparently, based on some of the reaction I got for my Newt Gingrich comments earlier this week. After several days of watching the mainstream media, and even conservative commentators react in bewilderment at how Newt Gingrich could possibly be leading the Republican primary race, I thought I would give them the simple answer. So I did: Newt is leading because conservatives are ready for a fighter who isn't going to compromise with liberalism, but defeat it. They see that, right or wrong, in Newt. They don't see that, right or wrong, in others.

 

 

I got a couple responses that seemed to suggest that they thought I was giving an endorsement of Newt. First of all, as I've made a big deal of, I'm not going to give an endorsement because I don't think endorsements matter. Who cares if I endorse a candidate? I'd rather spend time telling you about all of them and what I see as concerning parts and impressive parts of them, and let you decide who to vote for based on your own hierarchy of important issues. But for anyone who cares, if I get the current options on my ballot here in Indiana, I'm going to vote for Santorum. I don't think he's a perfect conservative, but he's closest to meeting my expectations and wishes in a candidate in the race. I think there are good things about all of them, and I think there are concerning things about all of them. But that's where I would come down.

 

The fact that I would vote for Santorum though doesn't change why I think that Newt is surging and Santorum is not. Newt is perceived as a fighter for conservatism while Mitt is seen as the squishy moderate, and Santorum is seen as lacking charisma. That explains what seems so inexplicable to media commentators.

 

In addition to those responses though, I got a very thoughtful one from a concerned evangelical Christian named Brandon who doesn't get the sudden flocking of evangelicals to Newt. In fact, he was pretty hacked off about it. Here's what he had to say:

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:06 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, January 26 2012

Hear the audio version - and interview - here.  (Segments older than 3 weeks may be unavailable)

 

Fort Wayne, Indiana is abuzz right now with the horrifying story that the body of an unborn, aborted child was found in a strainer at the waste water treatment plant.  The general assumption is that this child was the victim of a chemical abortion at home (RU-486) and the mother simply flushed the tiny infant down her toilet once she expelled him.

 

 

What's amazed me is the reaction of so many folks who are shocked that this is the way it happens.  Responses like: "You mean the baby is expelled after RU-486?  You see body parts?  You mean we have babies being flushed through our sewers?  This is legal?"  Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

 

This is the horror of abortion.  This is what the Democrat Party condones.  This is what those who vote for Democrats give their passive approval of.  This is the horror of what we regard as "choice" in America.  Here's the press release from Indiana Right to Life:

Indiana Right to Life will ask the Indiana State Department of Health to revisit guidelines for disposing of the remains of aborted children in the wake of yesterday's discovery of an unborn child's body found caught in the screens of a Fort Wayne sewage treatment plant.

 

"We don't know whether this baby was aborted and then flushed into the sewer system by Fort Wayne's local abortion clinic, or aborted at home using the RU-486 chemical abortion method, but both are strong possibilities" notes Indiana Right to Life President and CEO Mike Fichter.

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:09 pm   |  Permalink   |  4 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, January 26 2012

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

 

The headline of the local paper - which did a fabulous job of not taking sides in their reporting on the Right to Work battle in Indianapolis, by the way (that's sarcasm) - screamed "Loss for Labor" as word came that our Hoosier state took a giant step toward becoming the 23rd state where union dues were not required as a condition for working. I always find the label of "labor" applied only to union workers interesting. It's almost as classic as the "working man" designation. Apparently, those of us who don't pay dues to a union aren't really laboring, nor are we "working men." Fascinating.

 

 

The headline, of course, should have read, "Loss for Forced Union Advocates," but whatever. I'm not surprised at the outcome of the vote - which sends the bill towards smooth sailing in the Senate and then on to the Governor's desk - nor the way it is being reported in a big union town. Union leaders have done a masterful job of depicting these laws as the death of unions and a war on organized labor. I don't think these arguments hold water, of course, but that doesn't matter. It's the way most media outlets who want people to buy their paper are going to report it, because that's the line that union leaders have pushed.

 

And by the way, I'm open to believing those arguments if I could get basic answers to my questions. Questions like, "If Right to Work is a union buster, why is the Indiana State Teachers Association the most powerful union in the state when they have been under Right to Work laws since 1995?" No one seems to be able to explain that phenomenon to me. I can tell you why ISTA is so strong - because they have successfully convinced their potential members around the state that they are working hard for them. The ISTA - a group I don't support and don't share much in common with when it comes to much of their political lobbying - has proven themselves to be an asset to their membership. So their members willingly pay their dues. And they aren't cheap dues either, I should add.

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:07 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, January 26 2012

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

 

So let me see if I understand: the giant hub bub about Romney releasing his income taxes was...what exactly? I mean, what did we find out? What was uncovered? That he was rich and generous with his wealth? And that was demanded by his opponents because...um, why? You know, if I was Mitt, I'd be doing a big ol' "What Now?" dance. Well, maybe not. I guess you don't want to alienate people that you will need to support you if you end up with the nomination. But I'll be honest, with all the screams about Mitt not releasing his records, I started thinking, "Well there must be something to this. There must be something buried in his past that will be uncovered by this." And, nothing.

 

 

In actuality, I think this works in his favor. Sure, Obama's game is class warfare. That was evident in his State of the Union Address. He's interested in pitting those of us in the Middle Class against wealthy people like Mitt Romney. I'll be honest, I admire Mitt's success. He's an example for me - something to aspire towards. Now, don't get me wrong. I don't measure success in life solely on the basis of material possessions. That's not what I mean. In Mitt, I see a guy who has taken risks, launched ventures, some successful, some not, has managed his businesses well, has been an honest guy, and has produced an income for himself that allows him the opportunity to give generously. I admire that. That's what this country is all about - or should be.

 

If Obama wants to vilify that, I say bring it on. I'm happy to have that argument. Sure, Mitt is wealthy. Is that now evil? Of course not. What would be bad would be to have wealth and to hoard it. Did he? Nope. But you know who did? Check this out:

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama and his wife Michelle gave $10,772 of the $1.2 million they earned from 2000 through 2004 to charities, or less than 1 percent, according to tax returns for those years released today by his campaign.

 

The Obamas increased the amount they gave to charity when their income rose in 2005 and 2006 after the Illinois senator published a bestselling book. The $137,622 they gave over those two years amounted to more than 5 percent of their $2.6 million income.

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:07 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, January 26 2012

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

 

I'm not sure why anybody would be surprised to see this story, but nonetheless, it is being construed as a boon to the re-election campaign of moderate Indiana Senator Dick Lugar:

Indiana Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels on Sunday called embattled Sen. Dick Lugar (R-Ind.) a role model and pledged to support Lugar's re-election despite Tea-Party opposition.

 

The endorsement of Lugar could further inflame conservative activists grumbling over Daniels's call for a political truce on social issues and complicate a potential White House bid.

 

 

"I'm for Dick Lugar, he's the role model I've had," Daniels said on NBC's "Meet the Press". "Folks in Indiana know that I am for him and that I admire him and think if he wants another term he ought to have one."

For a long time, I've been one that has been content and even pleased with the economic stewardship of Mitch Daniels as Governor of Indiana. He's brought shrewd business sense to the state's economic mess, and has understood the importance of balancing a budget.

 

At the same time, I was a vocal opponent of the idea that Mitch Daniels run for president. Because Daniels' weaknesses have been acceptable in Indiana because of the ideological make-up of the state. That would be entirely different at the national level. Strong families are what allows for a strong economy. The values of Indiana are a testament to that in many ways. Not that Mitch Daniels did anything to help that reality.

 

And that was the concern. Yes, Mitch Daniels signed important pro-family pieces of legislation while Governor. But important pro-family pieces of legislation were never part of Daniels' agenda, and the only reason they ended up on his desk to sign was because the state legislature decided to lead.

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:06 pm   |  Permalink   |  1 Comment  |  Email
Wednesday, January 25 2012

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

 

Fresh off the victory of a young atheist girl who successfully sued a prayer rug at her school - a rug that was undoubtedly doing untold damage to the lives of hundreds, nay thousands of Americans - the anti-God crowd on the left is on the march again.

 

This time, the crusade-for-tolerance-of-all-beliefs-except-Christianity comes to us from North Carolina where the pagans are after the Gideons:

"A pagan mother's challenge to the distribution of donated Bibles at a local school has prompted the Buncombe County Board of Education to reevaluate its policies regarding religious texts.

 

 

Ginger Strivelli, who practices Witchcraft, a form of Paganism, said she was upset when her 12-year-old son came home from North Windy Ridge intermediate school with a Bible.

 

The Gideons International had delivered several boxes of the sacred books to the school office. The staff allowed interested students to stop by and pick them up.

 

"Schools should not be giving out one religion's materials and not others," Strivelli said.

 

According to Strivelli, the principal assured her the school would make available religious texts donated by any group. But when Strivelli showed up at the school with pagan spell books, she was turned away."

This is honestly how silly we've become. We've got grown adults showing up to schools with pagan spell books sniffling, "If you hand out Bibles, you have to hand out these books." Actually I shouldn't even say "hand out Bibles," because we got away from that a long time ago. This is just having a Bible present and available if a student wanted one.

 

But yeah, this is where liberalism has led us. It's what political correctness has brought us. We are now so paralyzed by its poison as a society that we feel there's something inappropriate, wrong, or unfair to look at the pagan witch lady and say, "Look, because this is a country founded on the Judeo-Christian ethic, we let you do most anything you want to do in the privacy of your own home. But if you think for a second that we're going to put your little spell book on par with the Bible and say that it's just as good, just as meaningful, just as important and vital in raising kids and sustaining our way of life here in America, you're a lunatic.  Being entitled to your belief is not the same as being entitled to have the state endorse and promote your belief.  That distinction belongs to belief systems that are collectively agreed upon as the most productive and best for preserving our way of life.  And that ain't witchcraft, lady."

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:09 pm   |  Permalink   |  4 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, January 25 2012

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

 

The Constitution requires that the president of the United States give a yearly report on the state of our union. President Obama did not do that last night. He gave a campaign address. That's what this president is - he is a campaigner, a community organizer, not an executive.

 


Luckily, as has been the case through the majority of his presidency, other people have picked up the slack and done the job for him. I felt like I did a decent job of reporting on the state of our union in a recent
column. But I'm far from alone. Joseph Curl gave a pretty clear assessment of the state of the union in a recent Washington Times op-ed as well. Here's what Congress and the nation should have heard last night:

The unemployment rate when Mr. Obama was elected was 6.8 percent; today it is 8.5 percent ? at least that's the official number. In reality, the Financial Times writes, "if the same number of people were seeking work today as in 2007, the jobless rate would be 11 percent."

 

In addition, there are now fewer payroll jobs in America than there were in 2000 ? 12 years ago ? and now, 40 percent of those jobs are considered "low paying," up 10 percent from when President Reagan took office. The number of self-employed has dropped 2 million to 14.5 million in just six years.

 

Regular gasoline per gallon cost $1.68 in January 2009. Today, it's $3.39 ? that's a 102 percent increase in just three years. (By the way, if you're keeping score at home, gas was $1.40 a gallon when George W. Bush took office in 2001, $1.68 when he left office ? a 20 percent increase.)

 

Electricity bills have also skyrocketed, with households now paying a record $1,420 annually on average, up some $300.

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:08 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, January 25 2012

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

 

My feelings about a Mitch Daniels run for the presidency are pretty well known at this point. I think the man would be great to have in certain key cabinet positions. I think he'd be an excellent budget director. I think he'd be a great Chief of Staff. But as far as a President, the man lacks the will to lead on issues that are of the highest pressing importance. That being said, watching his calm yet direct response to the President's State of the Union speech last night, I can definitely see why many in the Republican Party are pining away for Mitch, and loathing the day he opted not to run.

 

 

If you didn't see it, you can watch the full thing in just eleven minutes, and it really is worth watching. If you'd rather have the CliffNotes version, the Washington Post hit the high points:

In his rebuttal, which was stern but without the bombastic tone adopted by some of his fellow Republicans of late, Daniels congratulated Obama for a handful of successes but accused him of painting an overly optimistic portrait of the nation's economic health.

 

"On these evenings, presidents naturally seek to find the sunny side of our national condition," Daniels said. "But when President Obama claims that the state of our union is anything but grave, he must know in his heart that this is not true."

 

But he sharply criticized the president's "constant disparagement of people in business" and accused him of giving in to "extremists" on developing local-based sources of energy. He faulted what he called inaction to address entitlement programs that without changes are likely to "implode." He accused the Obama administration of pitting the rich against the poor.

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:07 pm   |  Permalink   |  7 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, January 25 2012

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

 

In terms of the State of the Union speech last night, I admit to watching it on fast-forward. Well, not really fast-forward. It was DVR so I was able to speed through the standing ovations and applause parts. That really helps for a couple reasons. First, it doesn't take two hours to get through. But more importantly, it exposes the positions and statements of the president bare. When the applause is discounted, when things are silent after the statements, they linger and you have the chance to think about them a little bit.

 

 

And the overwhelming reality for anyone who did that last night was that all of this has been heard before. All of this is recycled. It's like Obama was in re-runs, playing a "best-of Barack" show or something. Here's an example of what I mean. The Republican National Committee was all over it, splicing together Obama last night with Obama in 2011 and 2010. It's pretty amazing:

Obama 2010: "It's time for colleges and universities to get serious about cutting their own costs.

Obama 2012: "Colleges and universities have to do their part by working to keep costs down."

***

Obama 2010: "And we should continue the work by fixing our broken immigration system."

Obama 2011: "I strongly believe that we should take on, once and for all, the issue of illegal immigration."

Obama 2012: "I believe as strongly as ever that we should take on illegal immigration."

***

Obama 2010: "We face a deficit of trust."

Obama 2012: "I've talked tonight about the deficit of trust . . ."

***

Obama 2010: "We can't wage a perpetual campaign."

Obama 2012: "We need to end the notion that the two parties must be locked in a perpetual campaign."

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:06 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, January 24 2012

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

 

If you think this Newt thing is about a passionate affection for the man or a long-standing loyalty among the conservative electorate for him, you're mistaken. And I'll take it a step further. I think Newt's debate performances have put him on the map, but if you think that alone is what is propelling his rise from the ashes, I think you're missing the bigger picture. Yes, there is a thrill that conservatives get - perhaps even up their leg - every time they see Newt deliver a strong debate performance, because they are so tired of the media portraying every conservative as some backwoods hick, country bumpkin, buck toothed moron. They can't do that with Newt. He'd eat them alive. But on its own, that's not what's fueling it either.

 

 

Now, don't get me wrong, I think the debate thing, the intelligence thing, I think that helps. I think it helps a lot. But alone, it's not enough. If Jon Huntsman would have had both those qualities it wouldn't have led to his serious rise in the primary. This is something that's happening at the grassroots level, from the bottom up. This is the base being exercised and being tired of squishy centrist and compromising approach with the liberalism that is killing our country.

 

The base is looking for a fighter and they see that in Newt. But more than just being combative, they see him fighting for things they believe in: defense of Israel, defense of human life, defense of fiscal restraint, changing the culture of Washington, defense of states' rights, defense of traditional values - that's why they are increasingly willing to overlook or forgive Newt's past failures and indiscretions. He's fighting for the right things.

 

Erick Erickson over at Red State said something similar in a recent post that I thought was an excellent analysis of why Newt's rising:

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:10 pm   |  Permalink   |  3 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, January 24 2012

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

 

Whenever you are making a decision on a difficult or controversial topic, the wisest thing to do is to remove emotion from the equation. It's why we get "disinterested" third parties to act as arbiters in disputes. It's why we get jurors who don't know anything about the individuals, the acts, the consequences of an event when they come to sit on a jury. So it's no surprise that when the topic of abortion comes up - as it does with particular clarity around this time of year (the anniversary of Roe v. Wade is January 22).

 

Unable to compete on the plane of rational thought, and knowing that abortion is unjustifiable from the perspectives of constitutionality, ethics, morality, science, medicine and reason, the left is quick to resort to throwing emotional extremes into our line of sight to distract us from the evil they support. And Piers Morgan tried their oldest and most reliable - if not perverse - emotional appeal on the topic when recently interviewing pro-life Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum.

 

PIERS MORGAN: Do you really believe, in every case, it should be totally wrong, in the sense that -- I know that you believe, even in cases of rape and incest -- and you've got two daughters. You know, if you have a daughter that came to you who had been raped.

RICK SANTORUM: Yes.

MORGAN: And was pregnant and was begging you to let her have an abortion, would you really be able to look her in the eye and say, no, as her father?

This is just disgraceful. It is such a transparent appeal to emotion-driven passion rather than sound logic and thought it is ridiculous. Nonetheless, let me ask a question: when is the last time you saw this tactic taken when interviewing liberals?

 

For instance, the left loves to talk about how evil torture is, as they blast George Bush for sacrificing our values in the war on terror. How many interviews did you see someone ask Barack Obama, "If Sasha and Malia were kidnapped and being held and tortured brutally by terrorists, and we were holding one of their accomplices that we captured, would you not authorize any force necessary to get your girls back?" This emotional appeal would be immediately decried as a shameless effort to play on emotions and put Obama in a position where he would look either heartless or a hypocrite. And that's exactly what's happening here.

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:09 pm   |  Permalink   |  3 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, January 24 2012

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

 

I continue to shake my head that any rational American can set aside their basic humanity and support anyone who runs under the banner of a Democrat Party platform that endorses a right to kill children in the womb. It's unconscionable. And I don't know how you say to yourself, "Well, sure there's the child killing thing, but other than that, I like their tax ideas." Are you kidding me? Imagine saying that with the Nazi holocaust: "Sure, I don't go for the human ovens and gas chambers, but I like Hitler's ideas on infrastructure."

 

 

Every year around the anniversary of the bad law that is Roe v. Wade, it becomes crystal clear the rhetorical bull and moral relativistic garbage that the entire abortion holocaust is based on. And it becomes evident that not only should those who support this practice and the Party that defends it be ashamed of themselves, they should be intellectually humiliated.

 

As an example of the foolishness I'm talking about, take President Obama's statement on the 39th anniversary of Roe that he just issued:

In his statement on the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade ruling, Obama said it reflects the broader principles of America.

"As we mark the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we must remember that this Supreme Court decision not only protects a woman's health and reproductive freedom, but also affirms a broader principle: that government should not intrude on private family matters," Obama said. "I remain committed to protecting a woman's right to choose and this fundamental constitutional right.

 

"While this is a sensitive and often divisive issue -- no matter what our views, we must stay united in our determination to prevent unintended pregnancies, support pregnant woman and mothers, reduce the need for abortion, encourage healthy relationships, and promote adoption," Obama said.

"And as we remember this historic anniversary, we must also continue our efforts to ensure that our daughters have the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams."

I'm honestly disgusted by this. It's pure evil. And a man whose heart allows him to say and believe such things has no place sitting in the highest office of the land. It's just beyond despicable. But beyond that, it's just silly, flippant, meaningless rhetoric masking itself as legitimate justification. Take the different phrases:

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:08 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, January 24 2012

Brian Sikma, who works for a conservative watchdog group based in Wisconsin and is a friend of the show, contributed some interesting information about the opposition to Indiana's Right to Work law. Apparently, the same folks on the left who love to complain about the Koch brothers funding right leaning causes are getting funds of their own - from George Soros.

 

 

Here's a sample of what he uncovered:

Leading the way among those providing intellectual firepower and talking points for pro-union right to-work opponents is the Economic Policy Institute. EPI, a D.C. based think-tank that specializes in state-based research, has released a steady stream of information and research allegedly debunking the benefits of the reform and calling on Indiana policymakers to bend to union demands by killing the legislation.

 

EPI has been successful in influencing the debate in Indiana. Their work has been mentioned in news reports.

 

But make no mistake - there is an agenda behind the research produced by EPI. That agenda is George Soros and another far-left Chicago-based group, The Joyce Foundation.

 

According to IRS filings (summarized by a third-party here), the Economic Policy Institute received over $6.4 million in funding from the Open Society Institute between 2005 and 2009, the latest year for which documents are available. The Open Society Institute is the organization liberal billionaire George Soros founded to manage his investment in hyper-liberal infrastructure. The amount they gave to EPI makes EPI the 11th largest recipient of Soros money over that time period.

 

Apparently, when George Soros wants to buy-off some research to promote his liberal ideas at the state level, he turns to the Economic Policy Institute.

On Tuesday's show, Brian Sikma joined me to talk about this information and the larger issue of liberal opposition to Right to Work.


Hear the full conversation here
.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:07 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Monday, January 23 2012

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

 

I got an interesting email asking me if I had seen what former Governor Haley Barbour had said regarding the flap over his numerous pardon of convicted murderers and violent offenders shortly before he left office. First of all, some background for those who don't know the story:

Former Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour said Friday he's "very comfortable" with his decision to grant pardons or other clemency to more than 200 people, including convicted killers, in his last days in office, telling Fox News that Mississippi is predominantly Christian and believes in forgiveness.

 

 

Barbour said Friday during his first interviews on the pardons that nearly 190 of the people who got pardons or other reprieves had already been released from prison before his actions. Only 10, he said, have been or will be fully released from prison.

 

The pardons have set off outrage among some victims' families and prompted a judge to block the release of some of the pardoned inmates out of concern that proper notification rules were not followed.

I imagine it has. As a matter of principle, I've always been a little confused and concerned about the practice of gubernatorial or presidential pardons as they smack of a certain disdain for the rule of law. I understand the concept behind such a power, its origin, and the arguments for it. But I also understand that it opens a Pandora's Box of potential corruption, manipulation and unfairness.

 

When I hear Governor Barbour - a man that I think a lot of and I think is a good guy - speak of the need for second chances and how that allows him to overrule the just punishment handed out by the courts, I can't help but think of the victims' families. My mind goes to the Mergrahi terrorist who blew up the Pan Am flight, but in the name of compassion was released to go home and die a few months.or years...ago. He's still alive. Think what that did and does to the families who don't get another chance with their loved ones.

 

I think, from an outside perspective without knowing all the details, that there's a fundamental flaw in Barbour's defense. He claims he was driven to do this in the name of forgiveness. Look at what he went on to say:

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:09 pm   |  Permalink   |  1 Comment  |  Email
Monday, January 23 2012

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

 

Newt Gingrich completed quite an impressive comeback in South Carolina on Saturday, and I can't help but think that much of it was sealed at the presidential debate where Mitt floundered and Newt soared. That's why heading into Florida, though the conventional wisdom is saying Romney is in strong shape, Newt has every chance to do the same thing there - with two debates scheduled before the primary date.

 

 

Something else that is interesting about the dynamic of the race, for the first time since this race really began, stories are being discussed about Mitt's collapse, or Mitt's staggering or Mitt's faltering. To this point it has been the slow and steady eddie Mitt Romney holding serve while the rest of the field flashes and fizzles.

 

You're also seeing a bit of role-reversal too. Whereas the Gingrich slide to "also-ran" in Iowa provoked a little negativity from Newt in his New Hampshire campaign, the Romney collapse in South Carolina seems to be doing the same for Mitt now. Here were his not-so-veiled remarks after his second place showing in South Carolina:

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:08 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Monday, January 23 2012

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

 

When it comes to leaders in Washington, D.C. who really seem to "get it," who really seem to have their finger firmly on the pulse of the American mainstream, who demonstrate repeatedly an uncanny grasp of reality and an ability to dissect and address the issues that matter most to Americans, it's tough to name anyone who fits that mold worse than Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

 

After all, it was Reid who once took it upon himself to explain the rigors of our tax code by counseling how "[o]ur system of government is a voluntary tax system." This, Reid noted, is why, "of course[,] you have to pay them."

 

 

And it was Reid, the Pride of Nevada, who shortly before George W. Bush's surge strategy reversed the downward spiral in Iraq, gave his best version on Winston Churchill's famous admonition to "[n]ever, ever, ever give up," by advising, "This war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything."

 

Not that Harry's powers of clairvoyance are limited to foreign policy. The man who leads the Democrats in the United States Senate is on record proclaiming, "Social Security is a program that works and it's going to be fully funded for the next 40 years...No, it's not a crisis. This is something that's perpetuated by people who don't like government. Social Security's fine." Fine, insolvent...it's all the same.

 

With such a sterling record of precision and accuracy, then, it's understandable why the nation would be riveted to their TV sets as Reid appeared on Meet the Press to discuss the future of the Tea Party movement. Remember that Reid, along with fellow Democratic visionary Nancy Pelosi were the first ones to so correctly dismiss this "Astroturf" movement of Republicans as nothing real, lasting, or consequential - a point that 67 of their now defeated, ex-colleagues might dispute.

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:07 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Monday, January 23 2012

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

 

One of the things that attracts many conservatives to the candidacy of Richard Mourdock in his bid to unseat incumbent Republican Senator Dick Lugar of Indiana is Mourdock's recognition that social conservatism is a vital cog in the wheel, not something to be disregarded. So it's not surprising that while Lugar's camp was silent when it came to the horrific anniversary of the Supreme Court's civilization-upending Roe v. Wade decision, Mourdock was not:

In a written statement that was read at several pro-life rallies in Indiana over the past week, Treasurer Mourdock remarked:

 

 

"As we reflect on the great tragedy of abortion in America, let's not forget that Roe v. Wade happened because our court system failed to reflect the values upon which our nation was founded. A strong motivating factor for my campaign for U.S. Senate is my conviction that we must replace liberal judges, like those who made up the majority in Roe v. Wade, with judges who understand that their role is to interpret the law based on the original intent of the Framers andnot based on their own personal opinions."

 

Mourdock is a strongly pro-life candidate who has been endorsed by pro-life groups in his previous campaigns for State Treasurer. In his campaign for U.S. Senate, he has drawn a distinction with Senator Dick Lugar, who has enthusiastically supported all of President Obama's liberal Supreme Court nominees. He has pointed to this as one reason that Senator Lugar was called "Obama's Favorite Republican" by MSNBC in 2008.

 

"U.S. Senators have a special role in our democracy, providing ?advice and consent' to confirm the President's nominees to federal judiciary. I am proud to be the only candidate for U.S. Senate in Indiana this year who would have voted no on the nominations of Supreme Court Justices like Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Elena Kagan, and Sonja Sotomayor," said Mourdock.

 

Senator Lugar was the second Republican Senator to announce his support for Kagan and the first Republican Senator to announce his support for Sotomayor.

Last spring I had the opportunity to speak at a very large pro-life gathering in northern Indiana. The hall was filled with hundreds, if not a thousand, pro-life Hoosiers. And two candidates for national office who were there made a point to come up and enthusiastically support my words and my passion on this critical issue when the event concluded: Jackie Walorski and Richard Mourdock.

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:06 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Sunday, January 22 2012

Comedian Tracy Morgan got into hot water last June during a stand-up performance in Nashville, Tennessee. During his comedic rant, he told the audience that if his son were gay, he would "pull out a knife and stab" him. Well, we all know how that went over among the liberal immoralist crowd. And this Thursday's episode of "30 Rock" will use the real life event as their topic so that Jordan (played by Tracy Morgan) can bumble his apology and have his boss (played by Tina Fey) apologize for him. And all will be right with the world once again.

 

 

In real life, Tracy Morgan apologized to the liberal immoralists saying that "even in a comedy club," what he said went too far "and was not funny in any context."

 

My, my, my. To the extent I am aware, anything goes at a comedy club. There are no taboo topics. There is plenty of vulgarity and plenty of demeaning characterizations leveled at anyone, especially anyone seeking to pursue righteousness. When it was on, I watched some episodes of "Last Comic Standing." Being aired on network television, it was toned down stand-up. Or so I hoped. I was still shocked and offended by some of the subject matter of some comedians. I can easily imagine the content of an uncensored performance. I harbor no doubts that Christians, conservatives, and other responsible Americans have been verbally and maliciously assaulted in comedy on an ongoing basis. So, where are the apologies to us? Why does only one minority sector of immoralists receive a bend-over-backwards public apology?

 

Mr. Morgan indicated that his act went too far "and was not funny in any context." I'll bet people laughed. What do you think?

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 04:53 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Sunday, January 22 2012

Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life. Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up. Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers. - Galatians 6:7-10

I have taken the opportunity to read and listen to the publicly reported services honoring the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. In most of the services, the Civil Rights movement's victories were celebrated. Participants were also reminded that there remain still some shortcomings and were challenged to keep the dream alive. What I noticed in many of the commemorations was an absence of the source of Rev. King's dream.

 

 

The basis for the Rev. King's stand against the injustice of segregation is found in his service to the Savior and Lord Jesus Christ. If the dream has faltered and if there are those wondering how to keep the dream alive, it is because the foundation of the dream has been cast aside. The movement which Rev. King led was started and perpetuated in the pulpits of Christian churches across the land. The moral imperative for freedom and equality is derived from the truth of Christ, not man-made regulations. In his letter from a Birmingham jail, Rev. King wrote, "A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law." We either acknowledge the reality and presence of the moral law of God and move forward, or we flounder on man-made laws that can as easily impose injustice as they can secure justice.

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 04:38 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Sunday, January 22 2012

Senate Bill 89 is a one-sentence bill authored by Senator Dennis Kruse. It allows a local school board to choose to allow alternatives to the theory of evolution to be taught in life origins discussions as alternative theories.

The bill is simple and it leaves the decision up to local school authorities. Still, we expect fierce opposition to even this modest proposal when the bill receives a public hearing on the afternoon of January 25th.

Posted by: Micah Clark AT 06:26 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Sunday, January 22 2012

Homosexual activists are celebrating the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles decision to allow a specialty license plate that celebrates and helps to fund a homosexual teen recruitment center called the Indy Youth Group.

The BMV had rejected the homosexual plate, and even withstood a failed legal attempt by the ACLU of Indiana to force such a plate into existence. This year, for some reason, they have approved the plate. Other plate efforts, which have not been initially approved by the BMV, such as the In God We Trust plate now appearing on 2 million Hoosier cars, went to the legislature for approval. It is highly unlikely that a license plate for a group encouraging homosexual behaviors among minors would even get a committee hearing.

As news of this first of a kind in the nation license plate circulates, questions may arise about the Daniels Administration's trickle down values or oversight of this agency and why the BMV reversed course in less than a year.

One has to wonder, since health risks are obviously not a consideration, if a cigar-smoking club could get a specialty license plate now.

KEEP READING

Posted by: Micah Clark AT 06:22 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Saturday, January 21 2012

I will admit to not knowing the details of the SOPA (Stop Online Piracy) and PIPA (Protect IP Act) bills or the protest that rose up against them. I suspect that, overall, I oppose the bills because I know that no matter how well-intentioned they are, the unintentional consequences will be catastrophic and normal internet users like you and me will end up paying more for less service. That's the way government tinkering works.

 

Nevertheless, I find quite a few ironies at play in all of this. This pits liberals against liberals, which is always fun. Those favoring legislation are Big Entertainment. They do not want big bucks siphoned off by copyright infringement and piracy. They certainly have a case; after all, celebrities have to be able to afford their opulent lifestyles. How else can they show up in limos and toss a few tidbits of support at their hypoccupier minions?

 

 

Those opposing the legislation include Big Technology, no strangers to liberal ideology. Among other things, the legislation shifts the burden of law enforcement onto them, which will increase costs and suppress innovation. Nonetheless, they offer no concrete support at all to the problem of the online theft occurring through illegal downloads.

 

Also counted among the opposition to the legislation are the individual users, of course. Regardless of their stated reasons, I suspect many of them do not want to see their source of "free" downloads impaired. Having to pay for the work and service and innovation provided by others just doesn't mesh with their liberal myths of fair play (ie, socialism).

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 08:12 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Saturday, January 21 2012

It is not my intent to weigh in on the "right to work" issue, but the high drama is hard to leave out of any discussion of what is happening at your state capitol.

Last night, House Democrats walked out for the third time this session. This action holds up the process and reminds everyone of their five-week trip to a Comfort Inn in Illinois last year. That departure killed numerous bills including a 2011 right to work proposal.

Late last week, House Democrats threw out a new notion that could stall right to work for a while. Rep. Pat Bauer wants right to work to be a referendum issue rather than a legislative one. However, the irony of this proposal is remarkable. Former Speaker of the House, Pat Bauer, single-handedly blocked Marriage Protection referendums for more than six years. If he were Speaker today, he'd still be blocking a people's vote on marriage protection.

KEEP READING

Posted by: Micah Clark AT 07:05 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Saturday, January 21 2012

A leading activist in Canada has put in writing what many parents and pro-family leaders have believed for a long time. Writing for Xtra Vancouver, Managing Editor Robin Perelle blasted parents with traditional beliefs saying, "your outdated morals are no longer acceptable, and we will teach your kids the new norms." Perelle said that children should be taught to endorse the homosexual agenda.

In response to Ms. Perelle's public admission, homosexual blogger Daniel Villarreal wrote, "I and a lot of other people want to indoctrinate, recruit, teach, and expose children to queer sexuality AND THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT! We want educators to teach future generations of children to accept queer sexuality. In fact, our very future depends on it." (This is an interesting imperative if gay activists really believe that homosexuality is an in-born genetic behavior.)

Villarreal didn't stop there. He added: "Why would we push anti-bullying programs or social studies classes that teach kids about the historical contributions of famous queers unless we wanted to deliberately educate children to accept queer sexuality as normal?"

Posted by: Micah Clark AT 06:15 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Saturday, January 21 2012

Late last week, the Indiana State Teachers Association lost their first legal effort to block the state's new school voucher program for lower income families. On Friday, Marion Superior Court Judge Michael Keele ruled that the School Choice Scholarship Program did not violate the Indiana Constitution because the state isn't directly funding religious schools. The Judge found that like other aid programs, it gives vouchers to parents, who can choose where they want to use them.

The ruling also rejected arguments that the program unconstitutionally took funds away from public schools and sent money to private schools. Judge Keele wrote that the Indiana Constitution allows "educational options outside of the public school system."

Around 4,000 of roughly a million Hoosier school students are in the new voucher program. Those numbers are expected to grow this fall. Many news stories have called this a major defeat for the opponents of the program. Nevertheless, the ISTA is expected to appeal the ruling on to higher courts.

Posted by: Micah Clark AT 05:11 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, January 20 2012

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

 

So I'm getting ready to go to bed the other night, and right before I sat the computer on its stand, I see an email blip up onto the screen from a colleague. Ordinarily, I would just say I'll get to it tomorrow, but since it was from someone I knew personally, I thought I would check it out. The text of the email said this: "Thought this would get you fired up," and then there was a link. I made the grave error of following the link to this story:

[I]n some ways, gay parents may bring talents to the table that straight parents don't.

 

 

Gay parents "tend to be more motivated, more committed than heterosexual parents on average, because they chose to be parents," said Abbie Goldberg, a psychologist at Clark University in Massachusetts who researches gay and lesbian parenting. Gays and lesbians rarely become parents by accident, compared with an almost 50 percent accidental pregnancy rate among heterosexuals, Goldberg said. "That translates to greater commitment on average and more involvement."

 

And while research indicates that kids of gay parents show few differences in achievement, mental health, social functioning and other measures, these kids may have the advantage of open-mindedness, tolerance and role models for equitable relationships, according to some research. Not only that, but gays and lesbians are likely to provide homes for difficult-to-place children in the foster system, studies show.

This piece by Stephanie Pappas is not the first of its kind. Gay adoption of children is the next logical step in the sexual anarchists movement to ultimately undefine the institution of marriage and family. They, themselves have acknowledged that this isn't a movement about equality - it's a movement to radically alter our cultural foundation. And every step of the way they support it with conveniently flawed, picked-over, and/or corrupt scientific research.

 

And the Pappas piece is more of the same. Reading the entire article, it's one that provides heavy doses of subjective analysis of attributes like "tolerance" and "open-mindedness" (in this case, of course, meaning the degree to which you condone and accept homosexuality) and pretty skimpy analysis of empirical or objective data. Not that I can fault the author.

 

Because here's the critical thing to remember: ultimately if you're going to judge who are the best "parents," you have to define what standard or absolute you are measuring by. And unless you're going to use some cold calculation like whose kids get into college or whose kids score highest on their math SAT (something that's nice, but obviously doesn't determine good parents from bad - many parents might hire a math whiz to come in and raise their child like Einstein, but having a genius mathematician in the family doesn't mean that the parents have been "good parents"), the way we measure "good parents" is purely subjective.

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:09 pm   |  Permalink   |  1 Comment  |  Email
Friday, January 20 2012

Indiana Congressional Candidate Jackie Walorski joined Peter for their bi-weekly conversation about the state of the union today.

 

 

Topics included: Harry Reid's tea party self-contradiction, the supposedly "bloodthirsty" Republican debate crowds, another Indiana Democrat Statehouse embarrassment, and Jackie's official filing for a run at Congress.

 

Hear the always entertaining conversation right here.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:07 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, January 20 2012

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

 

Okay so I was just cracking up over the weekend as I watch some of these weekend scrub anchors come in on the networks and the cable channels, all pontificating about the failure of conservatives and specifically the tea party in being able to influence the Republican primary. Now, I've given my views on this before, but I want to be sure to point out the hilarious contradiction going on here.

 

These same voices are the ones who keep talking about the "extremist elements" that have pushed the Republican Party to the far right. You know that. You've heard that. It's all they talk about when they aren't talking about how insignificant and failed the tea party is. So I just want to ask, which is it? Which is it? Has the tea party failed miserably in affecting what's going on in the Republican Party or have they been so radically successful that they have pushed the Republican Party far to the right and into the extremist realms beyond even the conservatism of Reagan. It can't be both. It's got to be one or the other.

 

 

Take - and this is going back a few days, I know - the interview that 60 Minutes did with Eric Cantor. That was the special that they did where they were painting Cantor and all these Republican leaders as co-opted by the tea party and far right extremist, obstructionist nuts. It was in that interview that Lesley Stahl voiced what has become the major talking point of the left in their effort to prove how far-right radicalized the Republican Party has become under this, uh, er, ineffective Tea Party. See what I mean? See how silly it sounds? Pick one, media! Are they highly effective to the point where they have altered the ground of the Party base, or are they losers that have totally failed?

 

Anyway, here was the "Tea Party as Effective Radicals" position articulated by the folks at CBS:

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:06 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, January 19 2012

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

 

What's that they say about those in glass houses? From the way it looks, lefty 'journalist' Andrew Sullivan of Newsweek needs to drop the stones pretty quick. It was his recent ignorant cover story for Newsweek entitled "Why Are Barack Obama's Critics So Dumb?" - can someone say, "We can't sell magazines, so we'll have to try to shock people by our cover in order to get them to pick up a copy?" - that got all this started:

Sullivan, a self-described "unabashed supporter of Obama from early 2007 on," writes in the cover story that attacks against the president are not only out of bounds but "simply - empirically - wrong."

 

 

"Given the enormity of what he inherited, and given what he explicitly promised, it remains simply a fact that Obama has delivered in a way that the unhinged right and purist left have yet to understand or absorb," Sullivan wrote. "Their short-term outbursts have missed Obama's long game - and why his reelection remains, in my view, as essential for this country's future as his original election in 2008."

 

...

 

Sullivan defended the president's record Monday evening, saying, "Obama has governed as he said he would, as a sensible, pragmatic centrist." He explained that a frustration about lies people were telling about the president's record had inspired him to write the cover story.

 

"I just got frustrated hearing all these people tell untruths about the record," Sullivan said on MSNBC. "The record is that he has done something perfectly sensible - he's fulfilled the promises that he made to turn this country round slowly."

Slowly, as in, so slow that it almost resembles continuing to progress us down the path to debt destruction...at a slightly quicker pace. But this, "Obama is so smart, he's lulling us all to sleep by what appears to be idiotic policies" routine only had the right laughing:

Joel Pollak, editor in chief of Breitbart.com, turned the cover's question around on Andrew Sullivan, who penned the magazine's cover story, in a blog post called, "Why is Andrew Sullivan so dumb?"

 

"You'd have to be stupid, fanatical and dishonest to argue - as Trig Truther Sullivan does - that Barack Obama's failures are part of an ingenious ?long game' that is destined to succeed," Pollak wrote. "If this is the best Obama's supporters can do, Obama's only hope for reelection is the weak Republican field."

Yes, it's important to remember that this Sullivan lad is the same miserable hack that went after Sarah Palin's Downs Syndrome baby Trig - trying to "out" the fact that Trig wasn't Sarah's, but rather Bristol Palin's child. Of course, the fact that Bristol was actually pregnant at the time, making it physically impossible for Trig to have been hers unless she had a magical uterus (or perhaps two of them), didn't seem to dawn on this genius liberal. Pollak wasn't the only one to tag Mr. Sullivan:

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:09 pm   |  Permalink   |  1 Comment  |  Email
Thursday, January 19 2012

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

 

Jessica Ahlquist is riding high these days. At just 16 years old, Jessica has contributed a great victory to the betterment of mankind. She has achieved a marvelous success that will improve so many lives for generations to come that it's hard to digest. You heard of this? It's huge. This is James-Madison-writing-his-Virginia-state-constitution-as-a-teenager kind of stuff. This is monumental. Young Jessica has managed - I marvel just saying it - to successfully sue a prayer rug out of her school.

 

 

No joke. I know you're blown away by this accomplishment. I mean not everybody can go around claiming to be offended and run off to some radical left wing organization and sue someone else because their "right to be unoffended" is being violated. No, this takes a special kind of person here. This is the type of landmark, earth-shattering accomplishment that is going to greatly improve the quality of life for countless Americans:

A federal judge has ruled in favor of a teenage atheist whose fight for the removal of a prayer mural in her public high school in Cranston, Rhode Island, has attracted national attention.

 

Jessica Ahlquist, 16, who was represented by the Rhode Island chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, was elated on Wednesday when her lawsuit against Crayton city and officials at Cranston High School West came to a close. In the ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Ronald Lagueux said that the school must remove the banner immediately. Additionally, he decided that legal fees should be provided to the plaintiff.

 

Ahlquist?s main argument in the case has been that a prayer mural present in her school's auditorium is offensive to non-Christians. Additionally, she claims that it has made her feel ostracized and, thus, she has petitioned fervently for its removal.

Ah yes, how I enjoy the "made me feel ostracized" remark. Young Ms. Ahlquist is so concerned about being ostracized that she decided to file a federal lawsuit that would undoubtedly alienate 75% of the entire country. She's so self-conscious about being different than everyone else that she decided to make a federal production out of being offended by the non-intrusive display of a belief system that she benefits from, but doesn't adhere to. Makes total sense.

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:08 pm   |  Permalink   |  11 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, January 19 2012

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

 

I don't want 2012 to be an election where the only focus is unseating Barack Obama. If that's all it is, conservatives are being short sighted and aren't keeping their eyes on the ultimate goal of saving the country from the brink of collapse progressive liberalism has driven it to. That must be the national goal and objective of conservatives. Yes, defeating Obama is key - it's taking down the commanding general of this national suicide pact. But it must be broader than that.


Now, don't misunderstand. I'm not calling for a top-down conservative government machine. The solution to our problems comes in large part when we decentralize power back to the state and local governments. That's not what I mean when I'm calling for a broad approach to this. I simply mean that success will require more than just a bunch of patchwork approaches. I believe it will require a national strategy to win, a unified message for conservatives to stress and run on around the country. So what should it be?

 

In 2010 there were a lot of big government liberals who went down in flames, but perhaps none as satisfying for conservatives as uber liberal Russ Feingold in Wisconsin. For that reason, the man who defeated him, U.S. Senator Ron Johnson has earned a bit of admiration in the hearts of conservatives everywhere. So when I saw Johnson's recent interview with Newsmax about how Republicans can unseat Democrats around the country in 2012, I was immediately drawn to it. Johnson seems to agree with what I'm saying - that this is about a broad attempt to dethrone Democrats in every district. And Johnson said that can be done by focusing on these five points:

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:07 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, January 19 2012

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

 

There's a story out from the Heritage Foundation that should be getting more attention right now because it speaks to the long term prosperity of this country. And even though Heritage is widely known as a staunch conservative think tank, this is a study that should concern every liberal who wants people to believe they are really concerned about the poor becoming poorer and not being economically mobile.

 

Here's the report:

Good news! On economic freedom, America is in the global Top 10.

 

Bad news: America is No. 10 ? one blond hair ahead of Denmark.

 

 

According to the 18th annual Index of Economic Freedom, released Thursday by the Heritage Foundation and the Wall Street Journal, Hong Kong enjoys the earth's freest economy. The Chinese Special Administrative Region invariably has topped this list since it began in 1995. No. 2 Singapore leads Australia, New Zealand, Switzerland, Canada, Chile, Mauritius, and Ireland. Agnostic on political freedom, the Index evaluates fiscal discipline, taxes, regulations, monetary policy, rule of law, corruption, and other measures of economic liberty.

 

Because the United States keeps slipping in those areas, America has slid from No. 9 in 2011 to tenth place today. Indeed, this is the fourth consecutive year in which the U.S. fell a notch. Out of a perfect score of 100, America declined 1.5 points to 76.3. Denmark, No. 11, scored 76.2.

 

"As recently as 2008, the United States was ranked 7th, rated 81, and considered a ?free' economy," Heritage notes. "Today, it is ?mostly free' ? the runner-up category."

Let's put this as plainly as possible. If you believe in taking care of poor people, if you believe in charity, if you believe in upward social mobility (the possibility for poor to become rich), then you favor economic freedom. There is enough human history now to know that without question that more government control and regulation of an economy means less prosperity, less charity, and more widespread misery. Socialism is a failed economic system, and free markets - despite all the messiness that can accompany them - is the best hope for the poor to not remain poor.

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:07 pm   |  Permalink   |  1 Comment  |  Email
Wednesday, January 18 2012

Hear Peter's breaking interview with Micah Clark here.

 

Big news is breaking out of Indianapolis as the state has made some very provocative decisions regarding a new custom license plate to raise money for an anti-family homosexual advocacy group called "Indiana Youth Group" (I'm sure the similarity in name to what customarily refers to groups of church kids is purely coincidental). The scandal involves the seemingly different standard being applied to the pro-homosexuality group as opposed to other groups, like the pro-life groups that have specialty plates.

 

 

The Indianapolis Star, who by reputation will undoubtedly favor the move, reports the story here.

 

But Christian Newswire Services, quoting pro-family champions in Indiana like Micah Clark see the provocative nature of this development:

Homosexual activists are celebrating Indiana becoming the first state in the nation to approve a pro-homosexual specialty automotive license plate.

 

The license plate advertises and helps fund a homosexual, bi-sexual, transgender teen recruitment and support center called the Indy Youth Group. $25 of every plate sold goes to the Indy Youth Group.

The Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles approved the specialty plate after previously expressing concerns about the organization's statewide service. Last year, the ACLU of Indiana sued the BMV over the rejection, but they lost their lawsuit.

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:09 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, January 18 2012

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

 

I'm actually not surprised at all by the reaction that Newt Gingrich's Andrew Jackson line from the debate is getting. If you don't know what I'm talking about, Newt delivered one whale of a response following Ron Paul's staggering explanation of why it was illegal but not illegal for us to go after bin Laden. After everyone had been thoroughly confused by Paul's belief that bin Laden was analogous to a Chinese dissident seeking asylum in the United States, Newt stepped up to the tee and delivered a drive straight down the middle of the fairway.

 

Here was his response:

Bret Baier asked Newt Gingrich if he were president and he received actionable intelligence saying that Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar was in Pakistan, would he act upon it even if it caused an end to all U.S./Pakistani cooperation. Gingrich exclaimed, "Nobody believes that bin Laden was sitting in a compound in a military city, one mile from the National Defence University, and the Pakistanis didn't know it." He then invoked the memory of Andrew Jackson, who Gingrich said had a "pretty good idea about America's enemies, ?Kill them!'"

Now, this is being panned by a couple of different sources. First, the anti-Gingrich conservatives. Glenn Beck apparently took issue with this answer because Gingrich invoked the name of Andrew Jackson. Remember, Beck is on record as totally opposing the candidacy of Newt Gingrich, so I'm not surprised that he didn't want to applaud the former speaker for a direct and powerful, stand-ovation inducing line at the debate. And I agree with Beck that Andrew Jackson was not an admirable man. He was far from the model we should want in the White House. I don't even take issue with Beck putting Jackson in the same group with Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson and Lyndon Johnson. Jackson was an extra-constitutionalist. He was the guy who just ignored the other branches of government and sought to consolidate a great deal of power in the executive.

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:09 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, January 18 2012

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

 

What's this? Two stories of Democrats calling Republicans racists without any evidence on the same day? This never happens! I hope you're picking up on the sarcasm. This goes back to the common theme that I have mentioned a number of times. It is sad what the left has done to the accusation of racism - which is a real and vile attribute carried by a small portion of the population and which should carry a serious stigma with it. But too often, unable to defend their own ideology or beliefs, the left has retreated behind this racism canard and they've totally neutered the charge. It's pathetic. Here's the first story:

The liberal media have returned to assaulting the crowd reaction at Republican dates. Ken Tucker, a TV critic at Entertainment Weekly (a sister publication of Time magazine), suggested the "mob" was "heavy with malice." He thought Jon Huntsman would find relief "he didn't have to stand on-stage Monday night to face the most raucous, roused-rabble audience of any Republican debate held thus far."


Tucker strongly suggested the audience was racist in reaction to a Juan Williams hardball question to Newt Gingrich: "The jeers that erupted the second Williams uttered the phrase ?black Americans' was chilling on this Martin Luther King Day." But not only was there no outcry as Williams used the words "black Americans" early in the question, but the outburst of noise didn't really erupt until Gingrich said "No" to the Williams question.

 

Tucker claimed:

 

The audience showed a nasty streak in the booing Fox questioner Juan Williams for asking Gingrich, "You [have] said poor kids lack a strong work ethic and proposed having them work as janitors in their schools. Can't you see that this is viewed, at a minimum, as insulting to all Americans, but particularly to black Americans?"

It's pretty amazing given that the applause greatly out-amped the boos. And the boos actually rained down only after Williams kept going to the well and charging racism without actually saying it. But that doesn't stop Tucker from writing the story as he undoubtedly had already outlined it before the debate. What I mean is that there is no doubt in my mind that the moment it dawned on Ken Tucker that the debate was being held on MLK, Jr. day that he was going to make some reference to the Republicans alleged racism in his story. He just had to wait for the right opportunity. And when it didn't really present itself based on the answers Republicans gave, he just concocted it anyway.

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:08 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, January 18 2012

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

 

Did you hear the big news? I mean this is ground-shaking stuff. This could upend not just the presidential election in 2012, but could change and alter the course of Western Civilization forever: South Carolina Treasurer Curtis Loftis has endorsed Mitt Romney's 2012 presidential bid. News is still breaking on this and it is echoing in the halls of Europe, racing through the Chinese government, and is stunning even the most remote African villages.

 

Look, I'm not picking on Mr. Loftis. I don't know Mr. Loftis. It's just the most recent example of something that I think is the silliest thing we talk about in campaign season. This endorsement stuff is silly.

 

 

People have actually asked me if I've endorsed anybody. Seriously. Do you suppose there are folks out there who are hearing things they like about one guy but then I endorse another and they change their mind altogether? I can't imagine it.

 

Now, don't misunderstand, I think that the things I talk about and the perspective that I give to candidates or their positions might help people decide who they want to support - I hope that's the case. That's one of the reasons I do a radio program and write a political column. I hope that the perspective or views I express can inform folks to know more about the people in the race and where they stand on important issues. But for me to come out and say, "I hereby endorse so and so" surely doesn't convince someone that's what they should do blindly.

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:06 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, January 17 2012

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

 

I was reading something from the Daily Beast today that took a shot at Rick Perry. It was one of those veiled slaps couched as a compliment. It was something about how Perry is so terrible that we have lowered expectations for him to the point that if he drools and stutters, we're impressed. In other words, it was the typical attack on the intelligence of a conservative.

 

I always get a little indignant when I see this only because of who these same folks tout and champion. We've talked about that with Sarah Palin. Every time I hear these liberals attack Sarah Palin's intellect, I just run to the audio of Nancy Pelosi or Debbie Wasserman Schultz or Sheila Jackson Lee and say, "seriously?" You want to seriously talk intellect when these are your standard bearers? And the same is true of Harry Reid. If Harry Reid is your visionary and chosen leader, don't try mocking the intellect of Rick Perry. Perry has a firmer grasp on how to lead and create a job-friendly environment than Harry Reid could ever imagine.

 

 

And we saw the brilliance of Reid on display again this last weekend on Meet the Press. Reid was on there ostensibly to talk about the current Congressional climate, but instead spent most of his time blasting the Tea Party. No surprise there. But in the course of doing so, he fell into an intellectual contradiction that is plaguing the left right now - totally unable to make up their mind on how they want to approach their opposition. You know how we had the story the other day about how the left doesn't know how to attack Romney - is he a flip-flopping moderate who doesn't stand for anything or is he a rabid right-wing extremist governed by the tea party radicals? Well it's the same thing with the tea party in general. They don't know how to attack them. Are they ignorant, ineffective losers that no one is paying attention to and that Republicans would be wise to distance themselves from...or are they highly effective partisans who have surreptitiously overhauled the entire apparatus of the Republican Party and pushed them far to the right edge of the cliff?

 

Here was the way Harry started out, clearly feeling the pain of the average American:

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:09 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, January 17 2012

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

 

The Republican debate last night is getting reported as a raucous and wild event. And, no surprise here, the media is reporting that as a negative. Can I just say that if this were a Democrat debate and the crowd was hooting and hollering at the answers being given by the candidates - if they were booing what they saw as conservatively biased questions from the moderators and jeering those who gave answers that didn't espouse liberal ideology...like suggesting we need to see the wars through to completion - how do you think the media would have reported on it? How do you think MSNBC would cast such an evening?

 

 

You know exactly how it would be reported. They would say it was a clear sign of the energy and enthusiasm of the Democrat electorate. You would hear how there's never been this much excitement in the Democrat Party and how that energy - once it is channeled behind one candidate and turned against the Republican candidate - would turn into a political juggernaut. But, of course, this shoe is on the other foot and so the media reporting is nothing like this.

 

You are hearing stories about how the crowd was rabid, out of control, vitriolic, classless and wild. I call bull. They were fired up. They were pumped up. They were ready for the red meat that most of the candidates threw out to them. Republican voters are ready to see some candidates with some backbone and they were getting that last night from most of them.

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:08 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, January 17 2012

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

 

It was one of the most pathetic and yet hilarious comments you could ever imagine hearing from the Planned Parenthood activists. Just a few years ago, members of the Personhood USA movement had a debate in Durango, Colorado with college spokesmen for the giant abortion mill. In the course of the debate, the Planned Parenthood folks became increasingly annoyed by all the scientific data and all the scientific facts that were being brought up by the Personhood people. So much so that at one point, the lead debater for Planned Parenthood announced, "Science cannot be applied to my body."

 

 

Isn't it amazing how the left loves to talk about the sanctity of science when they are warping it to support their Darwinian crusade or the man-caused global warming malarkey? But the moment people start to recognize the flimsy nature of their science, they quickly downplay its significance? On no issue is that more evident than abortion. Scientifically, medically, ethically, the abortion cause has no justification. And in fact, some of the scientific claims made by the forces of child sacrifice on the left have now been proven downright embarrassing.

 

Here's one of the most recent:

A standard pro-abortion argument hinges on the premise that a baby inside his mom's womb attacks her bodily integrity. The developing baby is seen in this light as an intruder, a parasite, a threat to the woman's autonomy. From this perspective the pregnant woman is viewed as being occupied. The only way she can continue to exercise her interest in bodily integrity, the argument goes, is to be liberated through the termination and expulsion of the invader.

 

But science paints a vastly different picture about the actual relationship between a baby in utero and his or her mother, showing that, far from being a parasite, the unborn child can help heal his mother for the rest of her life, as beneficial cells from the child pass into the mother's body during pregnancy.

The article goes on to explain how all this was discovered. A team of researchers at Stanford back in 1979 noticed that a pregnant woman's blood contained Y chromosomes. Since women only have X chromosomes, the only logical explanation was that the Y chromosomes came from her infant son carried inside her. From that point, we have been learning some pretty amazing things about what happens between a mother and her child during pregnancy:

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:07 pm   |  Permalink   |  3 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, January 17 2012

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

 

With things getting a bit contentious in the Republican primary, I think it's probably a wise move to take a step back and remind ourselves what's going on in Barack Obama's America. Just to put all this Republican infighting into perspective and to remind Americans that whoever, whatever emerges from the Republican Party primary process is going to be a vast improvement of where we are right now.

 

Let's start here:

The Treasury Department has begun maneuvers to avoid hitting the debt ceiling, as the Obama administration waits for Congress to return from the holiday break before it can raise the federal borrowing limit.

 

The U.S. government was just a hair below the $15.194 trillion debt ceiling on Tuesday, $25 million shy of the limit Congress set last summer. President Barack Obama sent a letter to congressional leaders Thursday, saying the U.S. debt was within $100 million of the ceiling "and that further borrowing is required to meet existing commitments."

 

Raising the debt ceiling another $1.2 trillion is procedurally simple but politically it is much more complex.

If you are having a feeling of déjà vu, you're not imagining things. The great debt ceiling debate occurred just a few months ago - in August of 2011 - with Republicans reluctantly agreeing to give Obama nearly another $1 trillion to spend. He's already spent it. And so here we go again.

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:06 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Monday, January 16 2012

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

 

To say the moment was ripe for any earnest conservative who wanted to capture the Republican nomination for president would be an understatement. As Diane Sawyer sniffled out a question that makes even the most fanatical bleeding heart look cold, she dangled a long hanging fruit for any of the candidates to pluck with ease. To my great disappointment, none of them did.

 

 

After spending nearly a quarter of an hour at the recent Republican presidential debate discussing a hypothetical scenario where a state might want to ban contraception, Sawyer put on her trademark pained countenance and continuing the transparently obvious moderator pledge to direct all issues away from Barack Obama, challenged, "If I could come back to the living room question...what you would say sitting down in your living room to a gay couple who say...we want gay people to form loving, committed, long-term relationships. In human terms, what would you say to them?"

 

Anticipating the trap being laid for them, the Republican candidates gave carefully articulated responses that struck a balance between personal freedom and traditional morality.

 

But none of the candidates answered the question like they should have. I don't think I was alone in hoping that one of them would lean into the microphone and, after starting off by incredulously asking, "Are you kidding me?" unleash the following:

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:09 pm   |  Permalink   |  1 Comment  |  Email
Monday, January 16 2012

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

 

I think the attacks on Mitt Romney by the other Republican candidates, specifically Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich, are backfiring. And I don't just mean that they are hurting the two making them - though that's true. Check out Rudy Giuliani's now-famous response to the two on Fox & Friends a few mornings ago:

"I'm shocked at what they're doing," Giuliani said of Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry Thursday on "Fox and Friends." "It's ignorant and dumb. It's building something we should be fighting in America, ignorance of the economic system, playing on the dumbest, most ridiculous ideas about how you grow jobs."

 

Giuliani also said the attacks were "unfair and bad for the Republican Party."

 

...

 

Giuliani turned on Gingrich, whom he has in the past spoken highly of.

"What the h*** are you doing, Newt?" Giuliani asked. "What you're saying is part of the reason we're in so much trouble right now."

Keep in mind that Giuliani is no Romney apologist. The two squared off in some bitter exchanges in the 2008 primary and it hasn't been that long ago that Giuliani was questioning Romney's conservative credentials:

Giuliani has rarely stood up on behalf of Romney. Last month he questioned the former Massachusetts governor's commitment to the conservative cause, calling him "a man without a core," "a man without substance" and "a man that will say anything to become president of the United States."

And this is what I mean by backfiring. Rather than turning conservatives away from Romney, or making them skeptical or less loyal to Romney, these attacks are driving conservatives to defend Mitt. Shoot, they're even making Ron Paul defend Romney:

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:08 pm   |  Permalink   |  1 Comment  |  Email
Monday, January 16 2012

On Monday's radio program, Peter Heck welcomed local Tea Party organizer Kenlyn Watson into the studio to talk about the group's upcoming Tea Party Action training meeting that will be held Tuesday, January 17 from 7-8 pm at Victory Christian Academy.

 

 

Speakers at the session will be U.S. Senate candidate Richard Mourdock and Republican Gubernatorial candidate Jim Wallace. These meetings are designed to put average citizens up close and personal with those seeking the public trust to serve in positions of authority.

 

Hear Peter and Kenlyn's conversation about the event here.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:07 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Monday, January 16 2012

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

 

It's election year, so Barack Obama is back in church - took the whole family. Hey, once in four years is pretty good. But remember, he's just skipping church and playing golf for our benefit. That's what he said. He thinks his presence, or his family's presence, at church would be too great a distraction for the other church congregants, so he's just not going to go. Seriously, that's what he said. He's just going to play golf instead. The girls can figure out their own spirituality anyway...he's got 18 to play! But anyway, it's time to start keeping up appearances, so the Obamas were back in the pew this last week. But they weren't alone. Wait til you get a load of this story out of Atlanta.

 

 

Okay, so this one is pretty amazing. You know how the left is always talking about separation of church and state? They are constantly threatening churches that stand on the authority of God's word and apply the truth of His word to every area of life, including politics. They are constantly telling churches that sermons about political issues might cause them to lose their tax exempt status. It's the big club that they break out to beat churches into submission with. And it's totally a fraud, by the way - no truth to it.

 

The Alliance Defense Fund sponsors this thing called the Pulpit Initiative. I've had one of the lead ministers of this initiative on the program before - Dr. Ron Johnson. These ministers let the IRS know in advance, "Hey on such and such Sunday we are going to be doing political endorsements. Come and stop us." They've called the left's bluff and there's never been a church that's lost its tax exempt status as a result. And by the way, even if they did, think about what it says about a church if they are going to value the money they make off their tax exemption so much that they allow it to be used as leverage to silence them when it comes to the proclamation of truth. Probably not a church you really want to be a part of anyway.

 

But I digress. This same uber-left movement that constantly talks about isolating church and state...check out what just happened in Atlanta over the weekend:

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:06 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Sunday, January 15 2012

A recent celebrity cipher in the paper features LL Cool J saying:

I try to do the right thing with money ...clip some coupons ...buy four summer homes instead of eight.

OK, I have no clue the context. More than likely his shot at some humor.

 

 

What is clear, though, is that he is effectively saying, "I have money and you don't. You little people might have to struggle along and barely make it, but I've got mine and can still kick back even if I have to cut back."

 

Isn't this the kind of arrogance and opulence the hypoccupiers have gotten all worked up about? Yet if LL Cool J (estimated net worth of $80 million) showed up at one of the hypoccupier pep rallies and did his rap thing, they would go bananas over him. He would be a "brother." To which I say, "Oh, brother."

 

In some respects, I would like to take occupiers seriously. But they have demonstrated that they have no intent to protest against the mind-boggling wealth held by their liberal idols. All they want to do is to replace Wall Street greed with liberal greed.

 

Hypoccupiers.

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 08:07 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Sunday, January 15 2012

What little sense any of us could glean from the "Occupy Wall Street" movement was that the occupiers hate the wealthy. Well, not all the wealthy. They don't seem to mind Oprah Winfrey or George Soros or Michael Moore or rich Democrats or Big Entertainment moguls or most any lefty celebrity. So, it's wealthy bankers of the Wall Street variety. Well, they don't seem to like dock workers, either, since one group decided to interfere with life at the Port Authority in Oakland.

 

But, hey, they really don't like the wealthy. Right? And all the talk about the wealthy being the ones who create jobs is all myth. Right? Well, ask Tracy Postert, an occupier who landed a Wall Street job.

 

 

Now that we know what the hypoccupiers want (which becomes even less evident when one reads the comments made on articles like that above), here is something for the movement to occupy:

The NFL plans to transform part of Union Station in downtown Indianapolis into a ski lodge-themed hospitality area for VIPs during February's Super Bowl.

 

The so-called NFL House will cater to corporate sponsors, team owners and former players and coaches from Feb. 2 through the Feb. 5 game two blocks away at Lucas Oil Stadium.

 

The design for Union Station's Grand Hall includes a massive fireplace, 22 large flat-screen televisions, two large dining areas, a game room and meeting areas, the Indianapolis Business Journal reports. The league plans for the site to accommodate 800 people a day while open until 3 a.m. and feature talks by players and coaches, music from celebrity DJs, live bands and celebrity chef appearances.

 

The NFL hasn't had such a facility at previous Super Bowls but plans to construct them at the next two Super Bowls, said Mary Pat Augenthaler, the league's vice president of events.

 

"I think it will be a place to go to unwind and maybe get away from the busy-ness of Super Bowl weekend," Augenthaler told The Indianapolis Star.

Wow! Talk about arrogant opulence. Corporate sponsors. Team owners. Former players and coaches. Sounds exclusive. Sounds like the wealthy to me. Ya know... the one percenters.

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 07:40 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Sunday, January 15 2012

AFA of Indiana is hosting a half-day grassroots training workshop that you may find of interest in learning how to be part of a political or issue based campaign.

This is great training for activists, campaign volunteers, home school students, TEA Party activists or those interested in how the political process works. This is a non-partisan educational event. Mark your calendars for Saturday, January 21st in Westfield at The Journey Church at 17716 Eagletown Road at 8:30 am. Attendance cost (for handouts and seminar materials) is $20.

Posted by: Micah Clark AT 07:31 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Sunday, January 15 2012

Some of you know that my wife and I have chosen to home school our children even though I am the son of a public school teacher. This doesn't mean that we are totally detached from public education. Recently, while at an Upward basketball game for my daughter at a local school, I was reminded of the somewhat ironic value public schools still place on mottos and sayings. Although we no longer post things like honor your mother and father, don't steal or murder, as part of the 10 Commandments, many schools still have banners of values and reminders that children should respect and be kind to others. (A vacuum is always filled by something. There really is no such thing as moral neutrality.)

Given this importance in schools, it will be interesting to see the reaction education leaders may have to Senator Jim Tomes Senate Bill 251 which allows a school corporation to allow children to voluntarily recite the "Lord's Prayer" at the beginning of a school day without fear of retribution.

Posted by: Micah Clark AT 07:08 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Sunday, January 15 2012

Indiana currently has a law in place that directs public schools to adopt a policy to address any problems with the bullying of students. For this reason, Representative Greg Porter's "Antibullying Bill" caught us a little off guard. His bill, HB 1259, directs the Department of Education to assist schools with their bullying policies. Although there is much more to this bill, we do commend Rep. Porter for not creating special classifications of protected children. No child should be harmed or mistreated by virtue of his human worth. To the limited extent possible that schools can prevent this from occurring in this morally deficient era in which we live, they should.

That being said, the harsh reality is that there is hardly a more liberal member of the Indiana House, nor one who has carried more water for the homosexual demands groups over the years than Rep. Porter. Those entities have been shown to want to use this issue to promote homosexuals as a special class of victims needing blanket acceptance and approval of their sexual behaviors. (We have audio of this subject on our web site.) For this reason we are somewhat leery of what may become of this legislation should it begin to move through the process. In fact, just this week in West Virginia a similar benign bill had these classifications added in last minute amendments pushed by homosexual activists. (http://www.onenewsnow.com/Education/Default.aspx?id=1511298 )

Posted by: Micah Clark AT 06:54 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Saturday, January 14 2012

This week's lib-quote is taken from an article by Paula Moore in which she encourages the owners of cats to keep their pets indoors. Ms. Moore is a senior writer for PETA. Although I have no beef with her primary topic, I think that she uses a lot of anecdotal evidence and inadequate sampling.

Nevertheless, I was not thinking much of it until I landed on this part:

Other animals are also at risk when cats are allowed outdoors. According to the American Bird Conservancy, cats kill hundreds of millions of birds every year and more than a billion squirrels, rabbits and other small mammals. A study last year in The Journal of Ornithology found that cats are the No. 1 killer of fledgling gray catbirds.

 

Duh! It's no mystery that cats are animals that prey on other animals. That's part of the natural food chain. Even evolutionists know this.

 

What makes this a lib-quote of the week is that PETA people not only seek to stick their nose into the business of ordinary human beings, they seek to somehow subvert the natural order of the animal kingdom as well. A cat being a cat is, for some reason, an atrocity. And it took the cited studies that no doubt wasted our taxpayer dollars to figure this out?

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 12:08 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Saturday, January 14 2012

It is amazing to me how the media is treating this weekend's matchup between Tom Brady and Tim Tebow. There are polls asking the question, "Does God help Tebow win?" Even though this may seem like a trivial matter to many of you, that is a great question and really gets at the heart of the divide in America.

 

 

Whether the left likes to admit it or not, this nation was founded by people who relied upon God when America won her independence. Furthermore, they understood this nation's foundations should be based on Christian principles. This absolutely infuriates many on the left.

 

Now, I don't really think God cares one bit what team wins any sporting event at any level around the world. However, I believe God is concerned with the character of every participant throughout His world. And while there are many in this nation that believes like I do concerning this matter, our number and impact is unfortunately waning.

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Matthew W. Turner AT 10:02 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Saturday, January 14 2012

There are at least two bills filed this session that are a reaction to the 20% rise in chemical abortions in Indiana, according to the most recent pregnancy termination reports from the Indiana Department of Health.

Representative Susan Ellsperman's House Bill 1214 specifies that only a physician who meets certain conditions may administer an abortion inducing drug and sets forth the procedure the physician must follow. It also requires a physician who learns of an adverse reaction following the use of an abortion inducing drug to report it to the Food and Drug Administration and the medical licensing board. Senator Greg Walker has a similar bill in the Senate as SB 282.

Posted by: Micah Clark AT 08:06 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Saturday, January 14 2012

You have probably heard that after returning on Monday, Indiana House Democrats were a no show on Tuesday afternoon in protest of passage of a Right to Work bill out of the House Labor Committee. The Democrats wanted more time for debate. The chairman decided that several hours of testimony for both sides were enough. The fact that much of the public testimony came during a joint House and Senate Committee hearing was not a concern of the committee chairman. He pointed out that the Senate Committee had already passed the bill, and it was time for the House to do the same. They did, and the Democrats walked.

Democrats threw a fit because the committee chairman decided not to hear more amendments, particularly those from Democrats. This may not be the most gracious decision, but it is hardly unusual nor a violation of the Constitution or House rules as some claim. A chairman can be so "fair" that nothing happens. This was done to move the process forward. Amendments can still be offered on the House floor if the House has a quorum of at least 67 members present.

In other matters, our national office sent out an alert on Senate Bill 183, which is now co-authored by Senators Schneider and Walker, along with authors, Senators Banks and Kruse. This bill sets some statewide basic regulations for sex businesses. They have been upheld in state and federal courts, including the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals that covers Indiana. The purpose of the bill is to limit the harmful secondary effects of such businesses. This is particularly true of crime, though lower property values and urban blight have also been longstanding problems associated with sexually oriented businesses.

KEEP READING

Posted by: Micah Clark AT 06:03 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, January 13 2012

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

 

Lifeway Research company has released some interesting findings regarding the beliefs of Protestant ministers in the United States when it comes to Creation and the foundations of the Biblical faith.

 

Here's the story:

Pastors overwhelmingly believe that God did not use evolution to create humans and think Adam and Eve were literal people, according to a recent survey by LifeWay Research.

 

The survey of 1,000 American Protestant pastors also found that ministers are almost evenly split on whether the earth is thousands of years old.

 

 

When asked to respond to the statement, "I believe God used evolution to create people," 73 percent of pastors disagree, with 64 percent strongly disagreeing and 8 percent somewhat disagreeing. Twelve percent each somewhat agree and strongly agree. Four percent are not sure.

 

In response to the statement, "I believe Adam and Eve were literal people," 74 percent strongly agree and 8 percent somewhat agree. Six percent somewhat disagree, 11 percent strongly disagree and 1 percent are not sure.

 

"Recently discussions have pointed to doubts about a literal Adam and Eve, the age of the earth and other origin issues," said Ed Stetzer, president of LifeWay Research. "But Protestant pastors are overwhelmingly Creationists and believe in a literal Adam and Eve."

I have to say that I find these results and the corresponding response to the results very interesting. I understand that there is a great deal of skepticism about the direction of the country, and the failure of the American church to stand for truth. It's one of the things that we talk about on the radio show quite a bit, obviously. And it's one of the central themes of my book, 78: How Christians Can Save America.

 

But I have to tell you that I'm surprised how this is being reported as good news. I'm serious. I'm not trying to be a Debbie Downer. I'm not trying to be a grouch or a stick in the mud, but think about what we're celebrating. We're celebrating that 73% of ministers - not believers, not all Christians, but ministers - believe the Biblical account of Creation is true, and that 74% of them believe that Adam and Eve were real.

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:09 pm   |  Permalink   |  1 Comment  |  Email
Friday, January 13 2012

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

 

I've been pretty surprised, if I can be honest, by the reaction of Senator Jim DeMint in this election. Remember, DeMint was a favorite of mine and a lot of other conservatives as a potential candidate for the presidency this time around. Put him in the category of Mike Pence as a guy who can unite the social, fiscal and defense conservatives. He's a guy that wields a fair amount of influence within the conservative wing of the party and I know a lot of folks were disappointed when he decided not to get into the race for the White House.

 

 

Keep in mind also that DeMint endorsed Romney back in 2008. Of course, that was a year where Romney was seen by many as - and he was intentionally running and presenting himself as - the conservative of the race. This time around, Romney has been in a different position. He's been the one running as conservative but also a consensus nominee, while his opposition has been heavily weighted to his right. I think all of those things considered amount to why DeMint has not made a follow-up, repeat endorsement of Romney this time around.

 

But that's not what has surprised me about DeMint. I'm actually glad he hasn't come out and endorsed Romney. What's surprised me is that if anything, DeMint's public comments have been more flattering towards Ron Paul than anybody. Now again, I don't bear any ill will towards Paul. But as I've said many times here of late, he's really disappointed me in his undisciplined approach to attacking his opponents. Rip 'em on the Constitution, Ron. Rip 'em on their big spending policies. But to call names, lift liberal talking points, smear them as haters of people without evidence...it's classless and is a big turn-off.

 

I'm surprised DeMint hasn't picked up on that and pointed that out too. But he hasn't. Instead he's leaned into the realm of endorsing the libertarian Paul:

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:08 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, January 13 2012

Jill Stanek is one of the leading pro-life voices in America today. A former nurse who witnessed numerous heinous abortions, Stanek was appalled when she watched children who survived abortions being left for dead and/or actively murdered in hospital "comfort rooms." She was the major force behind the Born Alive Infant Protection Act (BAIPA). That's the piece of common sense legislation that only those whose heart is governed by unspeakable evil would oppose. Barack Obama opposed it.

 

 

Stanek is a well-known blogger and speaker, and on Friday, joined Peter on the air to talk about issues of life, and her on-going struggle to expose the evil of the entire abortion industry, including Planned Parenthood. One of Stanek's recent posts reveals some interesting and startling information about the six-figure salaries of those in the taxpayer subsidized, supposedly non-profit abortion giant.

 

Hear the fascinating and alarming conversation here.

Posted by: Anna Anderson AT 05:07 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, January 13 2012

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

 

After my comments the day following the New Hampshire primary, I actually received this email from a Jon Huntsman supporting listener:

How dare you suggest that Huntsman's campaign is virtually over. ("How dare" I? Really?!) Jon's finish defied all odds and shows that there are a great number of Republicans who are not content with your right-wing garbage. We are looking for a more moderate option - one who knows how to work with Democrats to get things done for this country. Jon is in a strong position as he heads into South Carolina. You'll see when you see how silly you look when he ends up performing well in these coming primaries. You may want him to be out of the race, but boy won't you be surprised.

 

Okay, first of all, this note is from a Democrat, I feel certain. I feel certain for a number of reasons, actually. Some I won't go into, but this I will: no rational Republican who looks at what the Democrats have done to this country these last few years, and who see what the Democrats want to do to this country going forward are in any way interested in "working with Democrats." They are interested in defeating Democrats.

 

The ones saying "let's work with Democrats" are Democrats who are posing as Republicans to try to influence the party's direction. It's not going to work, but they're trying it anyway.

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:06 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, January 12 2012

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

 

One of the things I've talked about before on the radio program is the attempt by liberals to redefine the political spectrum in the country. They label far left views as mainstream liberal, they paint liberal as moderate, moderate as mainstream conservatism, and mainstream conservative as far right nuttiness. By moving the center to the left, it skews what is viewed as "mainstream." And that's exactly the purpose - carried out from the left-wing college professoriate to the left-wing media establishment.

 

 

This also fits in with what I just recently talked about with regard to social conservative views that the media tries to paint as lunatic fringe thinking. I've asked before and I'll ask again, what is more radical: to believe that every human being has an unalienable right to life (ala the Declaration of Independence) or that you, or anyone, has the right to kill your offspring if you want to?

 

Yet the media paints a staunch pro-Declaration of Independence view as "extreme" while they describe those who believe in a right to kill human beings they see as inconvenient as "mainstream." Hogwash. I don't believe for a second that's what the majority of Americans believe. Not even close. In private, if you ask Americans what they really think about the killing of children in the womb, you would be blown away by what the numbers really would be. But perception is huge. And the left-wing propaganda works in this area just like it did when they started redefining what was "normal sexuality" in the 1950s and 60s where the left used the child-molesting pervert Alfred Kinsey's fraudulent research to redefine sexual norms.

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:09 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, January 12 2012

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

 

It was a foregone conclusion that the success of Christian poster-boy Tim Tebow on the football field was going to drive the atheist left bonkers. And so it has. As a result, we get to be treated to the warmed over mush of juvenile logic that these leading atheists boast as "reason." Oh, with an extra helping of hate thrown in on the side. Check out what the great organization American Atheists have to say about him and his public expression of faith:

American Atheists - a New Jersey based group that promotes the separation of church and state - tells CBSDenver.com that the only reason Tebow is popular is because he constantly injects his Christianity among the public.

 

 

"When we watch a sporting event, we are all united for our team," says David Silverman, president of American Atheists. "Tebow takes religion and injects it into the mix and divides the fan base."

 

Silverman states that Tebow's repeated references to God into his post-game comments after a win is "bad for football.

Ah yes, Dave...football is much better served by those who traffic in drugs, guns and promiscuity. This faithful Christianity stuff is going to wreck the game's image! This is what I mean about the ignorance of these folks. But David was just getting warmed up:

Silverman believes that Tebow is "full of crap" when he publically displays his Christianity on the football field and said his prayers are for publicity.

 

"It's not that Tebow prays, it's that he waits for the cameras to be on him to do it," Silverman says. "He's totally faking."

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:08 pm   |  Permalink   |  1 Comment  |  Email
Thursday, January 12 2012

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

 

There are a lot of conservative commentators and observers that I know who are saying Mitt's victory streak will end in South Carolina. They may be right, but I'm not so sure. The truth is that it could be, and whether or not it is may be out of Mitt's hands for the most part. Romney himself has acknowledged an "uphill climb" in South Carolina, and the conventional wisdom is true, the other three more conservative options - Perry, Santorum and Gingrich - all have their best opportunity to dethrone the Mitt coronation express there.

 

 

And they may. Splitting the conservative vote amongst them helps Romney, certainly, but there's a strong enough conservative base that Romney could be in trouble down there. But that is all contingent on Perry, Santorum and Newt actually sounding like conservatives. That's something that they have chosen not to do recently, and I think it is hurting them.

 

In fact, check out this report to see why the way they are attacking Romney is actually putting him in a position to endear himself to the very conservative voters the Ricks and Newt are trying to woo:

In a Wednesday morning interview with NBC's "Today Show," Romney pointed out that in New Hampshire, "the people who call themselves conservative or very conservative supported me by a pretty solid majority."

Asked about attacks on his business experience by his Republican rivals, Romney said he expected such attacks from President Obama. "But we didn't expect that Newt Gintrich and Rick Perry would become the witnesses for his prosecution, if you will. And I don't think it's helped them. And for them to attacking free enterprise and to suggest that people should have a limit to how much they can make and in their success, is something which the Democrats have talked about for years."

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:07 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, January 12 2012

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

 

Check out this story from the Associated Press:

FRESNO, California (AP) -- Authorities in California are looking into animal rights activists' claims that they caused the fire that destroyed 14 big-rig tractors and several trailers at the state's biggest beef processor.

 

Activists claimed responsibility for the fire at Harris Farms in an email released by the North American Animal Liberation Press Office. The email includes a detailed description of the containers of accelerant and kerosene-soaked rope activists claim they used to set the blaze.

 

Fresno County sheriff's spokesman Chris Curtice said Tuesday that investigators are looking into the claim, among several other leads.

 

Investigators say the arson fire started around 4 a.m. Sunday at Harris Farms' Coalinga property.

Put this right alongside all the eco-terrorists like those featured and championed on Whale Wars and you've got yourself what would sure seem like something the government might want to look into. But no, the Department of Homeland Security is too busy looking into returning American veterans who are pro-life and send their kids to church camp.

 

Isn't it amazing that Tea Partiers and pro-lifers are labeled as "militants" and "radicals" but here in the AP story reporting on a group of radical militant leftists destroying private property, doing untold economic damage, and threatening lives, the term the media gives these folks is, "activists." It's incredible, really.

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:06 pm   |  Permalink   |  3 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, January 11 2012

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

 

No real surprises came out of New Hampshire last night. Obviously the Romney folks are touting the unprecedented victory for Romney in both Iowa and New Hampshire - as well they should. It is a campaign that's about momentum, after all. But nobody was surprised to see a Romney victory there. That doesn't mean that there weren't great signs for Mitt and company.

 

 

First, Romney dominated. When you factor in that the second place vote-getter was Ron Paul, the distance between Romney and the electable portion of the Republican field (the candidates drawing from the conservative or establishment base, that is...Ron Paul is pulling in libertarian, independent and Democrat voters in large part) is a wide chasm there. Romney has been hampered by this notion that he can't poll better than 25% of Republicans. That certainly wasn't a problem in New Hampshire despite a crowded field.

 

Second, it's clear that Huntsman is not going to provide Mitt fits when it comes to the blue-blood establishment. Huntsman's relatively poor showing (and third place isn't bad when you compare it to where he is virtually everywhere else, but keep in mind Huntsman put everything into New Hampshire and had said if he didn't win it, he was leaving the race) means he will run to Florida in the hopes of keeping this thing alive. But it's not.

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:09 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, January 11 2012

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

 

The best part of the media coverage of the New Hampshire primary last night had to be what happened on MSNBC, of course. Did you really think it would be anywhere else?

 

In their post results assessment, Chris Matthews had an instant classic in going after one of his very own network's Republican strategists for being a "Romney surrogate." Here was what happened if you missed it:

 

As the primary coverage ensued, Matthews asked former John McCain campaign manager Steve Schmidt - present on the panel as the lone conservative - why Romney hasn't released his tax records.

Schmidt responded, "Well, you should ask the campaign why he won't."

 

Matthews shot back, "I'm asking its surrogate, you."

 

"Chris, I'm not a Romney surrogate," replied Schmidt.

 

Maddow quickly came to his defense saying, "He's no surrogate."

 

But Matthews was undeterred claiming, "Oh, come on. You like him. You want him to be president. Come on."

Okay, first of all, you know you've jumped the shark when Rachel Maddow won't even back you up given her sterling record of devotion to accuracy. But more than that, is there anything more outrageous than to hear Chris Matthews call out some other analyst for being a "surrogate" for a candidate? Hilarious.

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:08 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, January 11 2012

Indiana's current battle over Right to Work legislation is gaining national attention, but it's the local attention that is most notable. Two of the major newspapers local to the flagship station of the Peter Heck Radio Show have certainly done little to hide their opposition to the idea of allowing workers the freedom to choose whether they want to pay union dues or not.

 

 

A group that favors the idea of Right to Work is the Indiana Chamber of Commerce, who believes that such a move would make Indiana much more attractive to businesses, thus bringing more jobs to the state. On Wednesday's radio show, Peter Heck talked with Kevin Brinegar, the President and CEO of Indiana's Chamber of Commerce.

 

The two talked about the benefits of Right to Work, the myths that are perpetuated by union leadership against it (for instance, no one ever seems to point out that Indiana teachers are already "right to work" and yet their union remains the most powerful in the state), and what communities in central Indiana can expect if the legislation passes.

 

To hear the full interview, click here.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:07 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, January 11 2012

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

 

I guess when the comedic juices just aren't flowing anymore, you have to resort to some pretty extreme lengths to try to get a laugh over at Comedy Central. For proof of this, check out what passed as humor last week on the fake conservative, Bill O'Reilly parody known as The Colbert Report (incidentally, that is quite a feather in the cap of Mr. O'Reilly if you think about it - not only does he have the most watched political commentary on cable TV, but its popularity also props up a parody of itself on an entirely separate network):

 

On Thursday's The Colbert Report on Comedy Central, citing a recent article by conservative columnist George Will in which he asserted that Republicans "crave fun" in their presidential campaigns, host Stephen Colbert found amusement in GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum's concerns about partial-birth abortion as the Comedy Central host joked about playing a drinking game based on the former Senator's attention to the egregious abortion procedure.

After reading from Will's article, Colbert declared:

 

And, folks, you want fun? Santorum is the life of the party. Heck, he's the pro-life of the party. There's this great drinking game where you take a shot every time he says the words "partial-birth abortion."

 

Then came a montage of clips of the former Pennsylvania Senator talking about partial-birth abortion, inspiring some audience members to laugh.

Partial birth abortion now becomes a topic of humor at Comedy Central. You do realize what partial-birth abortion is, don't you? I know that the same people who tell us how legitimate of a medical procedure the heinous act is simultaneously prevent anyone from seeing or hearing the details of the act; I know that these people who believe it to be a legitimate procedure have written laws to enact bans against any public display of the gruesomeness of what is done. But we do know what it is, right?

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:06 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, January 10 2012

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

 

Newt Gingrich certainly had the line of the night during the Republican debate last Saturday evening. After the 15 minutes the liberal anchors spent asking hypothetical questions about a state crusade to ban birth control - what an embarrassment that little charade was...and hats off to Mitt Romney for his incredulous response to the Stephanopoulos line of questioning - which no state is interested in doing, the ABC Democrats decided to ask about conservative bigotry against gays.

 

 

The way Diane Sawyer schmoozed the question was enough to make any sane American vomit, but the gist of it was this: how can you conservatives show such bigotry towards those practicing homosexuals who want to create loving relationships together?

 

After the question was answered (something it didn't deserve) by a few of the candidates, including Newt Gingrich, the former Speaker interjected to have another go at it. In the process, he said what has needed to be said for a decade to this liberal meme:

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:09 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, January 10 2012

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

 

I'll tell you that I was half incredulous, half disgusted with an exchange that featured Representative Ron Paul at the recent Republican debate. Let me remind you that I think Paul has been totally out of bounds for the last several weeks. And I don't know whether he's the one pulling the trigger on some of these low blow swipes he's been taking or not, but he has to be the one criticized for it. Unlike the racist newsletter flap where he can say, "I'm not responsible, the buck stops somewhere else," this is his responsibility.

 

 

As I watch some of these tacky and mud-slinging ads that his campaign is running, I've been tempted to think, "Maybe this college-kid crowd that Paul has at the heart of his campaign that are designing this stuff." I've thought that perhaps Paul has become a puppet at the mercy of some libertarian radicals running his show. The cheap shots, the tacky name-calling, the mocking of the Huntsman campaign.it all smacks of immature college kids that have sadly come to characterize the Paul movement.

 

But as much as I'm tempted to say maybe Paul is at the mercy of the people he has surrounded himself with, I can't ignore the reality that far from distancing himself from that tacky, name-calling strategy, Ron Paul embraces that kind of classless behavior. Remember it was Paul who - to puff himself up - went on with Jay Leno and acted like a liberal as he accused Santorum of hating gays, and Bachmann of hating Muslims without any evidence. And as I watched the Republican debate from New Hampshire last Saturday night, you saw it again when Paul was asked if he would back away from his name-calling ad that refers to Newt Gingrich as a "chickenhawk."

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:08 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, January 10 2012

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

 

I see a lot of assessments from political analysts on the left and right that last Saturday's was the worst Republican debate yet. And I see that from conservatives - undoubtedly because the Republicans skewered each other pretty severely at times. But I disagree with those assessments. Skewering aside, I think this was the most effective debate yet for one major reason.

 

 

Wasn't it just last week that I asked the question, "What happens when you have a revolving door between Democrat Party administrations and supposedly objective media positions?" Well, in case there was any question about the answer to that question, you just saw it in the debate over the weekend.

 

I thought the Republican candidates did a nice job of pointing out the debating being done by the supposed moderators when it occurred - which it did frequently. All in all the person I feel most sorry for is a guy by the name of John McElveen. That's the poor schmoe from local New Hampshire TV that got drug onto the stage to sit aside Diane Sawyer and George Stephanopoulos and pose as a moderator of the debate. Not that McElveen didn't do his best to please his liberal masters. He had a few doozies himself. But I chalk that up to trying to fit in...and at that Democrat moderator table, it was pretty clear what the game plan was all night: steer as many questions away from issues where Obama has failed as possible.

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:07 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, January 10 2012

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

 

1,289. That's the number of network news stories done on now-President Barack Obama during the 2008 campaign cycle. Of that number, Media Research Center head Brent Bozell pointed out on Hannity the other night, only 6 stories brought up the President's opposition to the Born Alive Infant Protection Act - the piece of legislation that required life saving treatment to babies who survived abortion attempts.

 

 

Bozell's point was made in a larger conversation about the way former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum is being portrayed by the press:

When Democrats have primary presidential contests, we never hear about "extreme-left, in-your-face liberals," playing to the left-wing base of their party, yet when it comes to this year Republican primary contest, the media are quick to slather the extreme-right label on candidates like Rick Santorum, NewsBusters publisher Brent Bozell noted on the January 6 edition of Fox News Channel's Hannity.

"ABC believes that if you support the traditional family as Rick Santorum does, that makes you in-your-face. CNN believes that it makes you extreme," Bozell complained, arguing that President Obama has the "most radical pro-abortion record in the history of the presidency of the United States" but was never called on it as a liability when facing the American electorate.

Last week I commented briefly about the obsession with "gay" questions being posed to Rick Santorum. The man can barely go through 2 media questions without some intrepid little liberal media type trying a gotcha moment with Santorum on his staunch positions on traditional morality. It actually reveals the unbridled bigotry of the left towards those with traditional Christian beliefs. But that doesn't make it any less annoying.

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:06 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, January 10 2012

Five things to watch for during the New Hampshire Primary returns:

  1. Not who wins but how much? Romney should handily win New Hampshire but after peaking in the 40's, his polling averages have dropped slightly. It shouldn't be enough for him to drop to second, but falling below 35% would be a disappointing return because it could cost him a delegate.
  2. Where does Huntsman land? To use a poker term, Huntsman is all in. He's been gaining some steam in New Hampshire in the past few weeks, but by gaining steam I mean breaking double digits. He could legitimately surprise and finish as high as second. He's been polling behind Ron Paul but could pass him up on poll day. Should this happen, he could prove a Romney spoiler in Florida. This wouldn't be a bad thing at all for the conservative alternatives.
  3. Will Ron Paul break 20%? This is Ron Paul's final moment in the sun before fading into irrelevance in the race. If he breaks 20%, then it will only fuel third party talk.

KEEP READING

Posted by: Joel Harris AT 01:14 pm   |  Permalink   |  1 Comment  |  Email
Monday, January 09 2012

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

 

High school kids can surprise you with their intelligence, their insight and their determination. Sometimes. Other times, they act like we often expect high school kids to act: heavy on the emotionalism and passion, light on the logic and sound reasoning. It's why it's kind of an historic axiom that younger people tend to be more liberal and why liberalism flourishes on college campuses. Idealism of youth, while admirable, doesn't translate consistently into realism.

 

Presidential candidate Rick Santorum should know that, but if he didn't, he learned it all over again at a New Hampshire townhall full of college and high school aged kids who were full of nearly as much crap as they were of themselves.

 

 

For an added dose of humor, check out the way NPR reported on the exchange between Santorum and the prima donnas:

If you predicted that Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum would tone down his made-for-Iowa religious-based message when he hit the ground in much-more secular New Hampshire, his appearance in Concord, N.H., on Thursday provided ample evidence that he plans no such thing.

 

Santorum, who finished a close second in Tuesday's Iowa caucuses, had a spirited back-and-forth with 17-year-old Rhiannon Pyle, a senior from Newburyport High School in Massachusetts. He responded aggressively when she asked Santorum about his opposition to same-sex marriage; the college-aged crowed cheered the question.

 

Pyle: "How about the right that all men are created equal?"

 

Here's Santorum, who in the past has been accused of comparing same-sex marriage with bestiality:

 

"So, anyone can marry anybody else? So, anybody can marry several people?"

And so it went.

First, let's start with NPR. Don't you love how they throw in the taxpayer-financed, clearly objective and not biased comment about Santorum, "who in the past has been accused of comparing same-sex marriage with bestiality" line? Sure, NPR, he's "been accused" of such...by radical homosexual activists. Tell me, how many NPR stories report on, "Barack Obama, who in the past has been linked to domestic terrorists, socialists and communists?" Because that's true. Why does NPR not do that? Hmmm. Odd, isn't it?

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:09 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Monday, January 09 2012

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

 

One of the questions I've been grappling with as I listen to some of my more anti-Mitt Romney conservative friends (a general reminder: Mitt is one of my least desired candidates of the current crop) is that "the establishment" has chosen him. While I agree that the more entrenched, blue-blood Republican types see a northeastern Republican who is not a social conservative crusader much more palatable, I have admittedly struggled with the idea that conservatives have rejected the guy only to be overruled by the establishment.

 

 

I think this perception is leading to the false belief that the Tea Party - for all its successes - have failed in their mission to take over the Republican Party and chart a new direction for the Party. All that remains to be seen. Let's take a look at whether the fiscal hawks that the Tea Party elevated to Congressional leadership in 2010 gain influence or lose it in 2012. Let's see if the next president moves in the direction of budget cuts or more spending. Then we'll talk about the lasting success or failure of the Tea Party.

 

But one of the curious things about the argument that Romney is 100% establishment and is being forced upon kicking and screaming conservatives was expressed in a pretty interesting column written by Mona Charen. She argues:

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:09 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Monday, January 09 2012

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

 

We talked last week about how 60 Minutes did a pathetic piece on Eric Cantor right around New Years portraying him as the face of opposition, contrarian politics and obstruction. Couching their accusations in the language of "some say," "the White House believes," or "others regard," the Obama sycophants at the CBS Newsmagazine were up to their usual tricks: if Republicans disagree with Obama, they are "refusing to compromise," and the source of the problem.

 

Of course, one must ask the question, is Mr. Obama - the guy who taunted Republicans after his election and then later told them they could sit in the back of the bus - really doing much on his end to compromise? The answer should be pretty self-evident. But it's not reported that way.

 

 

All Mr. Obama or his surrogates have to do is say that they are trying to work with Republicans, and their actual actions don't matter. The media reports it as truth. A perfect example of this double standard was just revealed by CNSNews:

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:07 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Monday, January 09 2012

If the Democrats decide to show up for work, the short session of the Indiana legislature will be underway soon. And while much attention will naturally be paid to the Republicans top priority - Right to Work legislation - there are a number of pro-family bills that they will be attempting to guide through into law.

 

 

On Monday's program, Peter hosted the Executive Director of the American Family Association of Indiana, Micah Clark, to discuss a number of these bills.

 

Peter and Micah also talked through the state of the Republican presidential contest and the increasingly toxic environment that persists for families here in the United States.

 

Listen to the full conversation here.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:07 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Sunday, January 08 2012

Soldiers in the US Military are taught from day one to take orders and follow them without discussion. So, it should be no surprise that the implementation of open homosexuality in the armed forces on September 20, 2011 has occurred fairly quietly (though President George Washington, must be screaming from his grave, given what he said and did in regard to this issue as Commander of the Continental Army.)

Even so, an article in the Washington Times indicates there may be problems ahead. Both supporters and critics of the new policy were interviewed in the article, which found that the change had some mixed results. The Times mention of a Military Times survey however, was the most noteworthy takeaway.

That survey looked at active-duty respondents who indicated that following the repeal of the ban on homosexuality in the military someone in their unit "came out" as homosexual. The survey found that such an occurrence, (which is being encouraged by homosexual demands groups,) has occurred around 31% of the survey's respondents. Of those, 84% of active-duty personnel reported increased tension or some sort of problem surrounding the public revelation by a homosexual soldier in their unit.

KEEP READING

Posted by: Micah Clark AT 07:01 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Saturday, January 07 2012

Television producer Norman Lear has been trashing American core values for decades. Sparked by the occupy movement, he has no intention of continuing this grand tradition of elevating vulgarity and mocking goodness.

One of the most encouraging things to happen in 2011 was the birth of the Occupy Wall Street movement, which is giving the entire country the chance for a "born again American" moment. In calling attention to the country's widening chasm between rich and poor, the Occupiers have unleashed decades of pent-up patriotic outrage against the systematic violation of our nation's core principles by the "say good-bye to the middle class" alliance of the neocons, theocons and corporate America.

 

Ahh, yes. The liberals' beloved movement. Once again, of course, the hypocrisy of support from another "one-percenter" like Mr. Lear is lost on the rank and file hypoccupier.

 

The likes of Mr. Lear and his moral relativism have landed America where it is now. Instead of illuminating the need for responsibility at all levels, as the TEA Party strives to do, Mr. Lear and his merry band of hypoccupiers simply seek to replace one type of selfish greed for another. Their protests are not against greed; instead, they simply seek to shift the beneficiaries of greed. Hypoccupiers and corporate cronies are merely two sides of the same coin.

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 10:37 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Saturday, January 07 2012

The Indiana legislature started this week. Many of the news stories marking the start have already begun speculation over whether anything will be accomplished this session. The big question mark surrounds the House Democratic caucus and their leader, Rep. Patrick Bauer who took his team to Illinois last year shutting down the works for fives weeks. Will he pull a similar stunt to appease the union activists already showing up in large numbers to protest HB 1001, the Right to Work legislation?

Right to Work may be the dominant focus because of the high stakes and political drama surrounding it, but there will be 1,000 other bills filed for consideration. Here are a few that we are watching at the moment:

House Bill 1014 - This bill by Rep. Davisson is a health care professionals conscience clause that protects pharmacists, nurses and physicians from being forced to dispense a drug or device that would be used to cause an abortion or the death of a person through assisted suicide. The bill protects these workers from employment termination or punishment for refusing to violate their values. It also protects them as a cause in a lawsuit should they not want to partake in such life ending situations that could escalate in the days ahead under "Obamacare." A similar law that prevents doctors from having to participate in abortion or abortion training has protected doctors in Indiana for many years.

KEEP READING

Posted by: Micah Clark AT 07:03 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Saturday, January 07 2012

I know I'm opening myself up for an onslaught from Ron Paul fans, but I just can't let this go unchallenged. Although I do agree we don't need to be the world's policeman, we do have an obligation to support our allies. Furthermore, I think we should exert our power for good wherever possible.


He often
talks about the Founding Fathers' desire for America to stay out of European conflicts. Although I do agree that's what the founders wanted at the time, that doesn't mean that's what they would argue today.


At the time we were not the world's dominant military power. We were simply trying to survive and establish ourselves as a nation. Remember, we desired France and the Hessians to help us with our war against England.


Doesn't the Golden Rule come into play? If we wanted our friends like the French and Hessians to help us in our time of need, shouldn't we be willing to help others as well?


Think about it!

Posted by: Matthew W. Turner AT 06:06 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, January 06 2012

Former State Representative and current Congressional candidate Jackie Walorski rejoined the program today to talk with Peter about a number of issues.

 

 

The two discussed the Iowa Caucus results and the state of the Republican primary going forward, as well as the dangerous developments in the Middle East. With Iran threatening to place a stranglehold on the Strait of Hormuz and hijacking a large portion of the world's oil supply, President Barack Obama appears listless. Walorski gives her take on the issue and much more.

 

Hear the full conversation here.

Posted by: Anna Anderson AT 05:09 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, January 06 2012

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

 

Say what you will about the fact that there has been no unifying conservative candidate in this year's Republican primary, as I've said about a million times so far in this election, the election will be about Barack Obama's record. A lot of pessimistic Republicans worry and fret about the potential that people will grow accustomed to the new reality or that ObamaCare's worst effects won't hit until after the election.

 

 

There are those who also talk about an election year surprise. Here's one that wouldn't be much of a surprise, sadly, but would have disastrous impacts upon Obama's re-election hopes:

Five dollars a gallon for gas? Analysts say it could happen this year.

 

Monique Griego has more on why gas prices could soon explode.

 

Just this weekend, the president signed new sanctions against the country of Iran. Now, Iran is firing back with a threat that could send gas prices higher than ever.

 

Prices at the pump already have drivers in pain.

 

"I can barely afford it now," said one driver.

 

"Three dollars a gallon...I mean, five dollars gets you what, a gallon and a half?" said another.

 

But if Iran follows through on a threat to shut down one of the world's most important oil routes, analysts say prices here could skyrocket by summer.

 

"If it gets to $5, that would be hurting the pockets very bad," said Paul Rozanski, Severna Park.

Now the truth is that it shouldn't even take that. Remember, President Obama is on record as not being opposed to $4 a gallon gas, and the man he made his Energy Secretary is on record saying $8 or $9 a gallon gas is what we should be paying. So if Americans are opposed to $5 a gallon gas, they should be opposed to this administration because that's right where they want us to be.

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:08 pm   |  Permalink   |  4 Comments  |  Email
Friday, January 06 2012

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

 

It wasn't that long ago that I heard someone say that Ron Paul was part of the Reagan Revolution. Was it Paul himself? It might have been an ad of Paul's that said that, I can't remember. Either way, his recent comments regarding Iran and the Strait of Hormuz should give lie to any such claim. The Strait of Hormuz, in a nutshell, is the strategic waterway through which much of the world's oil flows. Hijacking the Strait means hijacking the power supply of the world.

 

 

I remember when I was in college, my history professor was talking about the Soviet threat to move on the Strait of Hormuz and Reagan countering by saying, essentially, "My finger is on the red button if you do." It's a little different than Ron Paul's position towards Iran threatening the same thing as the Soviets:

At a campaign event in Iowa Thursday, Paul called Western sanctions imposed against Iran over its nuclear activities "horrendous" and "acts of war," while repeating earlier assertions that Iran would understandably want to develop a nuclear weapons capability, the Los Angeles Times reported.

 

It said Paul argued that blocking the strait would be Iran's most likely response to tougher sanctions because, since it has "no weapons of mass destruction," blocking the waterway would be "the most" that it could do.

 

The Texan congressman said that as president he would not respond with military action to an Iranian closure of Hormuz, as he would not consider it an act of war against the United States. Instead, he would refer the matter to the U.S. Congress. Paul's comments were also cited by ABC News.

So make sure you follow this. The radical Islamic nuts who run Iran who believe in the Caliphate, 12th Imam, all that jazz, who are apocalyptic and who believe it is Allah's will that Jews and infidels be destroyed even if that costs the lives of millions of innocent Muslims as well - those folks - they want to get nuclear weapons. They are pursuing them. It's a foregone conclusion that if they get them, Israel and America are in grave danger.

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:07 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, January 06 2012

The "short session" of the Indiana legislature is shaping up to be a hot one. Democrats are once again refusing to show up to work, protesting the fact that Republicans are bringing up Right-to-Work legislation that Democrats don't want. If only Barack Obama were around to remind them as he did national Republicans just a few years ago: "Elections have consequences...they won."

 

 

Nevertheless, beholden to their Big Labor masters, Democrats are refusing to show and provide a quorum for business, holding the state of Indiana hostage.

 

On Friday's program, Peter welcomed State Representative Mike Karickhoff to discuss this reality, as well as his legislative priorities for the short session - including a controversial school transfer bill.

 

Hear the full conversation here.

Posted by: Anna Anderson AT 05:06 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, January 05 2012

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

 

You know it's amazing, as a kid, the gifts at Christmastime were huge. You were so excited to open the gifts and see what was inside. I remember getting Transformers and playing with them ALL day. And then as I got older, we would get Nintendo games and I would play with them ALL day. Now it's different. Now, I just ask for gift cards. Give me a restaurant gift card, that's what I want. Then you've got to compete with the family members who are anti-gift card. They want to get you something real. Don't you love that? You end up racking your brain trying to come up with something that you don't really want, just so your family member can feel good about getting you something that wasn't a gift card. In other words, the gift they're getting you is more about what they want to get you than what you want. It's a beautiful dance that we do.

 

But anyway, this year my wife and I made out like bandits when it comes to movie gift cards. We've got a handful of movies coming to us. The difficulty now becomes deciding which ones to see. I'll have some that I like, and she couldn't care less about, and vice versa. So we try to come up with ones we mutually are interested in. Of course, when there's one that she really wants to see, or if I do, the other will make the sacrifice and go. For me, that usually means most of the history related movies that come out. I'm not into the suspense stuff - don't like the stress. Most of the comedy anymore is all overly sexual or perverted because Hollywood is so depraved they don't know how to be legitimately funny without being gross or inappropriate. So I usually lean towards the true story history movies.

 

 

But you've got to be careful about those too. Case in point: iconic liberal Hollywood director Steven Spielberg is coming out with a movie on Abe Lincoln sometime around next Christmas. The problem isn't necessarily Spielberg, though his biases are pretty well known when it comes to politics. The problem is that he hired a raving and angry gay liberal by the name of Tony Kushner to write the screenplay. So what can we expect from this movie? Think Brokeback Mountain meets Gettysburg:

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:09 pm   |  Permalink   |  1 Comment  |  Email
Thursday, January 05 2012

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

 

Simply amazing. Those are the only words I can come up with to describe the way 60 Minutes slayed any notion of journalistic credibility the other day when they followed up their pandering, softball interview with Barack Obama with a cutting and divisive interview with Republican House Majority Leader Eric Cantor. This is actually very instructive for anyone wanting to observe media bias. This type of shameless contrast is so obvious it hurts.

 

 

Let's start with a quick refresher on what CBS's Steve Kroft (the same guy who had sat down with Obama in 2008 for a classic interview where he laughed with Obama about how he corrected those who suggested Obama wasn't a Christian) lobbed to the President during their interview.

 

Totally avoiding the President's dual scandals of Fast & Furious gun-running (that resulted in the death of a Border Agent...and most likely will result in the death of more Americans) and Solyndra, virtually the only challenges Kroft made were from the left:

"Since the midterm elections, you made an effort at bipartisanship. It hasn't worked out that way," Kroft fretted in crediting Obama with the noble effort before seemingly conveying the liberal complaint the stimulus didn't spend enough: "There's a general perception that the stimulus was not enough. That it really didn't work."

Kroft relayed how "many" Democrats "believe the President was too willing to compromise during the deficit negotiations," pressing Obama on how he gave in to conservatives: "You gave up a lot. You said you wanted a balanced approach. You didn't get it. You cut a trillion dollars and set up the framework to cut another trillion plus, and the Republicans gave up nothing. I mean, there are people in your own party who think that you were outmaneuvered, that you were stared down by John Boehner and Grover Norquist and capitulated....It seems to be all the compromising is being done by you."

Got that? The 'criticism' that Obama must fend off in this patsy interview is that he is just too nice, too easy-going, too genial and giving. He compromises and works with Republicans too much. What a crock of bull.

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:08 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, January 05 2012

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

 

While the Republican primary season now reaches a head, it's once again time for a little perspective. Whoever emerges from the primary is going to face off against one of the most failed presidencies in modern American political history. Those who suggest that Obama is unbeatable, that he is in a strong position, that he has a distinct advantage over any of his potential opponents, fall into one of three categories: 1.) pessimistic/paranoid, 2.) uninformed, 3.) self-deluding.

 

 

We've talked to and about the first group, and certainly will again. In fact, these comments might make them feel a little better about the situation. The second group is why we're on the air every day desperately encouraging all of you to make the difference. You have to go out and talk to your neighbors, your friends, your family members who may or may not realize that the misery of this economy is not by chance - it's the direct result of failed policies from a failed administration.

 

But the third group - they are something else. These are the folks who honestly may know the truth deep down, but due to pride or blind loyalty, they will ignore it. From National Review:

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:07 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, January 05 2012

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

 

So what happens when you have a revolving door between Democrat administrations and mainstream media anchor positions? You get the biggest journalistic joke you could ever imagine - total campaigning for the re-election of President Obama masking itself (very poorly, that is) as an interview of a Republican challenger. Check out former Clinton aide George Stephanopoulos getting huffy with Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum for daring to suggest that epically weak Democrat President Barack Obama is epically weak:

After reading off a quote from the Republican presidential candidate and then listing the President's foreign policy accomplishments, Stephanopoulos defended, "How can you say he sided with our enemies on almost every foreign conflict?"

 

Santorum responded by insisting that, in the example of killing bin Laden, Obama simply followed a course set by George W. Bush. Stephanopoulos sputtered, "How can you say he sided with our enemies on almost every foreign conflict?"

 

Repeating what will surely be Obama 2012 talking points, the former Democratic operative added, "But, Senator is that true?...Osama bin Laden was alive when President Obama took office. He's dead now."

When Stephanopoulos interviewed Santorum on
June 06, 2011, he made the same complaint: "You've also argued that our enemies don't fear President Obama, but where's the evidence of that?...The al Qaeda leadership has been decimated, Osama bin Laden is dead, no significant attack against the United States has been successful. Where is that evidence?"

Now, what was that we were hearing from Mr. Obama about not "spiking the football" regarding the death of bin Laden? Let me simply point out that this football will be spiked so many times between now and November it will be as flat as a pancake. Obama's entire campaign may well be built around this single line: he killed bin Laden. And it's silly to anyone who gives it serious thought.

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:06 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, January 05 2012

EDITOR'S NOTE: This commentary was written in the moments immediately following the Iowa Caucus results and prior to Michele Bachmann's suspension of her campaign.

 

The Iowa caucus finish was one of the tightest in American history. The squabble over the "winner" of the caucus may be a matter of insignificance but there were clearly winners and losers from the opening shot of the Republican primary. Here are the results for quick reference:

 

Mitt Romney - 24.6 % (6 delegates)

Rick Santorum - 24.5% (6 delegates)

Ron Paul - 21.4 % (6 delegates)

Newt Gingrich - 13.3% (4 delegates)

Rick Perry - 10.3% (3 delegates)

Michelle Bachmann - 5.0%

Jon Huntsman - 0.6%

 

 

So let's start with the losers...

 

Rick Perry

The candidate with the largest bank account and national infrastructure to counter Mitt Romney is Rick Perry. But after blowing over $2 million in campaign cash for a disappointing 5th place finish and barely cracking double digits in the caucus, the Perry campaign is "reassessing" the situation. That's code for he's likely to drop out. The sad fact is that had he come out strong in the first few debates we would probably be calling him frontrunner right now and celebrating a dominating performance in Iowa. Instead he's circling the drain.

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Joel Harris AT 10:39 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, January 04 2012

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

 

Here's how I characterize the race in Iowa last night: the Establishment vs. the Conservative vs. the Libertarian. Rick Santorum had a great night in Iowa last night. Mitt Romney had an acceptable one. Ron Paul had an expected one. Let me explain each of those.

 

 

First, Santorum. I can't tell you how thrilled I was to see Rick Santorum do as well as he did in Iowa. This is a guy who I have been a fan of all along, and for whatever reason just never seemed to gain traction. Credit his tireless campaign efforts. Credit his relentless work ethic. Credit his unwavering conservative credentials. Credit his strong social conservative appeal. Whatever you want to credit, Santorum was the clear winner in Iowa. His strong performance, coupled with Bachmann and Perry's relatively weak performances, puts him in a real position to become the conservative alternative to Romney. A decent showing in New Hampshire (and all things considered, that means somewhere around a third place finish), and Santorum could be a real force when South Carolina rolls around third.

 

Second, Romney. The pundits seem to be spending the most time analyzing him. It was actually funny watching the Fox News panel last night as one of them would point out that Romney tactically was doing well given that there didn't appear to be a one-on-one challenge to him emerging. Then the next person would point out that Romney wasn't fairing as well as he did in the state four years ago. Then the next person would say how Romney hadn't invested much time or effort into Iowa, so the fact that he was even in the top tier showed how strong he was. Then the next one would say how Romney has essentially flat-lined and is totally unable to win over more than a quarter of Republican voters. Here's what I think: Romney has remained the front runner. He is in the best position financially, tactically, in the polls and with ground support. But he leaves Iowa with the same problem he had going in: he can't energize the conservative base.

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:08 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, January 04 2012

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

 

I don't believe anything is inevitable except the return of Jesus. So when people start saying that Mitt Romney is an inevitable lock for the Republican nomination, I regard that about as highly as I do when people tell me some football team is a lock for a national championship. Just like sports, politics is an unpredictable world. Now, don't get me wrong. I don't mind predictions. I don't mind people prognosticating or attempting to guess what will happen. It makes things interesting, leads to good discussions and so forth. But nobody knows. Karl Rove doesn't know. Dick Morris doesn't know. James Carville doesn't know - shoot, he predicted that the Democrats were set for something like a 40 year dominance of Washington when Obama was elected. He missed it by 38 years.

 

 

So I have no problems saying that Mitt Romney had a great night, all things considered, in Iowa. I have no problem saying that he is far and away the front runner right now and is polling well. But that isn't to say it's going to stay that way. I don't know if it will. It's a fluid race and will remain that way for a while. If you have a couple of the more conservative candidates jump from the race, and those conservative voters coalesce behind an anti-Romney, this race is very much still a competition - especially heading into some of the southern primaries.

 

But let's indulge the "inevitable" folks for a second. Let's acknowledge that Mitt's ability to do so well in Iowa despite having not spent much time or effort in the state comparatively is a sign that Republicans are going to go with him as the safest option in 2012. Let's say all this in Iowa signifies he is on course for the Republican nomination. What then?

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:07 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, January 04 2012

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

 

Several weeks ago I wrote a column asking if it could be Rick Santorum's turn in the Republican primary. I'm glad the good folks of Iowa decided to listen to me. The pundits will have plenty to say about how his relentless, pound-the-pavement, press-the-flesh strategy paid off for him in the long run. And I think that's great. I think it's great that the people that went and supported Santorum at the caucuses were invested in the guy, knew who he was and what he was about, rather than being swayed simply by sound bites and money. Now, that kind of strategy isn't possible in all the other 49 states, but it was a neat throwback to a bygone era, what Santorum just did in Iowa.

 

 

But let me tell you what I think was the bigger story coming from Santorum's performance in Iowa. I think the bigger story was once again the demonstration of the hate and vitriol that awaits whoever ends up with the Republican nomination. And the more conservative the nominee, the worse the vitriol will be. Did you see what that liberal Alan Colmes had to say about Santorum just a couple days before the vote? It was incredible. He's trying to explain why Santorum doesn't have a chance in the election, but he doesn't focus on his staunch social conservatism. He doesn't focus on his defeat in Pennsylvania to Bob Casey. He doesn't even focus on the charge from Ron Paul that he's too liberal when it comes to government spending.

 

No, Colmes goes after Santorum and suggests he's unelectable because of the way he reacted to the death of his baby son years ago. I'm not even making this up. There's simply no way that a conservative would ever do this - and if they did, that they would ever get away with this type of hatred. Here's the story, as reported by Human Events:

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:06 pm   |  Permalink   |  2 Comments  |  Email
Monday, January 02 2012

The local paper headline was straightforward: "Occupiers arrested." The Howard County Courthouse in Kokomo, Indiana, was the site of an occupier protest on Friday, 12/30/11. Members of Occupy Kokomo had received permission for the rally earlier from the Howard County commissioners. They were permitted to rally outside the courthouse and to move inside in the event of inclement weather. They were permitted inside, though, only if they adhered to regular courthouse policy and protocol. One of the policies, which they were told beforehand, is that the wearing of a mask is not permitted. Nevertheless, one of the occupiers from Indianapolis entered with "a dollar bill over his mouth, a biohazard sticker on his cheek and his sweatshirt's hood was over his head." This was enough for Howard County Sheriff Steve Rogers to tell the occupier to remove his mask. The result was an altercation resulting in the arrest of two of the occupiers.

 

 

The report caused me to reflect on the rallies and protests that have been taking place in the area. For about two years, TEA Party participants have been meeting in various venues around Kokomo and surrounding areas. To the best of my recollection, there has never been an altercation of any kind between participants and law enforcement personnel at any of the rallies. Yet at what I think is only the second Occupy Kokomo rally - and the first held at the courthouse - there was an altercation and subsequent arrests.

 

Ever since the advent of the occupy movement, Americans have been bombarded about the "peaceful nature" of these protests. Yet, which rallies leave in their wake destruction to public and private property, confrontations with law enforcement, and forced shut downs of local businesses?

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 07:00 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Monday, January 02 2012

If it were possible for a nation to make and strive for a New Year's resolution, what do you think it should be? As I was thinking about this it became apparent to me the resolutions I would want for my country just happen to be the ones I hold for myself.

 

 

I desperately want to draw closer to my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. I want my life to bring Him the most honor and glory it possibly can. My desire to be a better teacher and grow our school ministry is overwhelming at times. It would also be fabulous to see our church explode with growth. America's greatest need is for its churches to once again be consumed by reaching a dying world for Christ.

 

Also, I want to have a stronger family. America's families are disintegrating. My wife should be so much more than just a best friend. I want to become everything to her; even more than she is to me. Furthermore, it IS amazing how fast children grow up. There are only two and a half years left with my son at home. (At least I hope so!) Seriously though, I want to have the greatest father/son relationship the world has ever seen. That's not asking too much is it? Lucky for me, my son makes that pretty easy...especially for a teenager.

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Matthew W. Turner AT 06:00 am   |  Permalink   |  2 Comments  |  Email
Sunday, January 01 2012

Praise the LORD. I will extol the LORD with all my heart in the council of the upright and in the assembly. Great are the works of the LORD; they are pondered by all who delight in them. Glorious and majestic are his deeds, and his righteousness endures forever. He has caused his wonders to be remembered; the LORD is gracious and compassionate. He provides food for those who fear him; he remembers his covenant forever. He has shown his people the power of his works, giving them the lands of other nations. The works of his hands are faithful and just; all his precepts are trustworthy. They are steadfast for ever and ever, done in faithfulness and uprightness. He provided redemption for his people; he ordained his covenant forever-- holy and awesome is his name. The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom; all who follow his precepts have good understanding. To him belongs eternal praise. - Psalm 111

Those who love the liberties that America's Constitutional Republic offers have their work cut out for them this year. No matter what transpires, though, we are to rely on God for our wisdom and courage.

 

 

As I opened my encyclopedia of quotations to look for an appropriate reference, my book opened to Abraham Lincoln and my eyes fell first upon this portion of his address to the New Jersey State Senate in 1861:

I am exceedingly anxious that this Union, the Constitution, and the liberties of the people shall be perpetuated in accordance with the original idea for which that struggle was made. And I shall be most happy, indeed, if I shall be an humble instrument in the hands of the Almighty. for perpetuating the object of that struggle.

May it always be so.

 

I extend to all Liberty Tree participants my New Year greetings. May the Lord's blessings abound in 2012.

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 06:00 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Sunday, January 01 2012

A hot topic for the upcoming Indiana state legislature session is going to be right-to-work legislation. In an editorial opposing the proposal, Midge Collett, past president of UAW Local 292, writes:

Division and animosity occurs [sic.] in the workplace when dues-paying workers have to pay the cost of representing non-paying members.

Even liberal ideologues sometime slip up and acknowledge a tenet of conservatism. "Division and animosity in the workplace" when one group of workers takes a free ride on another group of workers. Imagine that!

 

This is a basic motivation behind the whole TEA Party movement. Responsible and productive members of our society are tired of being forced to pay for the mortgages, health care, and living expenses of those who do not put forth the effort to care for themselves. We are tired of watching those receiving public funds squander our resources, and what few resources they have, on smokes, cokes, alcohol, premium entertainment services, trips to casinos, lottery tickets, and sundry other non-necessities. We believe that they have an obligation to pay for their own necessities of life rather than depending upon largesse extorted from taxpayers. We are equally tired of seeing our resources squandered in overseas giveaways that prop up reprehensible totalitarians.

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 04:28 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Sunday, January 01 2012

A reminder: Peter Heck will return to the radio studio on Wednesday, January 3rd.  As a result, new transcripts/posts will be appearing with audio clips that same day.  Thanks to all of our other Liberty Tree writers, bloggers and contributors.

Posted by: Anna Anderson AT 08:00 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Sunday, January 01 2012

You may not ever consider the lives of those who work within Indiana's sex industry, but we do at AFA of Indiana. It is one thing to curse the darkness, but it is also important to offer some light to those trapped in the darkness too.

This may sound like an odd introduction to a statewide adult business regulation bill, but not if you consider one of its primary provisions. Senate Bill 183 authored by Senator Jim Banks is a bill that AFA of Indiana helped craft with close legal review from the top zoning and regulation attorney in the nation. SB 183 mirrors recent statewide laws passed in Ohio and Missouri that have withstood legal scrutiny. In the case of Missouri, their law was upheld in a unanimous State Supreme Court decision as being Constitutionally sound and appropriate public policy.

Senate Bill 183 is designed to protect communities across Indiana from some of the well-documented secondary negative impacts of sexually oriented businesses. One of the provisions of SB 183 prohibits contact between patrons of an adult business and employees. For example, it protects dancers or other women who are surrounded by men who often have had a lot to drink and a lot of sexual provocation. It is a recipe for disaster even among those whom we expect to have the best of standards and control as this story of a police officer soliciting and engaging in prostitution recently at an Indianapolis club shows: http://www.indystar.com/article/20111207/LOCAL18/112070344/IMPD-officer-charged-strip-club-incident

KEEP READING

Posted by: Micah Clark AT 05:21 am   |  Permalink   |  3 Comments  |  Email
*
*
*
click between 3-5 pm ET
*
*