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.

Wednesday, February 29 2012

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

 

I love how all these things just converge at the same time. Call it Divine Intervention or a stroke of luck or coincidence or karma. I don't care what you call it. It's just hilarious. The convergence of all these forces: the left's love and obsession with JFK, JFK's canonized (by the left) speech on separation of church and state, JFK's disgusting sexual abuse of a 19 year old intern coming to light, the once vanquished social conservative Rick Santorum's emergence, Santorum's boldness in attacking JFK's warped view of separation of church and state, Santorum bolting to the front of the Republican presidential primary in the hopes of facing Obama, Obama's violating any fair understanding of the "wall of separation between church and state," the media's dogged defense of Obama...it's just all coming together in a way that is comical.

 

 

The latest laugh I got from the whole thing came from Diane "I want you to think I'm such a serious news woman that I will put this pained look on my face that is overly reminiscent of the look I have when I'm constipated" Sawyer.

 

Talking with another Democrat operative (this one actually formally held that title before becoming a "distinguished member of the objective media"), George Stephanopoulos, here's what Sawyer said:

DIANE SAWYER: Which brings us, by the way, to Good Morning America anchor and host of This Week George Stephanopoulos who interviewed Rick Santorum yesterday, and I watched every minute of it, George. Couldn't believe that he was going on the offensive on church and state and the separation of them against John Kennedy.

Okay, I know that the love and adoration liberal media types have for JFK is trumped only by the love and adoration they have for Barack Obama. But I guess I would have been tempted to think that they would be tamping down the effusive praise for the slain president for a bit - at least until the revelations of the fact that he used his position of power to not only sexually seduce a 19 year old intern in his wife's bed but also force her into performing oral sex on his friends died down a bit.

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:09 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, February 29 2012

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

 

Best line of the primary night last night came when I was driving and turned on a talk radio program out of Indianapolis. I don't know the guy's name who was the host but he had some professor from Villanova on who was analyzing the demographics. He asked her about the all important women vote in Michigan and the lady responds by saying, "Well if you look at the exit polls, you see Mitt Romney beating women pretty badly." It was classic. She caught herself and said, "Oh my, that sounded terrible!" I was really laughing about it. But honestly, that assessment was about as valuable to me as I was getting from all the talking heads.

 

 

In watching the results that came in from Michigan and Arizona last night, and really more than that, watching the commentary and response from the media after the results came in from those two states, I just feel the need to stress again something we all know, but sometimes are tempted to forget: make your own decision. Seriously. The media is so screwed up, it's not even funny. I mean, they're like that dog from the Disney movie "Up." You know what I'm talking about. The dog that will be in the middle of a sentence and then all of sudden he'll just turn fast to the side and say, "Squirrel!" That's ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC. Really all of them. The story lines are constantly changing and it's all reactionary stuff.

 

A few weeks ago we were hearing about the Mitt inevitability. Then the storyline changed, and the media was telling us that conservatives just wouldn't go for Mitt and that he wasn't going to be electable. Santorum started surging and the storyline was that Romney was done if he lost Michigan. Now, he does better than - or very similar to - what he did in 2008 in Michigan. And that was after facing essentially no competition that year - McCain didn't compete there and Huckabee had only visited a few times.

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:09 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, February 29 2012

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

 

Remember the sad story of Tyler Clementi several months ago? He was the Rutgers student, caught up in homosexuality, who jumped to his death. And in so doing he became a cause celeb for the gay community in much the same way as Matthew Shepherd had been after being brutally beaten to death years before.

 

 

Now, the two cases are very different right off the bat. Shepherd was murdered. Clementi killed himself. But there are some remarkable similarities between the two accounts. First, both lives should be mourned because both were human beings made in the image of God. Second, just as Matthew Shepherd's death was exploited by the homosexual lobby to advance their political agenda, it appears the same is happening with Tyler Clementi. And I use the word "exploited" because of the third similarity: the story the homosexual community has told, which has been repeated without skepticism or research or scrutiny by the liberal media that has sworn a blood oath never to criticize or question any claim from the homosexual community (lest they be guilty of homophobia), is largely fabricated.

 

Remember that the narrative surrounding Shepherd was that he was targeted for death and beaten because he was gay. That wasn't true at all. He was the victim of a drug-obsessed robbery gone bad. That was verified by ABC's 20/20 program shortly after the actual incident. Yet, that simple fact didn't stop the homosexual lobby, their friends in the media, and Democrat lawmakers from perpetuating the lie that his death was an example of the type of anti-gay terror taking place around the country that demanded swift and aggressive legislation to stop. The Matthew Shepherd Hate Crimes law is what came of this.

 

In terms of Clementi, you know the narrative: his roommate, Dharun Ravi, secretly filmed him having gay sex with his webcam and broadcast it to the student body and world...Clementi, so distraught about having been "outed" in such a public and humiliating way felt like he had no option but to leap to his death. Radically intolerant homosexual activists like the disgusting Dan Savage have been given plenty of ink to weave the tale that everyone who fails to say adoring things about homosexuality is a Dharun Ravi waiting to strike. Yet, what is the truth?

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:07 pm   |  Permalink   |  1 Comment  |  Email
Wednesday, February 29 2012

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

 

Laws should reach actions only and not mindsets, attitudes and intent.  That's been a position that conservatives have been taking for a long period of time, but it's one that the big government types on the left totally ignore in their crusade for tolerance.  It's not enough that there are laws to protect kids from being bullied in school, or people from being killed on the street.  Not to the left.  They want laws enacted to try to punish people for attitudes or beliefs that they think might possibly lead to bullying or killing.

 

 

I guess to be as fair as possible, I think you could say that many of those who advocate stupid things like hate crimes legislation do have good intention.  But how many examples do we need where good intentions, mixed with more government to carry out those intentions ends up backfiring into a nasty mess - and usually ends up wiping out rights and freedoms.

 

Think about the whole point of so-called hate crimes legislation.  It attempts to judge the motivation of a person when they commit a crime.  And they say, "Okay, you killed this person because they were black or because they practiced homosexuality.  Therefore, you had hate in your heart and so we're going to punish you worse."  Um, excuse me but doesn't that run afoul of a little baby called Equal Justice Under the Law?  You know, one of the four pillars of the American legal system?

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:06 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, February 28 2012

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

 

I saw Santorum hammered David Gregory this last Sunday on Meet the Press for focusing on social issues. And I also know that the strategy of the liberal media is to distract from Obama's disastrous performance on the economy and foreign policy by trying to create controversy on these social issues by misrepresenting conservatives.

 

 

But I don't think conservatives need to be worried about the issues coming up at all. I think it works for them. For all the talk about how social issues aren't that important and how people don't want to hear about them, I was thrilled to see that talk radio king Rush Limbaugh waded into the territory at the end of last week. Obviously teaching during the day during his show, I don't get a chance to listen, and hear about things a little bit later than those who can. But on Friday's show Rush apparently referred to Obama's astonishing support of infanticide when he was in the Illinois legislature as, "the most shocking and underreported significant story I can ever remember."

 

And that's exactly right. I kinda chuckle to myself every time someone tells me that I spend too much time on social issues. You know who that usually is that tells me that? People that don't agree with me on social issues. Now, think about what that says. It says that they have taken the time to write to me to counsel me on what I should talk about because they're motivated, they're passionate about something that I've discussed. Is that not exactly why I talk about these issues?

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:09 pm   |  Permalink   |  12 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, February 28 2012

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

 

I've told you before, I should have been a liberal. Besides the no moral standards benefit, and the ability to self-contradict like it's my job, I'd also be a rock star. How do I know that? Look at the folks who get programs on MSNBC. Nationally broadcast programs for these folks that can't even make a logical or coherent point: Ed Schultz, for crying out loud, has a show! Ed Schultz!

 

Anyway, here's another doozy from some fellow named Chris Hayes. I suppose maybe I should know who he is, but I don't. But I do know that this is just, well, par for their course:

 

CHRIS HAYES: Sometimes I think this can't possibly be happening. After the horror of the last decade, are we really going to countenance a pre-emptive strike against a Middle Eastern country that is supposedly attempting to acquire weapons of mass destruction? The lesson of Iraq was not, as the conservative establishment seems to think, that we waged the wrong pre-emptive war. But rather, that pre-emptive war is wrong. It's not: whoops, it would have been better if we had better intelligence. It's that attacking a country unprovoked is criminal.

Wait a second. Is that an absolute? Is Hayes honestly suggesting that to attack a country without being provoked ourselves as a people is criminal and always wrong? Someone get on ancestry.com and check and see if Hayes has some distant relatives named Chamberlain. Maybe Kennedy. Joe Kennedy, Neville Chamberlain, architects of the famous Munich Pact with Hitler.

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:08 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, February 28 2012

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

 

I've said before that the criminalization of Christianity in the West is well on its way. At least parts of it. The sexual anarchists have pivoted in their assault on traditional values. And it's a noticeable pivot. What you are hearing is no longer that people with traditional values must respect and tolerate those who wish not to abide by them when it comes to their sexuality. What you're hearing now is that the state must force people with traditional values to endorse all forms of sexual conduct as acceptable.

 

 

In other words, we've pivoted to the point where the movement that touts itself as a cause for tolerance is an obvious cause of intolerance against those that they have long accused of being intolerant. And this isn't just happening in the public square. We've progressed beyond that. Now the state is reaching into churches, into private businesses, and yes, even into homes to enforce their rules.

 

Check out what's happening just north of our border in Canada:

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:07 pm   |  Permalink   |  6 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, February 28 2012

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

 

Last week I talked briefly about Barack Obama's $30,000 a plate fundraising dinner he had at NBA star Vince Carter's house. It was part of Obama's grand effort to get money out of politics. With as big of a contradiction as what that is, I actually didn't point out what is an even bigger contradiction and annoyance that came from this night.

 

 

Paul Watson explained it over at PrisonPlanet:

Imagine if Ron Paul announced a national campaign called ?Whites for Ron Paul' - he'd be vilified as a racist. And yet Barack Obama has done the equivalent of precisely that with his launch of ?African Americans for Obama'.

That's incredible to me. It's incredible that no one sees this as offensive. Watson is exactly right about this point. Why is race an acceptable line to divide people when it's a Democrat who is doing it, but in all other contexts it's supposedly regarded as inappropriate? Some people will argue that Obama gets away with it because he's part black, but I don't buy it. I don't think a black Republican would get away with such an overt segregation tactic within his campaign - with such an obvious attempt to divide people and see people as members of specific racial groups.

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:06 pm   |  Permalink   |  3 Comments  |  Email
Monday, February 27 2012

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

 

Once again I'm impressed by Newt Gingrich. Don't know if you saw his comments regarding Barack Obama's latest stop on the America Sucks World Apology Tour or not. The President issued his letter of apology to Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan for the fact that a bunch of Korans were inadvertently torched. It was an accident apparently, but the President felt the need to make a big, federal production out of this.

 

Now I know some are going to say, "It shows we care. It shows we are sensitive to the concerns of Muslims and respectful. It shows we have their best interest at heart." You know what I say to that? A couple things, actually. First of all, if the fact that we have lost thousands of soldiers in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia and all over the world defending Muslims and their lives and livelihoods - if that isn't enough to show those in Islam that we are respectful and have their best interest at heart, no apology ever will. And secondly, an apology almost always implies an acknowledgement of guilt.

 

The radicals who are ticked about this will see the apology as vindication of their outrage. That's counterproductive, Mr. Obama. This isn't about not admitting our mistakes. It's about not giving nuts a reason to tell the skeptics in their own country that they aren't nuts. Barack Obama just doesn't get that. Which maybe explains why our favorability rating in Muslim nations is lower under Obama than it was under Bush.

 

Anyway, Newt has it together on this:

 

KEEP READING

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

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

 

I've said this before and it's really gotten some atheists exercised. It's amazing to me how many atheists claim to be deep thinkers and yet seem totally incapable of thinking through some of these kinds of statements. They have knee jerk reactions and start barking about how un-Christlike it is to say things like this. It has nothing to do with being personally offensive or intentionally antagonistic. Follow me on this.

 

When I say that I think that the percentage of real atheists in the world is a tiny, tiny, tiny number - we're talking maybe double digits of people total - I get a lot of weird looks.

 


After all, there are all these poll numbers that show a certain percentage of the population that claims to be atheists, and though it's nowhere close to a majority, it's still a far more substantial number than 30 people in the world. So why do I say this? I think the vast, vast majority of those who claim to be atheists are really agnostics - meaning they doubt the existence of God, but acknowledge that they aren't really sure.

 

Because I say this without equivocation: to believe that you know without question, without reservation, without doubt that God doesn't exist is one of the most conceited, arrogant things imaginable. Yes, there are people out there so in love with themselves that they'll say it. But I don't think there are that many. Not even Richard Dawkins will say it.

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:08 pm   |  Permalink   |  3 Comments  |  Email
Monday, February 27 2012

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

 

By now, even if you don't follow the NBA, I'm sure you've heard of Jeremy Lin. Lin is the player of Asian descent who is taking the league by storm. Started out as a bench-sitter, 4th string player who was lucky to even have a jersey, but thanks to some injuries and ineffective play of others on the team, vaulted into a starting position. And from there, he's been remarkably successful, apparently.

 

 

Now I readily admit that I haven't seen the guy play, save a couple highlights that they've run on Sports Center. But one of the reasons that this Lin thing is a big deal is because the Asian community in America has rallied behind him as one of their heroes. I guess there aren't many Asian players in the NBA, and so he's become an icon for that community. But with the hysteria around this upstart new star has come concerns over racism.

A writer at ESPN was fired for writing a headline following one particular bad game by Lin that simply read, "A Chink in the Armor." Of course, that term was found to be severely racially insensitive, and even though the player himself said he wasn't offended, it didn't matter. Headline writer didn't just get suspended, demoted, or embarrassed. No, he got fired. His life is ruined for the time being. I find it odd that no one got a little uncomfortable when the race thing was first being used as a reason to be excited about the guy. You know, that should be red flag number one for any society that is wanting to move to a Dr. King-envisioned colorblind society.

 

KEEP READING

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

Everyone has their vices, and one of mine is watching The Apprentice. I think I have been watching since episode one. I like the business challenges that they have to do. I enjoyed the earlier seasons more than the later seasons because they have increasingly added more of the drama and emotional baggage as time has gone on. And, sometime back, they added Celebrity Apprentice. As with anything celebrity, that raises the drama factor a few hundred notches. Yet, I still watch.

So now the new season of Celbrity Apprentice has begun. One of the celebrities is George Takei. Trekkies know him as Mr. Sulu. He is also known for being a gay advocate, being gay, and a big hero among gays.

How do we know all this? Because it is constantly and consistently crammed into our lives. We don't have to know anyone else's sexual preferences except that of the homosexual. If there is a homosexual on a program, every viewer has to be assaulted with it. Not only that, we have to be assaulted with their lecherous behavior.

The challenge in the first episode was for the celebrities, divided into teams of men and women, to make and sell sandwiches out of a New York shop. To do that, the celebrities attracted folks off the street by promoting themselves. Two of the male celebrities are muscular: one of the Hulk starring actors and former Mr. Universe, and another the head guy on American Choppers. They were out front showing off their muscles and attracting customers.

KEEP READING

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 03:07 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Sunday, February 26 2012

Is there anyone out there who doesn't understand the importance of teacher evaluations? I am confident every school administrator, teacher and parent understands the importance of determining if teachers are performing up to par. Even teachers' unions have a vested interest in staffing schools with quality teachers. Acknowledging this truth is no profound revelation. Therefore, I wonder why politicians in Indiana feel it is necessary to micromanage the entire process. In doing so, I see a few glaring problems that may arise from the latest revision of the statute governing Indiana government schools.

 

The legislature has designated four categories teachers may be labeled: Highly Effective, Effective, Improvement Necessary, and Ineffective. That's all well and good. However, the problem I see lies in the way the last category is handled. An "ineffective teacher" is one who "consistently fails to meet expectations and students generally achieve unacceptable levels of growth and achievement."

 

According to the new statute, a teacher who receives the "ineffective" designation can continue teaching! Why can't an administrator fire an "ineffective" teacher immediately?

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Matthew W. Turner AT 02:04 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Sunday, February 26 2012

Some conservatives are scratching their heads over the actions of some legislative leaders who seem only too eager to discard certain pieces of legislation and issues as the session moves past the half way point. For example, Speaker of the House Brian Bosma has apparently nixed Senate Bill 89 allowing for the teaching of creation in science classrooms. There was some legal concern over the bill, and though it could have been repaired according to some of our legal sources, perhaps setting it aside was understandable. The real question now is will the pro-life community accept the Speaker's decision to set aside Senate Bill 72, the only pro-life bill of the 2102 session to see any action? (SB 72 passed the Senate unanimously.) Will the 2012 session be one that only seemed to address Right to Work and a few other economic issues?

When the Speaker's chair was controlled by Rep. Pat Bauer, liberal legislators never relaxed in pushing their agenda every year. They didn't backed away from pushing their agenda in election years in order to appease their moderates.

It is one thing to be defeated politically; it is quite another to kill bills without a fight. Need I say more?

Posted by: Micah Clark AT 06:15 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Sunday, February 26 2012
Last week I mentioned concerns that we posted on our web site from the Heritage Foundation about Indiana embracing national education standards called "Common Core." The bill I mentioned for a study committee to look at what this may mean for Indiana schools has been rewritten and filed again in the Indiana state legislature. It is now Senate Resolution 38 and should see committee consideration this week.
Posted by: Micah Clark AT 06:01 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Saturday, February 25 2012

You may have heard some rumblings of this on talk radio yesterday in regard to an article in the Wall Street Journal about a new book on Politics from Reagan economist and Jack Kemp adviser, Jeffrey Bell. The book argues that contrary to what the mainstream media wants people to believe, social conservatives are the key to winning elections.

As Bell points out, "Social issues were nonexistent in the period 1932 to 1964," he observes. "The Republican Party won two presidential elections out of nine, and they had the Congress for all of four years in that entire period . . . When social issues came into the mix?I would date it from the 1968 election . . . the Republican Party won seven out of 11 presidential elections." Bell notes that Democratic presidents who won election either spoke deftly of family values or they purposefully hid their social liberalism.

KEEP READING

Posted by: Micah Clark AT 07:17 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Saturday, February 25 2012

"Only in politics do people root for bad news... You pay more, they're licking their chops." (President Obama, saying that Republicans will offer only bumper sticker politics)

One only needs to return to the 2008 presidential campaign to recognize that bumper sticker politics is not limited to the domain of a Republican campaign. Goodness! Obama bumper stickers are still plastered all over the place. Remember "hope & change?"

Speaking at the University of Miami on energy and the economy, President Obama stated that only a "long-term" strategy can bring down rising gas prices.

Thus far, the president's strategy appears to be ridiculing the ideas that conservatives and Republican candidates bring to the table. That, along with shooting down oil production and delivery within American boundaries.

Once again, liberals have no clue what conservatism means. Conservatives root for success. Conservatives want all Americans to have the opportunity to determine their concept of success and to be able to pursue it. Liberals, on the other hand, seek a lowest common denominator economy. They like to call it "fairness." In the real world, it is extortion, bullying, and theft.

The farther away we move from our Founder's roots and closer to the land of left-believe, the more economic inequality, misery, and chaos we experience. Root for bad news? Libs have been perfecting that divisive tactic for decades now.

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 06:10 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Saturday, February 25 2012

Nearly 20% of the Indiana House of Representatives have chosen to retire after this session of the legislature. Eighteen members, 11 Democrats and 7 Republicans have already announced that they will not seek re-election this fall. Two Republicans in the Senate, Richard Bray and Beverly Guard have announced their retirement.

The following Representatives are not running again. Reps Crawford and Espich have served 40 years and Rep. Dobis has served 42 years in the legislature. All but two listed have served 10 years or more in the Indiana House.

  • Jeb Bardon
  • Dave Cheatham
  • Bill Crawford
  • John Day
  • Nancy Dembowski
  • Chester "Chet" Dobis
  • Richard "Dick" Dodge
  • Jeff Espich
  • Ralph Foley
  • Craig Fry
  • Dale Grubb
  • Phil Hinkle
  • Thomas Knollman
  • Don Lehe
  • Richard McClain
  • Scott Reske
  • Dan Stevenson
  • Mike White
Posted by: Micah Clark AT 06:00 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, February 24 2012

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

 

UPDATE: Left wing national commentator Rachel Maddow's blog has expressed delight that Speaker Bosma joined in the mockery of a fellow conservative, calling it, "an amusing twist."  Big thanks to Speaker Bosma for providing Maddow and her ilk such pleasure.

 

I have appreciated the leadership of Indiana House Speaker Brian Bosma in the past, but this session has me concerned.  And I'm not the only one.  Besides killing the pro-life legislation that came from the Senate for no good reason, Bosma's most recent stunt is classic Republican: savage your own trying to puff yourself up and gain good media.  It really turns my stomach, honestly.

 

 

Several of you have perhaps heard of Indiana Representative Bob Morris of Fort Wayne, who took a strong stance against the Girl Scouts of America because of what he saw as their allegiance to left-wing causes, including Planned Parenthood and transvestite behavior.  Morris wrote an open letter to his colleagues as they were set to honor the organization.

 

Not surprisingly, the liberal media pounced all over Morris, even at a national level.  He became the perfect whipping boy: a Midwestern, hick conservative from Indiana, so paranoid about views outside his own backwards Christianity, he sees baby-killing transvestites in the Girl Scouts.  Morris has been pounded, and ripped, and humiliated and insulted.  He's been crucified for expressing the idea that it isn't beneficial to the youth in our society to encourage and accept cross-dressing as part of their behavior.

 

And at an hour when Morris needed support from his fellow conservatives, particularly a defense from his leadership that he has been repeatedly loyal to, here's what he gets from Bosma:

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:09 pm   |  Permalink   |  2 Comments  |  Email
Friday, February 24 2012

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

 

So President Obama was in Florida helping to get money out of politics. He was attending a $15,000 a person fundraiser at the home of a millionaire...you know, part of the 99%, and then also a $30,000 a person fundraiser at the home of NBA superstar Vince Carter - also part of the working class that Obama represents. So he's out there doing his best to rid our political process of all this money, returning us to a purer era of the simple man, and the subject of gas prices comes up. I have a feeling it's going to come up a lot.

 

 

And actually I find it humorous that this was Florida. Do you know what gas prices were in Lake Buena Vista, Florida just a couple days ago? I know this because it's right outside Disney World which is Jenny and I's favorite place. So I pay attention to this stuff. It was $5.89 a gallon in Lake Buena Vista. No joke. That wasn't the highest in the country. Up in Alaska it was over $6.00 a gallon. It's insane. And it's not necessary. More on that in a second.

 

So Obama is down there in the same state where his foolish policies have royally screwed the working man and he starts talking gas prices:

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:07 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, February 24 2012

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

 

You know how we've heard a few things about our government being in debt? I mean, not a lot about it, but from time to time you'll hear rumblings that we're supposedly spending more than what we can afford. Don't know anything as the veracity of such a claim, but it's what the word on the street is.

 

Well, if it's the case - if our government really is taking on stifling debt that our kids and grandkids will never be able to repay, that makes this little story coming out of California all the more delightful:

SACRAMENTO (CBS13) ? With teen birth and STDs still at alarming rates, health advocates say one of the best ways to protect teens is by offering protection through the mail.

 

 

The controversial new program to send teens ages 12-19 free condoms through the mail has both supporters and opponents

Obviously it's a fairly important point to make, as simple as it may seem, that "free" condoms mean condoms paid for by you the taxpayer. And in case there's any doubt on that, the very last line of the story confirms:

Teens are allowed one order of 10 condoms a month. The program is being paid for with federal funds.

10 condoms a month, for how many teens aged 12-19 in California? I'm sure this won't be an excessive expense or anything. And why do I have a feeling - this is purely speculation, but speculation based on past practice - that Planned Parenthood is going to be contracted to provide the condoms?

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:07 pm   |  Permalink   |  1 Comment  |  Email
Friday, February 24 2012

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

 

I got an email from Alec right after the Republican debate a couple nights ago regarding Santorum's "go along to get along" comment.  Here's what he asked:

I'm not sure if you saw the Republican debate tonight, but if you did, what did you think about Santorum talking about the "taking one for the team (when talking about 'No Child Left Behind' I think)?" If you didn't catch it, he was talking about how he voted for it because the party did even though he didn't agree with him.  The crowd started booing and Romney and Paul shook their heads and jotted a note on their papers.  Is this a big enough issue to lose him the Arizona and Michigan votes?

 

My take is that it was not a good moment for Santorum, though I do think he scores points for acknowledging his mistake.  Certainly Romney has no place to shake his head at others for agreeing to something that he shouldn't have.  In fact, one of his major defenses for some of the more liberal actions he took as Governor was that he was in a very liberal state (which is true) and in order to get anything done that was positive, he had to be willing to compromise.  So if someone holds the Santorum comment against him and uses that as an impetus to support Romney, I think that's somebody who had already decided to go with Romney in the first place.

 

So no, I don't think it was a moment that Santorum would put on his highlight reel, but I don't think that alone would cost him the race in Arizona or Michigan.  That doesn't mean I think he'll win either, but if he doesn't it involves more than just that question alone.

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:06 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, February 23 2012

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

 

Kristi Hofferber is one of my favorite guests that I've ever had on my radio show. Not just because she was a delightful interview with an amazing story and amazing heart. But because she obliterates the mindless evil embraced by many warped minds on the left.

 

 

Several years ago in the early days of this radio program, I hosted Rep. Ted Harvey of the Colorado state legislature on my show. He told of inviting a young woman Gianna Jessen to the Statehouse to lead the national anthem the very morning the Democrats in the legislature were pushing through a bill to honor the Planned Parenthood affiliate in that region. What no one in the chamber knew was that Gianna was an abortion survivor. She was stricken with cerebral palsy because of what the abortionist did to her. When Harvey pointed that out after the anthem had been sung, the House chamber leader, Democrat Alice Madden gaveled him into silence. She was later quoted as blasting the fact that he would "use a human being" as an example of his personal politics.

 

I will never forget that. Because that's the point, Alice. She is a human being. Abortion crippled her. And it kills so many other "human beings" like her. That is what the left has sickeningly foisted upon us: a dehumanizing of the reality of abortion. Even when they tout their emotional justifications like rape or incest, they are intentionally ignoring the humanity of the innocent child that is a product of that heinous act.

 

I put a personal face on that today on my radio show when I invited Kristi Hofferber on to tell her story. Adopted when she was just days old, she began a search for her birth mother when she was around the age of 30. She writes,

 

KEEP READING

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

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

 

The other day we brought up the topic of a brokered convention for Republicans this summer. There are a lot of folks who are beginning to suggest that is a possibility. In a nutshell, it's a reset of the primary race. One of the current candidates could emerge, or someone entirely new who hasn't participated in the primaries could be chosen.

 

 

Remember that these nominating conventions were not always the dog and pony shows that they are today. They actually used to serve a purpose of picking the presidential nominee. Now it is so much formality - the primaries have determined delegates, who go and cast their support to whoever they were pledged to originally. The whole thing is orchestrated by the presumptive nominee: speakers chosen, scheduled, videos pre-made, signs and sounds all pre-chosen. It's a stage show more than a convention.

 

But if no Republican candidate heads into the convention with a majority of the delegates in their pocket, then it gets interesting. I don't claim to know all the ins and outs of how the brokered convention would work, but suffice it to say that it becomes a wide open ballgame. Conventioneers could choose to nominate anyone they wanted to - even those who have deferred or decided not to run. Now that person could still refuse to accept the nomination (remember LBJ's famous "if nominated I will not run" comment or whatever it was), but nothing prevents the conventioneers from choosing the name originally.

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:08 pm   |  Permalink   |  8 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, February 23 2012
Hear the audio version here (segments older than 3 weeks may be unavailable)

 

Okay, I need a name check on this. Is this lady's name Krystal Ball? This isn't a joke. I believe that's who MSNBC invited on as an expert commentator on a new abortion law in Virginia. I'm not making fun, I'm just wanting to make sure that I have it right.

 

 

Anyway, so Krystal Ball goes on MSNBC because she's been getting a lot of attention nationally for her opposition to an abortion law that was recently enacted by the Virginia legislature that requires women considering an abortion to have a specific kind of ultrasound done before they go through with the hit. Before they carry out the murder, they have to see a picture of what they're doing.

 

And that has Krystal Ball very angry. So angry, in fact, that she accuses the state of raping women. I guess that's one way to get yourself on national television. Never mind Barack Obama's been raping American business for three years. That isn't news. But this is. So let's get right to Krystal's rage:

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:07 pm   |  Permalink   |  1 Comment  |  Email
Thursday, February 23 2012

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

 

Al Sharpton goes by Reverend. Al Sharpton boasts about preaching "Jesus" since he was a boy. Al Sharpton seems to be a little confused on some of the finer points, er...basic points of Christianity, however.

 

What got all this started was a conversation that Franklin Graham had with the liberal inquisition on Morning Joe. They bombarded him with all kinds of questions about whether he thought so-and-so was a Christian. When Graham seemed much more comfortable saying that Gingrich and Santorum were Christians than Obama and Romney, the liberals had their opening. You can just imagine their indignation and pompous self-righteousness - "How dare he suggest that Santorum is more of a Christian than Obama! Who is he to say such a thing?!" Uh, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you ask him his opinion and best guess? Classic liberals right there.

 

But of all the pomposity, Mr. Sharpton's was perhaps the most humorous. Take a look at this:

"We've been hearing a lot of talk about faith and religion in recent days," Sharpton proclaimed. "This morning, Franklin Graham went on national television to question President Obama's Christian faith. And in Washington, we?ve seen politicians using faith to attack women's rights to health care."

Stop the tape. We're two sentences in, and we've already got two significant distortions. First, Franklin Graham didn't go on television to question President Obama's faith. The questions were posed to him and he did his best to answer them. Second, politicians aren't using faith to attack women's rights to health care. You've got that backwards, Al. Politicians are using a cloak of women's health care to attack men and women's rights of conscience. Nice try, slick.

 

KEEP READING

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

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

 

So the Drudge Report - which I check daily and greatly appreciate, by the way - runs this breaking news flash about Santorum's comments...from 2008.  No joke.  It was up as a major newsflash.  This isn't going to help the perception that Drudge is in the tank for Romney.  Remember it was Drudge that unleashed on Gingrich as anti-Reagan when Newt was surging around the time of South Carolina and heading into Florida.  Well now that Santorum is threatening, here's this supposedly earth shattering piece about Santorum and his ideas on Satan.

 

 

But has anyone read this?  I'm just kind of taken aback that anyone would see this as odd.  Take a look at the report:

"Satan has his sights on the United States of America!" Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum has declared.

"Satan is attacking the great institutions of America, using those great vices of pride, vanity, and sensuality as the root to attack all of the strong plants that has so deeply rooted in the American tradition."

MORE

The former senator from Pennsylvania warned in 2008 how politics and government are falling to Satan.

"This is a spiritual war. And the Father of Lies has his sights on what you would think the Father of Lies would have his sights on: a good, decent, powerful, influential country - the United States of America. If you were Satan, who would you attack in this day and age?"

"He attacks all of us and he attacks all of our institutions."

Santorum made the provocative comments to students at Ave Maria University in Florida.

Wait...provocative?  What is provocative about that?  Who is that provocative to?  The Satanists?  Are we concerned about offending the sensibilities of those who are sacrificing goats to Beelzebub?

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:09 pm   |  Permalink   |  4 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, February 22 2012

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

 

So here's a serious question: where did we ever come up with the conventional wisdom that says someone who is staunchly pro-life and pro-family cannot win in a general election?  Seriously - where did it come from?  I'm not debating that that is the conventional wisdom.  It is.  I accept that.  Everyone thinks that a staunch conservative on social issues just can't win in the general election, but I want to know what the evidence is, who came up with that theory and what they base it on.  In short, I'm saying it's not true. 

 

 

There was a great piece by James Taranto in the Wall Street Journal just a couple days ago that is highlighting a book by Jeffrey Bell.  Don't know a lot about Jeffrey Bell, but from what Taranto says, this isn't a staunch social conservative himself.  He's primarily an economic conservative, but has written this book to basically thrash this conventional logic that says someone who is really pro-life and really pro-family can't win over the American people.  His book says exactly what I'm saying: it ain't true.  The evidence speaks to that:

Social conservatism, Mr. Bell argues in his forthcoming book, "The Case for Polarized Politics," has a winning track record for the GOP. "Social issues were nonexistent in the period 1932 to 1964," he observes. "The Republican Party won two presidential elections out of nine, and they had the Congress for all of four years in that entire period. . . . When social issues came into the mix?I would date it from the 1968 election . . . the Republican Party won seven out of 11 presidential elections."

 

The Democrats who won, including even Barack Obama in 2008, did not play up social liberalism in their campaigns. In 1992 Bill Clinton was a death-penalty advocate who promised to "end welfare as we know it" and make abortion "safe, legal and rare." Social issues have come to the fore on the GOP side in two of the past six presidential elections?in 1988 (prison furloughs, the Pledge of Allegiance, the ACLU) and 2004 (same-sex marriage). "Those are the only two elections since Reagan where the Republican Party has won a popular majority," Mr. Bell says. "It isn't coincidental."

Let me suggest to you that it is a manufactured line from the left and perpetuated by the leftist media who are totally anti-life and pro-homosexual.  They are petrified of the idea of a staunch social conservative because they know that someone like that can win. 

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:08 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, February 22 2012

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

 

If someone asked me to make a case for the most discriminated against group in America, it would be a no-brainer.  And, as is always the case with successful discrimination tactics, the prejudice and mistreatment of this group flies under the radar, getting absolutely zero attention from the press.

 

Immediately some of the obvious ones fly out the window.  The idea that black Americans are the most discriminated against group is silly.  Not that racial discrimination doesn't still exist.  It does.  But it is rightly vilified and those who practice it are shamed and exposed the moment word gets out.  The same goes for women.

 

 

The gay rights crusaders will tell you that those who practice homosexuality are the most discriminated against group.  But any fair analysis of the per capita income, job placement, educational background, and media support of those who practice homosexuality makes any such claim utterly ridiculous.

 

One of the reasons true unfair, hateful discrimination is so vile and so wretched is that when it is seen, many people hesitate or refuse to point it out or call it out for fear of themselves being ostracized or berated.  Look at any of those groups I just listed and you see that is not the case for them.  In fact, many people are so excited about crying discrimination and being a whistleblower on behalf of those groups that it has become almost a fad to do so.  You see liberal commentators injecting race into every discussion and complaining about hate speech every time you turn around.

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:07 pm   |  Permalink   |  1 Comment  |  Email
Wednesday, February 22 2012

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

 

The viability of the Roe v Wade decision is getting frailer and frailer to the point that I don't see how it survives this decade. I'm serious. I'm not saying that as a fanatic pro-lifer, though I have no problem being categorized as a fanatic for the cause of life. I say it as someone who has a brain and can see the massive, gaping holes in its logic and reasoning. The truth is that the decision itself has been maligned by supporters and opponents alike because it's just bad law.

 

 

One of the biggest problems with the decision - and there are many - is the arbitrary lines that it attempts to draw, particularly on the subject of viability and humanity. Then there are the legal questions that come up as to why a man can be charged with a double homicide if he kills a woman and her unborn child, but the woman could go into a clinic that same day and have the child killed as a legal "choice." It's absurd and everyone knows it. The pro-aborts just don't talk about those inconsistencies.

 

Well, another recent case has highlighted the ignorance behind this intellectually vapid ruling, and it is nothing but further confirmation that even a Supreme Court made up of 5 justices who would like to affirm abortion rights will have a hard time validating this Roe ruling if it faces a serious challenge in the coming years:

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:06 pm   |  Permalink   |  1 Comment  |  Email
Tuesday, February 21 2012

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

 

Classic moment on MSNBC that you can't miss. Melissa Harris-Perry...does she have her own show now? I mean, she's a radicalized lib so I figure she should be on that network. She's a race-obsessed feminist pseudo-intellectual, so it only seems fair she get a program. Plus, I'm sure it's purely coincidental that MSNBC has moved to hire her and Al Sharpton in recent months after they lobbed accusations of racism against the "monochromatic" Tea Party only to get exposed for having an anchor team that was far more "monochromatic" than any Tea Party.

 

 

Anyway, Ms. Perry had as a guest a Columbia University professor named Dorrian Warren who pondered why the Republican Party wants to be a southern "white" party. I know, it's shocking, isn't it? That there would be a race-obsession from a liberal college professor! Who would have thought that?! It just never happens.

 

You know, this is incredible to me because they just don't get it. They don't try to get it. Conservatism is an idea or set of ideas. And people, regardless of their color or their creed or their religion or nationality or gender can embrace it. Conservatives espouse a set of ideas that we believe make all men better: life, liberty, property rights, the rule of law. That isn't just for white people. The race problem in this country is on the left where they believe that if you look a certain way, you have to believe a certain way. That's where the problem lies.

 

But anyway, that wasn't the main point of this clip. Check out Melissa Harris-Perry's comment that just oozed ignorance:

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:09 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, February 21 2012

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

 

In case you were wondering, no there is nothing sacred. Not with the radical homosexual lobby. Iconic singer Whitney Houston had barely been pronounced dead before the gay lobby was already trying to hijack her legacy to advance their political agenda. Peter Tatchell, extremist homosexual activist, immediately announced that he thought Whitney was happiest in her life when she loved another woman, intimating that her decision to walk away from a homosexual relationship is what ultimately resulted in her death.

 

 

When he took in some criticism (not from the mainstream media, of course, to whom radical homosexualists can get away with saying and doing some of the most revolting, disgusting and deadly things imaginable without being called on it - because in the world of media, gays must be portrayed always as the victims, never the oppressors), Tatchell wrote his full "outing" of a deceased Whitney in the Daily Mail:

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:08 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, February 21 2012

Former Congressman David McIntosh is back in the political picture, as he seeks the 5th Congressional district seat being vacated by outgoing incumbent Dan Burton. Known as a solid conservative, McIntosh is taking on several other candidates competing for the position.

 

 

On today's show, I invited Mr. McIntosh into the studio for a conversation about his candidacy, his ideology and basic beliefs and his view on the state of the nation.

 

Hear the full interview here.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:07 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, February 21 2012

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

 

Okay, I think I heard someone say that MSNBC had hired a new anchor. Is that true? MSNBC is the radical left-wing network that thought they could make themselves immensely popular by countering what they saw as Fox News' pandering to the right. What they never seem to realize is that Fox is successful because they do what no other news organization in the country does: they actually present two sides, they actually present the reality that there is a conservative viewpoint in this country. Fox's success was realizing that Americans identify as conservative over liberal by a 2 to 1 margin. So, actually letting a conservative viewpoint be heard was a good idea.

 

MSNBC's failure comes in that they are merely trying to radicalize what is already available on every other network: left-wing biased news coverage. People get left-wing garbage from NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, NPR, CNN, they get it from all the major print media, they get it from every direction they turn. So MSNBC doesn't have a corner on the market when it comes to liberal news coverage. Now, they do seem to be developing a pretty strong corner on crazy. That's why I'm wondering how long it will be until they sweep down and pick up Randi Rhodes to be a host.

 

 

For those who don't know, Randi Rhodes is a shrill and harsh left wing radio commentator. She became famous not too long ago for falling down drunk, and knocking her teeth out, and then claiming she'd been mugged. Undoubtedly it was one of those radical right wingers who did it. The reason I think that Rhodes will be picked up by MSNBC soon is because she has the exact temperament, attitude and tolerance of differing perspectives that liberals at the network certainly strive for. She demonstrated that just recently. This must have been her audition segment for MSNBC. She started ranting against God (a must for all progressive-minded liberals) in the context of blasting Rick Santorum's belief in the sanctity of life:

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:06 pm   |  Permalink   |  2 Comments  |  Email
Monday, February 20 2012

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

 

Okay, so let me get this straight. The same guy who goes out at a prayer breakfast a couple weeks ago and announces that his entire policy agenda is based on the Bible - is based on what Jesus would do...that same guy is now gonna get his presidential panties in a bunch because one of his opponents is saying that it's not? How ridiculous!

 

 

Rick Santorum is taking flack for suggesting at a tea party event that President Obama's policy agenda comes from a different "theology" than the Bible, than the Christian worldview. And you've got all these liberals out there - who don't believe in the inerrancy or Scripture of the validity and infallibility of Scripture anyway - and they're flipping out saying, "He's questioning the President's faith!"

 

No, he's not. Santorum can't know the guy's heart. Santorum wasn't saying that he did. Santorum was basically saying, in a nutshell, "Okay, you want to say that your policies are based on Jesus' teachings, let's take a look at that." He measured Obama by the standard Obama pre-announced, and now Obama's upset about it? Come on, Barry.

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:10 pm   |  Permalink   |  2 Comments  |  Email
Monday, February 20 2012

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

 

I can't say thank you enough to the over 600 folks who showed up for our Comedy Valentinesapalooza on Saturday night. It was our fifth comedy show for charity that we've done, and this was the first one that was romance themed. I could be wrong, but I think pretty much everybody left that night having been truly inspired and instructed in the ways of romance. Okay, probably not, but it was still a great night.

 

 

John Branyan is always great to have there - he's just hilarious. And Randy Maurer has a flare for the improv games that is fantastic. Liz Thompson came down and joined us from Chicago (you can check out some of her work at HowToLiz.com.

 

But the real stars of the show were the wonderful folks over at the Crisis Pregnancy Center here in Kokomo, IN. That was the charity we chose to help out this year. This organization, if you are unaware of what they do, literally shows the love of Christ - caring for the needy, the scared, the hopeless and helpless - on a daily basis. Many of the young ladies who walk into a Crisis Pregnancy Center are those who have perhaps made a mistake and don't know what to do. There are plenty of voices in our culture that will advise them poorly and lead them down a path that promises a short term fix that will present long term trauma and pain. That's where CPCs like Living Alternatives comes in. They take these women wherever they're from, whatever their condition, and they care for them, counsel them, supply them with baby food, formula, blankets, clothes, you name it.

 

KEEP READING

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

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

 

I remain amazed at the incoherence of so many people regarding this whole issue of Obama vs. the Church. So many folks on the left still think this is about contraception - think that this is about pills and condoms. That's incredible to me. It's incredible because these are the same people that have been whining for half a century about the separation of church and state. If this isn't the most obvious violation of that "wall of separation," I don't know what is.

 

 

This is the state saying to Christian believers, "You will violate your conscience and pay for life destroying drugs or you will be punished." This is what Patrick Henry railed about - the rights of conscience. It's what Madison and Mason carefully crafted protections of, above all other rights. It's what the Danbury Baptists were concerned about when they wrote to Jefferson. And it's what Jefferson was reassuring to them would never happen when he wrote back, because as he pointed out, the First Amendment erected a wall of separation protecting those individuals rights of conscience from violation of the state.

 

But all these media sources are running around fanning the flames of ignorance on the left pretending this is somehow about conservatives wanting to ban the pill. They are masters of deception and misdirection. And along those lines, did you happen to see Nancy Pelosi's presser last week? Oh my. Pelosi goes out there, and I don't know if she started the talking point or just echoed it, but whichever it was, she goes on this rampage about how the Republicans blocked all women from testifying about this situation. Here's what she said:

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:07 pm   |  Permalink   |  1 Comment  |  Email
Monday, February 20 2012

One of the neatest Tea Party events I've ever been a part of happened just a couple weeks ago when I was able to present a 2 and a half hour crash course on the basics of American Government to a group of 35-45 folks. Now, don't get me wrong, I loved all of the outdoor big rallies that I've been a part of in the past. They were great and I hope there will be more of them in the future.

 

 

But this particular event was great because it was a group of citizens taking an interest in the way the system works and some of these foundational concepts that led our country to greatness. Only when we're educated about that can we truly hope to bring about change.

 

Along those lines, the Kokomo Area Tea Party is hosting another one of their Educate, Empower, Engage Public Action Meetings tomorrow, February 21 and Victory Christian Academy. I invited Tea Party coordinator Kenlyn Watson on the show to talk about the meeting and everything that would be going on there.

 

Hear our discussion here.

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

Sometimes you know that you are on target by the measure of negative responses you receive from certain groups. Last week, our alert on the BMV issuance of a specialty license plate for a homosexual recruitment center called the Indiana Youth Group lit up a segment of the Internet that watches my every word.

As a result, homosexual activists hit the AFA of Indiana Facebook page and filled it with comments about their agenda to rewrite marriage and force it upon Hoosiers. (Some of whom appear to have signed up for this weekly email and may be reading this right now. If so, here is a great link to spend some time reading about real people just like you: http://exodusinternational.org/resources/real-stories/#.TzvIfpjXH7Y)

That is typical of those who preach tolerance to the world. What was unique was that over the weekend it was obvious that the radical Atheists had also gotten torqued out of shape over something we had done or said. Their posts were just as ferocious (which says a lot), but unlike others, they did cause me to pause and think. What if they are correct? What if my faith in Christ is a total myth, with no logical basis or scientific rationale or common sense? If I am wrong, I live a life of peace, happiness that I've chosen under a false belief. Then I die with the comfort of a false hope, and that's it. I simply lost a bet with no real payout. If the Atheists are wrong, they will also live their life as they chose, but then encounter an indescribable shock followed by an eternity of irreversible torment, regret, shame, pain and remorse. Who then is really the more illogical?

Posted by: Micah Clark AT 06:02 am   |  Permalink   |  8 Comments  |  Email
Sunday, February 19 2012

Remember the good ol' days when you could use a half-inch wooden rod and rap a kid in the knuckles for misbehavin'? Or how about putting a "dunce cap" on a student and sitting him in the corner for everyone to laugh at. I remember my teacher drawing a circle on the chalkboard and making me put my nose in it for several minutes. Of course the circle was drawn high enough for me to have to stand on my tiptoes. Then there was the classic paddle with holes drilled in it and inscribed with the name "Big Bertha." Oh, to be a teacher in those days. Now that's what I think of when I think of overly harsh discipline.

 

Today, schools are being picketed for charging parents $5 for detention. What a nation of wimps we have become!

 

Now don't get me wrong. I do not want to bring back the good ol' days when a teacher could march a student into the hallway and give him several whacks so all the other students could hear him wail. However, there has to be some form of discipline left for teachers to maintain order in the classroom. One thing I have learned in my twenty-plus years of teaching is you can't teach kids if you can't control the classroom environment.

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Matthew W. Turner AT 06:00 am   |  Permalink   |  1 Comment  |  Email
Saturday, February 18 2012

The attention over the White House mandate that religious institutions, including the 600 Catholic health care institutions in America that serve about 1-in-6 Americans each year provide abortifacient drugs (not just contraceptives) is significant and worthy of every bit of attention it has received. Thankfully, religious leaders have not let up on their opposition to the change in semantics that has been called a "compromise" though it is merely the same mandate applied to all insurance providers.

During this firestorm the Obama administration's heavy-handed approach to trampling religious liberty elsewhere went largely unnoticed. Ironically, the health mandate demonstrated this command and control problem through a letter from Catholic Bishops on the controversy.

The Catholic Church issued a denomination wide letter on this matter to their religious leaders across America that included all Catholic Military Chaplains to inform their parishioners that the Church "cannot and will not comply with this unjust law."

The Army immediately issued orders to all chaplains that they are not allowed to read the letter in its entirety. Certain portions were to be blacked out and not read out loud. As one former Navy Chaplain who apparently saw the orders wrote, "The Secretary of the Army said you have to line out some of the language or else we're going to charge the chaplains with sedition and treason for opposing the Obama administration. They are actually threatening chaplains with court-martial if they dare to preach against sin in their own church."

KEEP READING

Posted by: Micah Clark AT 09:50 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Saturday, February 18 2012

Well, the Big Entertainment airheads are at it again. Actually, they never quit.

 

I read where American musician Cat Power - who is that? - has canceled her show in Israel. Turns out, there is a growing list of entertainers shunning Israel because of their conflict with Palestinians.

 

 

The calls are to accuse the Jewish state of "apartheid" and to boycott the only government in the area established upon human freedom.

 

Without any thought whatsoever, Big Entertainment airheads jump on this bandwagon. Well, we don't have to worry about them using their brains to actually learn some facts behind the Israeli-Palestinian issues. They really don't have to do much in the way of significant research. Just answer a simple question: in which other Middle East countries are they allowed to perform?

Posted by: The Old Salt AT 07:29 am   |  Permalink   |  3 Comments  |  Email
Saturday, February 18 2012

Education in Indiana consumes roughly half of our state budget. The issue itself is an enormous one that can feel like trying to wrap your arms fully around a Volkswagen Beetle. Even when I served on the Governor's Education Roundtable, the amount of information that we were given about education issues and reforms was enormous.

The sheer volume of information and all the connections tied to various agencies concerning education issues over the years has at times seemed to feed a lot of scare tactics and conspiracy theorists who bemoan the direction of education.

Yet, when a respected national leader like the Heritage Foundation warns that Indiana's schools are being taken over by the federal government, all Hoosiers should take note. What is more concerning is that it appears as though we may be turning over our authority voluntarily.

The issue surrounds a program called "Common Core Standards" and Indiana is one of the states that have signed onto these standards in place of our own state standards. In fact, one high placed state representative in education issues made an off hand comment to me last week "with common core, the I-STEP test won't really matter in a few years." The state I-Step test is sacrosanct to many in state government. There seems to be disagreement among experts I have asked if these common core standards will, in fact, spell the demise of I-STEP in favor of a federally composed test. If it ever does happen, private schools taking vouchers are going to be in an interesting situation.

KEEP READING

Posted by: Micah Clark AT 06:47 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Saturday, February 18 2012

If I were Whitney Houston's doctor, I would be heading for the hills. Her death, like that of Michael Jackson, raises the specter of prescription drug abuse.

 

 

I can imagine the corner that the doctors are backed into by these guy and gal divas. The celebrities probably throw any amount of fits if they don't get their prescriptions.

 

Personally, I think that Big Government should pass a law barring celebrities from receiving prescribed pain killers. It would be, after all, for their own good.

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 06:03 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Saturday, February 18 2012

In response to the Obama administration denying a permit to build the Keystone XL Pipeline, Laborer's International Union of North America president Terry O'Sullivan announced:

The score is Job-Killers, two; American workers, zero. We are completely and totally disappointed. this is politics at its worst...Once again the President has sided with environmentalists instead of blue collar construction workers - even though environmental concerns were more than adequately addressed. Blue collar construction workers across the U.S. will not forget this.

There are few things more gratifying to me than liberals yelling down liberals. It is all so puny and outright funny.

 

"Blue collar construction workers across the U.S. will not forget this." What is the union going to do? Endorse a Republican candidate? That'll be the proverbial cold day.

 

No, what Mr. O'Sullivan will somehow magically do is blame Obama's slap in the union face on the Republican candidate. I don't know what the spin will be, but when you hear it, you heard it here first.

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 05:32 am   |  Permalink   |  1 Comment  |  Email
Friday, February 17 2012

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

 

You always have to be a little cautious whenever you get chain emails. So many of them - and I mean a lot of them - are full of questionable if not downright deceptive "facts" that they promise have been "Snopes-approved." Then there's the worry over the bias of Snopes. So unless you have time to do some independent verification of what you're receiving, my standard suggestion to folks is to assume that a lot of what you're getting is not exactly accurate.

 

 

So that's why I would never, under normal circumstances, repeat something that came in a chain email on the air. But when this one came in from a number of folks, I thought it was such a vindicating and important distinction to be drawn, we set out to do a little independent verification of a number of these things. And while I can't vouch for the validity of everything that came in the side-by-side comparison between the Tea Party movement and the Occupy Wall Street movement email, I can tell you that enough of them are independently verifiable. And this is eye-opening stuff when you consider the media treatment of both groups.

Arrests: Occupy 4,000+ / Tea 1

Rapes: Occupy 12 reported / Tea 0

Murders: Occupy 1 reported / Tea 0

Call to violence caught on tape: Occupy YES / Tea NO

Anti-Semitism caught on tape: Occupy YES / Tea NO

Public indecency: Occupy YES / Tea No

Public intoxication: Occupy YES / Tea NO

Public urination: Occupy YES / Tea NO

Public defecation: Occupy YES / Tea NO

Drug possession: Occupy YES / Tea NO

Theft: Occupy YES / Tea NO

American Flag desecration: Occupy YES / Tea NO

Israeli Flag desecration: Occupy YES / Tea NO

Tuberculosis outbreak: Occupy YES / Tea NO

Scabies outbreak: Occupy YES / Tea NO

 

KEEP READING

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

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

 

Looking for a spiritual high? Have I got the event for you:

The Reason Rally is a movement-wide event sponsored by the country's major secular organizations. The intent is to unify, energize, and embolden secular people nationwide, while dispelling the negative opinions held by so much of American society... and having a d--- good time doing it! It will be the largest secular event in world history. There will be music, comedy, great speakers, and lots of fun... and it's free! [...]

 

Across America, in every city, every town, and every school, secularism is on the rise. Whether people call themselves atheists, agnostics, secular Humanists, or any of the other terms used to describe their god-free lifestyle, secularism is coming out of the closet. According to the 2008 American Religious Identification Survey...the percentage of people with no religious affiliation grew in all fifty states. The purpose of this particular rally will be to advance secularism (in the broadest sense of the word) in society.

Yes, that's right - a "reason" rally that is being held by those who struggle to comprehend the absurdly obvious: that the fingerprint of God rests on all of Creation. I apologize for my cynicism but I think it can be excused. This is a rally of folks who will revel in their profound foolishness - not my words, for "the fool says in his heart ?there is no God.'"

 

Try to remove the political and societal battles that have taken place between the humanists and those of us who hold to the Judeo-Christian worldview over the past several decades. Ignore the hostility that they have expressed in everything from online debates to legal challenges, and just consider their position on its merits. Imagine a group of people walking along a tarmac and admiring the craftsmanship of the jets and airplanes with their thousands or millions of working parts. After observing it and shaking their head in amazement at the intricacies, they turn and say to one another, "Really, there's nothing special about this if you think about it - it was just a bunch of inorganic bolts and rods that got shaken up in an earthquake and randomly came together like this."

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:08 pm   |  Permalink   |  5 Comments  |  Email
Friday, February 17 2012

The Catholic Church has taken the lead here in the United States in opposing the draconian dictate coming from the Obama administration that requires all insurance plans to provide free access to contraceptives and abortifacients. A local editorial by the Kokomo Tribune attempted to find "middle ground" on the issue. But, of course, finding middle ground on whether or not a person's rights of conscience are violated only ensures that a person's rights of conscience are going to be violated.

 

 

One of the more alarming elements of the Tribune's editorial was the attitude they took to the Catholic Church's position on birth control. The argument basically suggested that since a lot of Catholics use birth control, the Church should just change their position. You know...get hip with the times, Catholics. Now, I'm not a Catholic, but this is the precise attitude towards the notion of right and wrong, and even the authority of God's Word that has gotten us into all kinds of trouble. For instance, that is the very basis for the emerging attitude in several denominations towards homosexuality. "Oh, it's normal now, so just accept it and drop your opposition to the behavior." The contempt expressed in that attitude for some things being right and some things being wrong regardless of popular practice is overwhelming.

 

I heard a lot of feedback in my inbox from the Tribune's editorial, but thought that Ted Dudzinski's rebuttal op-ed the Tribune ran a few days later was the most effective, best stated and well-reasoned of all of them. I invited Mr. Dudzinski, who pastors at St. Joan of Arc and St. Patrick churches in Kokomo, IN, onto the show to talk about his excellent piece.

 

We discussed the incredibly serious issue this is, as well as the frightening attitude of complacency towards the authority of truth that has become so chic in our culture.

 

Hear our entire conversation here.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:07 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, February 17 2012

Fresh off her stirring appearance at the CPAC Convention in Washington, D.C., Indiana Congressional candidate Jackie Walorski joined me for our bi-weekly conversation today. I asked Jackie to recount her experiences at the convention and the reception she received there. We also discussed the energy factor for conservatives in this election cycle.

 

 

I also asked Jackie to share her thoughts on the serious controversy involving HHS's ObamaCare mandate that forces Christian individuals and businesses to violate their rights of conscience in order to provide free abortifacients. As always, Jackie was ready with an answer.

 

Hear the full interview here.

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

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

 

This whole deal with Ellen DeGeneres and JC Penney is a really frightening thing when you see how far we're gone as a society. I don't mean to depress anybody, but the degree to which the left has waged a nearly flawless propaganda campaign over the last few decades for the acceptance of sexual depravity is freaky. That's the only word I can come up with for it: freaky. And Christians, let me tell you that at the end of this, it's not going to be pleasant for you.

 

 

Virtually every major media outlet - from national to local - in nearly every community is staffed by folks who have been so exposed to the propaganda, they have become converts themselves. They can't see straight. I'm serious. That's how effective the propaganda has been. The homosexual activists knew exactly who to target. They went after media outlets and education. And the success of that strategy is nearly complete. Again, look at this Ellen DeGeneres/JC Penney thing to see what I mean.

 

For those of you who don't know, a group affiliated with the American Family Association called One Million Moms has put pressure on JC Penney to drop Ellen as their company spokeswoman because of her propagation of dangerous sexual experimentation and behavior. Now, this isn't an attack on Ellen as a person, it's an attack on her behavior, saying she's not a good role model. And look at how this was played in the press. It's the right-wing nuts who hate. Even Bill O'Reilly called them out for a "witch hunt."

 

That's absurd. But that's how far gone our intellects are...it's how far gone our judgment and wisdom is as a people. Sandy Rios explained it perfectly this way:

 

KEEP READING

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

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

 

You ever heard of Scott Garrett? I hadn't either until yesterday. He's a Republican representative from New Jersey who, by his line of questioning, may have just upended the president's entire legal case in favor of ObamaCare. You step back and think of the implications of this going forward, and they could be immense.

 

 

For reasons inexplicable to me, Team Obama decided to fast-track the ObamaCare legal challenges from the states to the Supreme Court. That means that in the midst of this raucous election year, one of the most controversial, divisive and increasingly despised laws in recent American history is going to be thrust to the forefront of conversation. As I've said before, either way the decision is made, Obama stands to lose: if he wins the case, it will motivate conservatives like never before to defeat him and usher in conservative, repeal-minded majorities in both houses of Congress. If he loses the case, it will be a crushing blow to the President's signature "accomplishment" of his first term. So again, I don't get it.

 

But beyond the questionable politics of the whole thing, Obama's legal argument is embarrassing, and has been for some time. And, thanks to Scott Garrett, it just became horrifically flawed:

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:08 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, February 16 2012

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

 

Why is it that the supposedly smart people in our society are so whacked out? I'm serious. There seems to be a direct correlation between the amount of advanced degrees and the embrace of some really bizarre, freaky, and deadly ideas. I'm not condemning education, of course. I've got one, I try to help others get one, and I believe in it. But maybe this is more a commentary on the state of advanced levels of education, what we're training people to think rather than training them on how to think.

 

 

And this isn't necessarily even a comment about governing. That's certainly true too - remember the Buckley quote about how he'd rather be governed by people plucked out of the phone book than the faculty at a major Ivy League university. I totally agree with that, by the way. But I just mean culturally, scientifically, it seems that the more education a person has at some of our leading institutions of learning, the more apt they are to being totally off the rails.

 

Now certainly there are plenty of smart people that have escaped the grips of this intellectual black hole. But observing the state of intelligentsia today, you definitely begin to understand the Biblical axiom from Romans that "professing themselves to be wise, they became fools." Wesley J. Smith of Discovery Institute recently wrote about a prime example of what I'm referring to:

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:07 pm   |  Permalink   |  13 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, February 16 2012

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

 

Yesterday I played a clip of Florida Senator Marco Rubio commenting on the President's non-budget, election year gimmick. Rubio was suggesting that the Republicans in the Senate call the President's bluff and actually bring the bill up for a vote. It would be political suicide for sitting Democrat Senators up for re-election this year to vote in favor of such a "budget." The thing explodes the debt a few more trillion bucks. You know, what Tim Geithner calls, "remarkably fiscally responsible?"

 

I agree with Rubio, by the way. I think forcing Democrats to vote on something so irresponsible would be brilliant. It forces them to either commit political suicide by voting for it, or to send a clear and unquestioned message to the American people that even Democrats recognize how irresponsible and how patently unserious the President's budget is. It's a win-win for conservatives. And Rubio realizes that. I am becoming more and more impressed with this guy each passing day.

 

And apparently I'm not the only one. The chirping about a Rubio Vice Presidential nod were only heightened by the fact that Rubio walked away with that post in a recent CPAC strawpoll. Here were the results:

 

KEEP READING

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

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

 

Indiana just got done with a contentious battle over become a Right to Work state, and as with any controversial piece of legislation there was a lot of hysteria that circulated around it.  But one of the things that I think is continually lost is that the law is a protection of the worker.  It's not a protection of the union or the union leadership, certainly.  But here's the simple truth: Right to Work is born of the same philosophy that first sparked union development. 

 

 

I know it sounds weird, but think about it.  The purpose of a union is to protect the worker from the abuses and exploitation of management.  You know, where the management knew the worker had no choice but to accept the dictates, the requirements, the positions set forth by management.  But what happens when the unions grow so powerful that they themselves can begin forcibly taking the worker's dues without his consent?  What happens when the worker has no power to oppose the dictates and requirements of the union management?  That's what Right to Work does.

 

Now, here's the best part: you hear forced union activists argue, "The worker has freedom as it is!  If they don't like having to pay dues, they know coming into the shop that it's a union shop!  If they don't like it, they can go work somewhere else." 

 

Hmmm.  Now what does that sound like?  Kind of sounds like, "If my workers don't like their wages, their hours, their conditions, they don't have to work here!  They can go find another job!"  Funny how the same union management and union apologists who decried that philosophy of management now uses the same argument to compel the worker to give dues to a union management they don't believe in.

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:09 pm   |  Permalink   |  6 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, February 15 2012

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

 

So here's a question.  Do you suppose Jesus would be into handing out rainbow colored and chocolate flavored condoms to unmarried kids?  Believe it or not, that is the actual proposition being advanced by Daily Kos writer Denise Oliver Velez.  If you are looking for any kind of evidence to suggest that the apocalypse is nearly upon us, the fact that so many people actually regard this as worthwhile, meaningful or - I shudder at this thought - intellectual commentary has be about as much as you could ask for.

 

 

It seems that Denise got her bowels in an uproar over the latest CPAC convention.  Or as she called it:

[A] horde of reactionary, women-hating, chastity obsessed (except in their own lives) right-wingers who huddled and spewed venom this week at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), spouting pseudo-pious obscenities bewailing "contraception" as if it is a communist plot against America

So clearly we are dealing with a couple things here: an obviously tolerant individual, one with a firm grasp on reality, and one not given to vitriolic exaggerations when characterizing those with whom she disagrees.  And certainly she's going to be bringing some intellectual firepower.

 

She began where every good liberal does...defending a child-killing factory:

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:08 pm   |  Permalink   |  1 Comment  |  Email
Wednesday, February 15 2012

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

 

Something dawned on me during the whole Right to Work debate here in Indiana, and I think there's something to this.  It confused me why I was getting emails from some folks I have met in churches, who I have every reason to believe are faithful believers who stand opposed to the same kind of cultural trash that I stand opposed to, yet these folks were adamantly opposed to Right to Work.  What made it even more confusing was that these were individuals who work at "forced union" shops and who have - in some cases - complained consistently about the union opposition to their values and beliefs.

 

 

And I couldn't make sense of that.  After all, Right to Work is a piece of legislation that gives power to the worker to hold their union leadership accountable - much in the same way that collective unions originally empowered the worker to hold their management accountable.  Why would they oppose it?  I think there's a couple answers here.

 

First, the union management - that clearly is going to face a new level of accountability under Right to Work that they didn't have before - was freaking out about this law.  The hysteria they were generating was frightening to workers, as intended.  So it's possible that some of these folks perhaps let human nature get the best of them and started believing against all logic that a law empowering them to choose whether or not to join a union would lead precipitously to the decline of their own livelihood and financial security.  In other words, they were scared.

 

The other possibility is a bit more concerning, and yet perhaps a bit more plausible.  Workers in Right to Work situations may have the freedom to disassociate from the union, but it sure isn't an easy choice.  In fact, it takes a lot of guts many times.  I certainly don't regard myself some sort of steely-eyed missile man, but when I made the decision to leave the teachers' union a few years ago, it upset some people that I consider very good friends. 

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:07 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, February 15 2012

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

 

If Obama goes in 2012, the one person I have to admit I'm going to miss running around Washington is little Timmy Geithner. He reminds me so much of a ticked off little elf at Christmastime who's mad because Santa's asked him to do a bunch of stuff he has no clue how to do. Which is pretty accurate when you consider that this man has no clue how to budget or maintain the finances of our country.

 


And before you think that's a partisan swipe I'm taking at a diligent public servant, you have to see the most recent comments Geithner made about Obama's insulting deficit proposal (I know it was technically a budget proposal, but to Obama, a budget is synonymous with a deficit). Here's the very first line of the news report:

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner hailed what he called a "remarkably fiscally responsible" budget that will add almost $4 trillion to the national debt over the next four years.

You can just stop right there. Just stop and think about that. And look, I know that there are Republicans who might say similar things. I'm not absolving any party of blame in this mess. But let's just acknowledge something together as Americans - that this is unsustainable and unacceptable. We have to stop giving our political leaders a pass when they declare a $4 trillion addition to the debt "remarkably fiscally responsible" just because they are from our party.

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:06 pm   |  Permalink   |  1 Comment  |  Email
Tuesday, February 14 2012

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

 

It's funny that today is Valentine's Day and everybody always focuses on shallow romantic fluff. You know? I don't want to get overly deep or anything, but it has really become apparent to me over the last 5 years of marriage - and that's all I've had, just 5 years, so I know how short that is to so many of you - but it's become apparent to me how silly our cultural view of romance and love is. We let love be defined by people like Britney Spears and Kim Kardashian. And that's sad.

 

 

You wonder why we're experiencing the cultural breakdown that we are experiencing, a lot of it has to do with our faulty view of love. Commitment isn't an essential part of the equation anymore. When you ask these cultural elites to define love, that word commitment doesn't even factor in on the radar. And that's so different than the way it used to be. And I'm not trying to pick on Spears or Kim K specifically because they are just symptomatic of the larger problem. Multiple marriages, one of Kim's lasting something like 70 days, one of Britney's lasting something like 70 hours. Yet those are the people who grace our television screens as role models of romance and attraction. What about the woman whose been committed to her husband for 70 years.

 

I know that would make her like 90 years old, and I get that you don't slap 90 year olds on magazines in provocative outfits. She's not going to make the cut for Seventeen magazine...she missed the cut-off by about 73 years. But that's my point.

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:09 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, February 14 2012

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

 

A couple months ago, we unveiled a new presentation aimed specifically at youth groups called Sex Wars. If you were watching ABC last weekend, you saw exactly why this presentation is so critical to expose your young Christian kids to.

 

I think I have a pretty good ability to not get overly angry about the nonsense that comes from the mainstream media in their consistent onslaught against the Judeo-Christian ethic in this country. I don't agree with them, but I see them as slaves to the foolish worldview that they've adopted, and it's just the natural progression to see them war against the very belief system that they have benefitted from. Nonetheless, there is one television program that really - and I mean really - tries my Christian patience. And that's the trash, hack hidden camera prank show on ABC called "What Would You Do?"


I've talked about this crap show before. All it comes down to is propaganda. It is so slanted, so shaded, so set up, it's not even funny. The premise of the show is that they put actors in major public locations and have them carry out some kind of uncomfortable exchange and gauge how normal people will react to it. But the way they set up their situations is to over-exaggerate every false caricature of conservatives imaginable, just to carry the template that these radical, nutty conservatives really exist like they are portrayed. They misrepresent those they disagree with, and make heroes out of those who stand up to stop them. They've done this with illegal immigration a couple times - making it appear as though those who oppose illegal immigration are all racist bigots. And they've done it a couple times now with homosexuality.


Before I run this clip from their recent show, I want to share with you a couple quotes from the homosexual activists of the late 80s, Hunter Madsen and Marshall Kirk. These quotes come from an article they wrote called "The Overhauling of Straight America" and a book they wrote called "After the Ball." In both works they are outlining a strategy for how homosexual activists can push their agenda and succeed in transforming society. Check these out:

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:08 pm   |  Permalink   |  1 Comment  |  Email
Tuesday, February 14 2012

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

 

Sarah Palin was spectacular at CPAC. I don't think I would put her speech there on par with the one she delivered at the Republican Convention back in 2008, but it was a great one - and the way it was received reflected that reality. First of all, Palin has a firm grasp on the small things that only savvy leaders (think Bill Clinton, except the polar opposite ideologically) grasp:

Symbolically clad in a bold-red blouse (and not in a pale, pink pastel color, which symbolizes the Republican establishment of which she is not a part)

 

Don't overlook something this simple. Sending a message of powerful ideas and strengthened convictions with the way you dress is a perfect example of someone who has a political sense that most others simply lack. When you add that to the kind of powerful oratory she delivered, you've got yourself something. And that's what I have felt about Palin for the longest time: she's something special, something unique and something conservatives need to embrace.

 

There's a number of reasons why, as Tony Lee's report of Palin's speech pointed out at Human Events:

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:07 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, February 14 2012

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

 

I thought it was kind of funny after I came out on the radio show yesterday and simply pointed out the obvious - that the Obama administration was merely trying to deceive Christians into believing that they had adapted and changed their draconian abortifacient mandate when in fact nothing had changed - I got some nasty responses. I literally had some guy write in and say, "This is the problem with you Christians. Even when the President caters to you and changes his whole policy you won't be happy."

 

 

Uh, Stan, the president didn't change his whole policy. And what's funny about this is that the President's own Chief of Staff agrees with me. Stan's beef shouldn't be with me for saying the president is just engaging in gimmicky stuff here. His beef should be with the President's own Chief of Staff for saying the same thing. Check this out:

On Friday, President Obama announced what the White House called a "new policy to improve access to contraception." But on Sunday, White House Chief of Staff Jack Lew indicated that there's nothing new about what the president said.

 

President Obama on Friday simply "speeded up the process he's now implemented," Lew told CBS's "Face the Nation."

 

"The president has not changed his position. His position was and is and has been that women have a right to the full range of preventive health, including contraception, and we have to do it in a way that's respectful of religious differences. We have implemented the policy, so I think the president has stuck to his position throughout."

 

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:06 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Monday, February 13 2012

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

 

Last week I said to Christians that they were fools if they bought this line coming from the Obama Administration that they are interested in compromising and "working things out" with this rights of conscience-denying dictate from ObamaCare regarding insurance contraceptives and abortifacients. The left (and Obama) have been assaulting the conscience of a Christian worldview for over a generation. They have no desire to change now - unless it is a temporary fix during an election year, only to be met with aggressive hostility once the election is secured.

 

 

Luckily, Catholic bishops and other Christian leaders aren't as foolish as some of those supposedly pro-life Democrats were when Barack Obama said he would sign a meaningless piece of paper promising that ObamaCare wouldn't spend tax dollars on abortions. That deal was about as meaningful and serious as the one he tried to make on this contraceptive mandate recently. The big difference is that all these supposedly pro-life Democrats like Bart Stupak and Joe Donnelly jumped at the chance to take Obama at his word.

 

And listen, I know that there are plenty who will say that Congressman Donnelly may not be the sharpest tool in the shed. I've heard that, but I'm not willing to give him that easy of an out. I don't think for a second that Joe was so ignorant that he couldn't see through that - that he didn't know that the Executive Order Obama signed did absolutely nothing to prevent what was clearly required by ObamaCare - the funding of abortion coverage. I think Joe knew it was a bunch of nonsense, but he just went with it hoping no one else would know.

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:09 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Monday, February 13 2012

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

 

It wasn't long ago that one of the most disgraceful Congressmen in the history of the republic, Alan Grayson of Florida - I guess former Congressman is the way to put it - was on national television saying how Newt Gingrich was running the most racist campaign in history since Wallace. That's George Wallace - a Democrat, by the way, just like Grayson.

 

Anyway, if you were curious as to what evidence that Grayson cited for such a radical claim, you're going to be curious for some time - because he cited none. Liberals never feel obligated to cite evidence when they make their race smear against Republicans or conservatives. The accusation is good enough. This practice is precisely why true racism or racial insensitivity is not taken seriously in this country anymore.

 

 

And it's a sad thing, actually. If you really do believe in moving towards a color blind society, if you really do believe in moving towards the Dream of Doctor King where people are judged on the content of their character rather than the color of their skin, then this type of meaningless accusation is incredibly counterproductive.

 

I'm all for exposing racism. I'm all for exposing racial insensitivity and pointing out those who struggle to get past race and racial divides. There's value in shaming those who remain embittered by racial differences and who constantly thrust it into discussions where it doesn't belong. But doing so will take courage. Especially for liberals. Because if you look at it with open eyes and an open mind, you will find that those struggling with racial obsession are not necessarily white conservatives.


Case in point:

Barack Obama's politics meant nothing to Samuel L. Jackson because the "Pulp Fiction" star only voted for the president for one reason and one reason only ... because he's black.

 

 

KEEP READING

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

Steve Deace is a nationally syndicated talk radio host who brings a refreshing Christian worldview into his conservative perspective of culture and politics. Recently, Steve authored a book entitled, "We Won't Get Fooled Again: Where the Christian Right Went Wrong and How to Make America Right Again."

 

 

Do Christians compromise their values and embrace of righteousness too often in the political realm? Have they become too intertwined with Republican Party politics? What position should a Christian take when facing what they perceive to be "two evils" on the ballot - and is that the situation that is shaping up for 2012?

 

All these topics are discussed in Steve's book, and I was thrilled to get to ask him myself in an on-air interview today on my radio show.

 

Listen to the full interview here.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:07 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Monday, February 13 2012

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

 

You don't send a child to do an adult's work. And yet that's what the American people did in 2008 when we - for historic, hopeful or change-tastic reasons - elected the single most unprepared Commander-in-Chief in our nation's history. And we're reaping the whirlwind for it now. With all our debt and deficit and domestic problems, a lot of folks are missing the dangerous fool's game of chicken that we are playing with Iran right now.

 


You step back and look at this with eyes wide open and you see a President that doesn't know what to do. He doesn't want to appear too pro-Israel, lest he offend Arab sensibilities he has worked so hard to foster. He doesn't want to appear too pro-Iran, lest he lose the Jewish vote in his re-election campaign. He doesn't want to appear too diplomatic in the face of sure threat, lest he lost public confidence in his ability or willingness to defend the country. He doesn't want to appear too aggressive, lest he lose his die-hard anti-war base and prove a mockery of his entire anti-war candidate campaign he put together in 08. And all that is consuming the president to the point that he stands motionless at a time when leadership is desperately needed.

 

If you want to see just how maddening all this is, consider what Obama recently announced:

WASHINGTON/TEHRAN (Reuters) - President Barack Obama said on Sunday there were important risks to consider before any military strike against Iran and made clear he does not want to see more conflict in the oil-producing Gulf region.

 

In a television interview, Obama also said he did not believe Tehran had the "intentions or capabilities" to attack the United States, playing down the threats from Tehran and saying he wanted a diplomatic end to the nuclear standoff.

But hold on. Just a few days before, Obama's own top intelligence officer said the exact opposite:

 

KEEP READING

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

In my spare time I have been reading the autobiographies of Frederick Douglass. Ever since I read a biography about Douglass in a college history class, he has been one of my favorite figures in American history. It's hard for me to understand how "Christians" could justify the heinous practice of slavery. Yet history is clear that many Americans claiming to be Christians defended the practice.

 

 

I am confident Frederick Douglass had a great impact in the anti-slavery movement. He stood as a shining example of the spirit of freedom which lies in the heart of man. Here was an eloquently articulate man who fought tirelessly for the plight of his brothers and sisters who were still in chains. Even after slavery was eliminated, he continued to fight for the equality which many now take for granted.

 

Today our country is in the grips of an injustice which is as bad, if not worse than slavery. America now denies life, the most fundamental right of mankind, to the unwanted, unborn in this nation. What is so ironic is the fact that some of the very same arguments used to justify slavery are being used to justify abortion.

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Matthew W. Turner AT 06:22 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Sunday, February 12 2012

What kind of Big Media uproar would there be if a Republican president was ending the Big Government educational program of a Democrat president? Why, he would be throwing America's children under the bus.

 

 

Yet, here is Mr. Obama liquidating the "No Child Left Behind" law created, with bipartisan yapping from no less than former Senator Ted Kennedy, to get all children to prescribed levels of proficiency in math and reading by 2014. Now it appears that the 2014 deadline is unrealistic. So why don't all other libby programs with unrealistic deadlines and bizarre goals get the axe, too? We are left only with dreams.

 

I would like to high-five the president and slap him on the back for ending a government overreach program, but I know better. I entertain no such false hopes. Big Brother will still be slapping Big Education around to ensure compliance with the latest libby no-baked idea.

 

For now, though, no child left behind will be left behind.

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 01:01 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Sunday, February 12 2012

Last week, the Indiana Senate unanimously passed Senate Bill 72, a pro-life bill. While unanimous support for the respect for life of the unborn and women in crisis pregnancies sounds good, the 36-0 vote came after the Democrats walked out over the Right to Work passage. Moreover, the bill has been significantly cut back to a very minimal measure requiring simply written materials from the Department of Health and the implementation of existing safety regulations upon a Fort Wayne clinic.

SB 72 is now in the Indiana House where it may be strengthened or expanded if it successfully moves through the process.

Posted by: Micah Clark AT 07:03 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Sunday, February 12 2012

If there is an up side to the flip flop from the Susan G. Komen Foundation which works for breast cancer research, prevention and treatment, it is that far more Americans today know that they are a pro-abortion group than did two weeks ago.

The exposure of Komen's reoccurring financial support for Planned Parenthood, and the bullying the foundation received from abortion advocates was not the only revelation. A review of the news cycle found that the major TV networks bent over backwards to defend Planned Parenthood and to promote their point of view. Over the course of 60 hours of review, ABC, NBC and CBS emphasized the controversy with thirteen morning and evening news stories. When the story sound bites were analyzed 76 % of the quotes came from supporters of Planned Parenthood, which is the nation's largest abortion provider. The networks uniformly echoed the outrage expressed by abortion advocates and their anger with Komen's short-lived decision to stop funding Planned Parenthood.

KEEP READING

Posted by: Micah Clark AT 06:48 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Saturday, February 11 2012

I realize there are some wealthy individuals - I'm not one of them, but some wealthy individuals who have a lot of stock portfolios.

The origin of this indictment against the death of reverence in America? Leonard Pitts, Jr., a columnist whose articles over time have contributed to the death of reverence. He has championed the type of freedom typical of liberalism - the type that jeers boundaries of decency and moral imperatives. The type of freedom that champions coarseness and vulgarity on an ever-expanding scale. The type of so-called freedom that George Carlin appropriated to mock decency rules covering radio and television programming, and the type that Howard Stern says is due him so that he can spew any venom he wants over open airwaves.

 

Then the day comes when these liberals and their so-called open minds are offended by a "lack of reverence." Now that is laughable, is it not? Mr. Pitts is bent out of shape because some strip clubs used Martin Luther King, Jr.'s image with scantily-clad women to promote their "I Have a Dream" bashes. So it took a poster that he found personally offensive to determine that reverence finally died.

 

Sadly, reverence died a long time ago. Yes, this episode is a travesty of decency, but it is far from being the event marking the "moment when reverence died."

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 01:30 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Saturday, February 11 2012

In light of the "No-zero Policies" popping up in government schools across the nation, I thought it would be a good idea for me to talk about mastery-based education. Although there are similarities between the two, there is one major distinction which must be understood. However, before I expose the problems with a "No-zero Policy", I thought it would be a good idea to briefly explain the heart of the mastery-based program used by our school.

 


Our students use workbooks, called PACEs, which can be thought of as taking a textbook and separating it into chapters. After a student has completed the PACE with all its instructional material and activities, he is given a test to see if the material has been mastered. If the student does not achieve an 80% or higher, the student is given another identical PACE which must be completed in its entirety. The student is then given another opportunity to retake the PACE Test. This process continues until the student is able to pass the test with at least an 80%.

 

The major difference between the two policies is mastery-based education puts the responsibility on the student, not the teacher or parents. That's not to say that the teacher and parents don't have a great responsibility to motivate and help the student in every way possible. However, we must ultimately hold the student responsible for his education.

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Matthew W. Turner AT 08:00 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Saturday, February 11 2012

As you probably heard, recently an appeals panel on the nation's most liberal and most often overturned federal court, (the 9th Circuit) ruled that the voter approved California constitutional amendment to protect marriage is unconstitutional.

The convoluted ruling began when a California judge overturned a voter referendum limiting marriage to its logical, time-tested boundary of one man and one woman. The liberal judge didn't like Proposition 22 and struck it down, even though it had passed all the requirements for ballot certification and had been on the law books for several years. The people of the state took the next logical reaction to this legislating from the bench by passing a Constitutional Amendment known as Proposition 8 tying the hands of state judges who want to be legislators. Not content with the opinion of the voters, the far left, challenged Prop 8 and two Carter and Clinton appointed judges sided with homosexual activists over one Bush appointed judge in a 2-1 decision.

KEEP READING

Posted by: Micah Clark AT 06:34 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Saturday, February 11 2012

State Senator Mike Delph has just announced that he will not be a candidate in the race for Congress following the announcement of Congressman Burton to not seek re-election. Here is the very well done and classy statement from one who would have been an instant top contender in the district, (but may have split the conservative vote):

"In September I released a statement withdrawing my name from any consideration for federal office in the United States Congress. With the retirement of Congressman Burton there has been renewed and intense speculation on a possible Mike Delph candidacy for the 5th Congressional District. Out of respect for the political process and the desires of many friends, family, and supporters, I have taken the last week to revisit the issue.

While I have been very encouraged by both the political and financial support offered to me, the underlying circumstances have not changed. My daughters are young and heavily involved in the community. Missing mornings and evenings with my girls is not a sacrifice I am willing to make. As Governor Daniels once said, 'I love my country, but I love my family more.' For those reasons, I will not be a candidate for Congress in 2012. To my family, friends, and supporters, I remain deeply grateful and touched from your faith and confidence in me. I don't ever want to let you down."

Posted by: Micah Clark AT 06:04 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, February 10 2012

A few weeks ago, we discussed the concerning story about a radical homosexualist organization called "Indiana Youth Group" that had secured state approval for a customized license plate that would raise money for their cause. You can imagine what would happen if the "Choose Life" plate was raising funds to be able to teach pro-life values in public schools. Yet that is exactly what is occurring with the agenda of the homosexualists.

 

 

But it gets worse. From Advance America:

You Won't Believe What They Do!

 

Here is some information from the website for the Indiana Youth Group, www.IndianaYouthGroup.org, (this is not a church youth group!)

 

Meetings:

 

? Girls Who Like Girls Group

? Sex, Dating and Relationships

? Guys Who Like Guys Group

? Why Worry? Free HIV /AIDS, STD/STI Testing

 

Remember, this pro-homosexual group targets children as young as 12 years of age!

That is who the State of Indiana has allowed to raise funds for their cause through these customized plates. Advance America has launched a campaign to stop it. Today, I invited the Founder of Advance America, Eric Miller, onto the show to talk about his opposition.

 

Hear the full interview here.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:09 pm   |  Permalink   |  1 Comment  |  Email
Friday, February 10 2012

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

 

The intensity of opposition towards the Obama Administration's war on Christianity is ramping up. And just like I said was going to happen, the President has got to be realizing this was a fight he did not want to pick. This was foolish from the start.

 

 

Remember we talked about Rachel Maddow, who is part of the propaganda wing of the White House, is out there doing her best to spin and distort. She's screaming, "There's an exemption for churches, there's an exemption for churches!" Yeah, we get that Rach. The issue is all of the Christian individuals who actually believe that your religious convictions are not something you pick up when you walk in the church door and leave on the shelf when you walk out. The issue is all of the Christians who own or operate businesses and want to run them according to their convictions but are being told by the state that they can't.

 

That's why Maddow's reputation of a genius policy analyst is such a fraud. She's a spinmeister. Nothing wrong with that, but just be honest about who you are...you're no policy wonk if this is your argument. Even Chris Matthews, her not so intellectual colleague at MSNBC, seems to get this. Check out what he said the other day about this issue:

 

KEEP READING

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

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

 

Well at least they're not hiding their contempt for faith like they used to. In what has to be one of the most stunningly open admissions of the anti-Christianity crusade launched by liberal progressive Democrats, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid sent a clear message to President Obama that if he wants to take on the moral authority of Christ's church in America, the Democrat Party is right with him.

 

Nice.

Here's the story:

TheDC asked Reid if he thinks it is a good idea, politically, for the president to go against the Catholic Church on the issue.

 

"Of course it's not good for the Democrats to go head-to-head against any church, so we certainly don't intend to do that," Reid said at the Capitol on Tuesday. "But we had a good discussion in our caucus today and the caucus totally supports the president. I do."

Of course this isn't just about the Catholic Church. There are plenty-o-Protestants who oppose abortifacients and won't sit idly by while being forced to pay for access to life-killing drugs for those who want to destroy their offspring.

 

So substitute the word "Christianity" for "any church" in Reid's sentence, and you see how outrageous of a position this is. The Republican Party leadership seems to understand this point:

 

KEEP READING

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

Indiana Senator Dennis Kruse authored the Creationism bill that has generated a great deal of conversation and discussion not only in the Hoosier state but around the country. Earlier this week I had Joshua Youngkin from the Discovery Institute on the show to talk about why the Intelligent Design organization opposes the legislation.

So what is the future of the bill? Does it have a chance of passing the House and becoming law in Indiana. If not, would Senator Kruse consider re-working the bill and re-submitting it. I invited Senator Kruse on the show today to ask him those questions as well as what motivated him to author this bill in the first place.

Hear the full interview here.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:06 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, February 09 2012

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

 

Okay, I'm hearing from people about this contraception mandate of the Obama administration that is basically the worst nightmare for Christians. It's the state saying, "You must violate your convictions or suffer the consequences." We all have known it's been coming for some time, but it's no less frustrating or concerning. And some of the comments I'm getting in the inbox are saying things like, "Obama's gonna back down! Obama's gonna back down!" Or "score one for the Church, it looks like Obama will blink on this." I'm telling you, don't fall for it.

 

 

Don't fall for it because it's not going to happen. Oh, it may look like it's going to happen. It may happen temporarily, but you have to know who and what you're dealing with here. This is not a movement that gives one rip about your religious convictions. They think that your convictions are antiquated, outdated, backwards and discriminatory. You know that's the case if you've been looking at anything they've said about the Christian teaching on homosexuality or family or anything. For the last decade we've been hearing these leftists become increasingly hostile towards Christian doctrine.

 

They call it "crackpot" stuff. They ban it from schools and from courtrooms. They pass hate speech laws that silence its preaching. And so for anyone to think that Obama and his team are serious when they say that they want to respect people's convictions, you're way too gullible. Here's the story where this false hope comes from:

 

KEEP READING

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

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

 

Coming off of the full sweep by Rick Santorum of the Missouri, Colorado and Minnesota elections, there have been some rising concerns about whether any of these Republican candidates can unite the field. The conventional wisdom has been for a long time that Romney can't excite conservatives and that would be his eventual downfall.

 

 

But then there's the concern that none of the others can excite conservatives either. What does that mean for the general election? And is the concern a valid one. Here's how the argument goes:

Perhaps it's hard to measure turnout for nonbinding contests, and turnout in Colorado was complicated by bad weather. But Tuesday offered nothing to dispel a sinking fear that this crop of candidates cannot generate widespread excitement among Republicans.

 

One polling place in Missouri had about 10 percent of the normal turnout for a primary in the early hours.

 

Turnout in 2008's binding Republican primary in Missouri was 588,720. Turnout last night was lower than 250,000. Binding or not, if Show-Me State Republicans felt passionate about their candidates, they would have turned out in greater numbers to give their man a little boost, even if only a symbolic one. (With more than 135,000 votes in Missouri last night, Santorum can argue he's coming closest to catching fire, at least at this moment.)

 

Republican turnout increased slightly in Iowa and New Hampshire over 2008, but much of that appears to have been driven by Ron Paul supporters who may or may not be inclined to support the Republican nominee in November. GOP turnout surged in South Carolina, but then slipped below 2008's level in Florida, and then plummeted in Nevada this weekend.

 

The Las Vegas Sun tallied up the depressing numbers: "More than 10,000 fewer Republican voters made it to Saturday morning's much-trumpeted caucuses than turned out for the underpublicized caucuses of 2008. To put it differently: about 8 percent of the party's active voter base participated this time, compared with about 11 percent four years ago."

 

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:08 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, February 09 2012

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

 

I love the folks over at Newsbusters. I don't know if you check that site regularly, but you should. Especially if you ever watch these news reports of the networks and want to scream because you know you're getting the Administration line. You know you're being hit with Obama talking points masking itself as news. This site Newsbusters is a God-send for us.

 

Let me give you one classic example that might slip by your senses if you don't have the daily insights of these folks at Newsbusters. Have you been paying any attention to the news reports about our unemployment rate? They're celebratory. I'm serious. It's like a celebration. You would think that the last remaining unemployed person just found work and we're at 0% unemployment. In actuality we're over 8% - right around 8.3% unemployment.

 

 

Contrast that to what we saw in 2004, during the re-election campaign year of then President George W. Bush. Unemployment at the time was 5.6%. That's a little less than 3 points better than where we are right now. Here's how the same media was reporting it:

 

NBC:

BRIAN WILLIAMS, co-anchor: NBC News IN DEPTH tonight, more on that unemployment report out today. As we mentioned, the rate ticked down to a two-year low. But the number of jobs created, 112,000, was well below what analysts had expected. So what does all this tell us and where are these new jobs coming from? IN DEPTH tonight, here's NBC's Anne Thompson.

 

...

 

THOMPSON: But that attitude remains the exception in corporate America and one reason why today's jobs report is considered disappointing. Yes, 112,000 jobs were created in January, but that's not enough, economists say, to keep pace with the recovery.

 

 

KEEP READING

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

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

 

The number of people who favor ObamaCare is getting frighteningly small for the President. Particularly for three major reasons: 1. It is the signature accomplishment of Obama's first term that he can point to in stating his case for re-election. 2. Team Obama decided to fast-track the legal challenges straight to the Supreme Court, meaning they will rule on it before the 2012 election, guaranteeing no matter what the court outcome is that it will be a major issue in the campaign. 3. President Obama crammed it through early in his term banking on the idea that it would become increasingly popular as it took hold...that isn't happening.

 

 

This most recent contraception mandate of ObamaCare is also killing the President, and all of those supposedly pro-life Democrats who voted in favor of it. When I read this piece, I thought immediately of Indiana's own faux pro-life Democrat Joe Donnelly. I wonder if any media that he will actually talk to will be bold enough to ask Donnelly his position on this mess. I would ask him, but he won't call us back...probably because he knows I will ask him. Because I wonder if Donnelly realizes the total fraud this makes him appear to be on the issue of life, on the issue of his convictions. It would be intriguing to me to see if he would take the same stand as one of his former Democrat colleagues:

Former Democratic congresswoman Kathy Dahlkemper, a Catholic from Erie, Pennsylvania, cast a crucial vote in favor of Obamacare in 2010. She lost her seat that November in part because of her controversial support of Obamacare. But Dahlkemper said recently that she would have never voted for the health care bill had she known that the Department of Health and Human Services would require all private insurers, including Catholic charities and hospitals, to provide free coverage of contraception, sterilization procedures, and the "week-after" pill "ella" that can induce early abortions.

 

"I would have never voted for the final version of the bill if I expected the Obama Administration to force Catholic hospitals and Catholic Colleges and Universities to pay for contraception," Dahlkemper said in a press release sent out by Democrats for Life in November. "We worked hard to prevent abortion funding in health care and to include clear conscience protections for those with moral objections to abortion and contraceptive devices that cause abortion. I trust that the President will honor the commitment he made to those of us who supported final passage."

Yes, and that trust in Mr. Obama's word is precisely why Ms. Dahlkemper is out of office. Everyone who is operating in the realm of reality knew that this law was the largest expansion of abortion services in the history of the country. And that was before we even knew this HHS contraception mandate would happen.

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:06 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, February 08 2012

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

 

There's a few different ways to look at the outcome of the 3 state sweep for Santorum last night. And no matter which way you look at it, someone can easily make a case for another. Here's what I mean. You can make a strong case that last night demonstrated that Rick Santorum is back in this race in a big way. There are a lot of folks who are going to suggest that this means Santorum is the conservative alternative to Mitt Romney, not Newt. And though Santorum phrases it slightly differently, that is the clear message his campaign was signaling last night:

 

Santorum cast the results as a victory for a purer form of conservatism than Romney has offered, heard more clearly by voters across the nation's midsection without a deafening TV air war that the former Massachusetts governor has dominated.

 

"Tonight, we had an opportunity to see what a campaign looks like when one candidate isn't outspent 5- or 10-to-1 by negative ads impugning their integrity and distorting their record. This is a more accurate representation, frankly, of what the fall race will look like," a jubilant Santorum told a cheering crowd in St. Charles, Mo.

 

But it was far from clear that the former Pennsylvania senator, who has a post office box for a campaign headquarters and relies on volunteers to handle scheduling, can quickly turn the momentum into the millions of campaign dollars he would need to overcome Romney. Still, he looked past the nomination fight.

 

"I don't stand here to be the conservative alternative to Mitt Romney, I stand here to be the conservative alternative to Barack Obama," Santorum said. On health care, cap and trade and the Wall Street bailout, he charged, "Mitt Romney has the same positions as Barack Obama."

It's a nice choice of words by Santorum to say he's the conservative alternative to Barack Obama and then lump Mitt in with Obama, but clearly any of these Republican contenders would be a conservative alternative to Obama. Santorum's point is that he's more conservative than the others.meaning that he's portraying himself as the conservative alternative to Mitt.

 

Others are going to say that last night's results were less about support of Santorum and more about rejection of Mitt Romney. The tweets over at National Review were going nuts last evening. Things like, "They really don't like Mitt. I mean they REALLY don't like him." I'm not sold on that either. I think it's pretty clear that conservatives are looking for someone - anyone - but Mitt, but that doesn't translate to the idea that he wouldn't be supported if he won the nomination.

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:09 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, February 08 2012

A bill in the Indiana legislature is stirring up some national conversation. And no, it has nothing to do with Right to Work. The bill allows local school boards in Indiana to require the teaching of Creationism alongside Darwinian evolution when it comes to the question of origins.


What has made this bill overly contentious is actually beyond just the Creation/Evolution debate. It is the intentional tactic of hardened leftist, Democrat legislator Vi Simpson to add an amendment that allowed for the inclusion of all religious teachings on origin. No one honestly believes that Simpson really wants all those various storylines to be taught in school, but rather was using the amendment to weaken the bill for the certain legal challenge it would face.


Some leading Intelligent Design proponents, like the Seattle-based Discovery Institute have also come out against the bill. Is their opposition based on the Simpson amendment? I invited Joshua Youngkin from Discovery onto the show today to talk about their opposition and what they would prefer to see the Indiana Legislature enact in terms of academic freedom.


Hear the full conversation here
.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:08 pm   |  Permalink   |  5 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, February 08 2012

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

 

Well this explains some things. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has decided to give some advice to any fledgling democracy looking for a good model for effective government. And guess whose Constitution she does NOT recommend. Yep, the one she's supposedly the great guardian of:

Ginsburg Likes S. Africa as Model for Egypt

 

... Asked by the English-speaking interviewer whether she thought Egypt should use the Constitutions of other countries as a model, Ginsburg said Egyptians should be "aided by all Constitution-writing that has gone on since the end of World War II."

 


"I would not look to the U.S. Constitution, if I were drafting a Constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the Constitution of South Africa," says Ginsburg, whom President Clinton nominated to the court in 1993. "That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, had an independent judiciary. ... It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done. Much more recent than the U.S. Constitution."

Got that? When given the opportunity to point to an example of an effective Constitutional order and system for the rest of the world, a U.S. Supreme Court Justice picks the Constitution of South Africa.

 

There are plenty of reasons being cited by Ginsburg defenders as to why she said this. The U.S. Constitution allowed slavery! Apparently the geniuses saying that forget that amendments to the Constitution actually changed that - and are considered, as amendments, part of the original document. Others say that the Constitution of South Africa includes, "welfare-state guarantees like the right to housing and the right to health care."

 

Liberal contempt for the Constitution is pretty easy to observe. It's evident any time they write something into it: from a right to kill your offspring to the un-defining of marriage and family to the right to access pornography in a public library. It's evident any time they turn it into Gumby to accommodate their designs: from eminent domain being used to confiscate someone's property to give it to someone else, to pretending the Commerce Clause allows the government to force people into commerce just so they can be regulated (see ObamaCare).

 

KEEP READING

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

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

 

It's an odd position we find ourselves in today in our political environment. When a man changes his mind he is labeled a flip-flopper. When he won't change his mind, he's labeled stubborn. So I have a little sympathy for political leaders in that situation. When you feel like you've learned your original position was wrong and that it would be in the best interest of the country for you to reverse course, you feel politically pressured to stay the course. That's not a good system.

 

 

That being said, there are certainly cases where the change in opinion appears to be far more about the good of the politician rather than the good of the people. Take Mr. Obama's recent decision on Super PACs:

President Barack Obama's campaign is asking top fundraisers to support a Democratic-leaning outside group that is backing the president's re-election bid, reversing Obama's opposition to "super" political action committees, which can spend unlimited amounts of cash to influence elections.

 

Obama's campaign urged wealthy fundraisers in a Monday night conference call to support Priorities USA, a super PAC led by two former Obama aides that has struggled to compete with the tens of millions of dollars collected by Republican-backed outside groups.

 

Obama has opposed the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision that stripped away some limits on campaign contributions. The new super PACs can't coordinate directly with campaigns, but many have played a major role in the Republican primary contests, raising millions of dollars to use in negative advertising in early contests such as Iowa, South Carolina and Florida.

Just put this in the category with Al Gore's "need" for his own personal jet and fleet of SUVs. He just "has" to have that to help spread the word. And now here's Obama saying he doesn't want to have to use these Super PACs, but he just doesn't have any choice:

 

KEEP READING

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

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

 

As I was preparing for our big intra-family Super Bowl party this last Sunday afternoon, I admit that I totally missed President Obama's interview with Matt Lauer. I don't regret that a bit. As you can pretty much expect from here on out, all of those "presidential interviews or events" are going to be re-election speeches - free air time for the president to campaign.

 

 

And that's certainly what this one was. But in the course of his interview, the President said something that I don't want you to miss. It is so fundamental, so revealing about who this guy is and how he just doesn't come close to understanding what America has always been. Here's the clip:

Matt Lauer, NBC: Maybe the better is question is 'how will you spend the money?' By all accounts you can raise a lot of money for this campaign. Some people say up to a billion dollars.

We've just seen in Florida, on the Republican side, a lot of money spent. About a 100% of it spent on extremely negative personal ads. If you raise a billion dollars to keep this job, can we expect the same kind of negativity coming from that money?

President Barack Obama: What I can tell you is that in 2008 part of the reason that we were successful is that we ran an affirmative campaign about my vision for where the United States should go. And I think what Americans what to hear more than anything else is 'how are you going to help me right now?'

If they're hearing a persuasive argument about we are going to recreate a solid path for middle-class success in this country then I think I'll win regardless of the negative ads.

I think so many people probably got hung up on the first part of the answer where he talks about his "vision for where the United States should go" that they miss the important part. They get caught up thinking things like, "was this it? Was this your vision? Massive unemployment, stagnating economic growth, a foreign affairs train wreck, the most food stamps distributed in history? Was that the vision?"

 

KEEP READING

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

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

 

For those of you who remember the media lambasting of former Vice President Dan Quayle, this one will burn you up. The media focused in on any and every gaffe Quayle ever committed and created a media caricature of him that was about as accurate as the one they have made of Barack Obama.


And really, therein rests the entire issue. Think about what you are told about every leading Democrat. The media would have you believe that Carter was this simple but brilliant leader. That LBJ was a hard working mind. That JFK was the best and the brightest. More contemporary than that, Clinton was a genius Rhodes Scholar, John Kerry was too smart to be electable. Barack Obama is the smartest president we've ever had. Now, simply contrast that with what you were told about Reagan, the Bushes, Rick Perry.

 

 

Even Joe Biden, a guy that if he were a Republican would be constantly imagined by the media as a cartoonish figure wearing a dunce cap, is hailed as some sort of foreign policy expert. Never mind that virtually every instinct Biden had about foreign affairs has proven to be the wrong one. Well, anyway, I challenge you to listen to this piece of audio that comes from a Q&A the VP did in Florida. The question is a smart one from a college kid who basically is asking Biden if administration's big government solution to college tuition costs has backfired and contributed to the rise of tuition costs.

 

The question is a smart one and the kid is right. He's exactly right. But you listen to the answer Biden gave and tell me that you think he even had any idea what the kid was asking. This is so revealing - and you really need to listen to it more than just read it to grasp Biden's cluelessness.

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:08 pm   |  Permalink   |  1 Comment  |  Email
Tuesday, February 07 2012

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

 

There's a lot of buzz out there right now about Rachel Maddow's bizarre performance on NBC's Meet the Press last Sunday. Remember, she has earned this reputation as a "policy wonk," meaning she's supposedly super smart. I know, it's shocking to hear that the media has created the caricature of a well-known liberal that says they are really smart. Maddow's performance reveals that either isn't true...or if it is, she is one deceitful person. It's got to be one or the other.

 

 

Because Maddow was bold and brash in pedaling the line that Republicans have declared war on contraception. Remember this became a joke during that Republican presidential debate back in South Carolina, I think, when the moderators kept pushing the candidates for 15 minutes on their feelings regarding contraception.

 

And yet with as big of a mess as that silliness became for the liberal media, Maddow showed they aren't ready to give it up.

RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC: The, the, the idea that, that, that the Catholic Church is being forced to do something that as a church it does not want to do is a misnomer. The initial exception in here is that the Catholic Church that--somebody that is providing the service of being a church, that's operating from the church, they're already exempt from this. The question is, as the congressman says, when you want to become a health insurance provider you must follow the rules of providing health insurance. And in this country, that means that you have to cover contraception, and 80 percent of Americans agree with that.

First of all, Maddow intentionally distorts the issue. Everyone is aware of the fact that there is a "religious exemption" for churches specifically. But what about a Christian school or university? What about Catholic charitable organizations? What about a private business owned by practicing Catholics or other Christians who see this ObamaCare requirement to provide for abortion drugs (which Maddow lumps in with "contraceptives, by the way)? They are not exempted, and that's the controversy. The compulsion element of this law is forcing individuals to violate their conscience. Maddow knows that if she really does have a brain, but she's intentionally distorting it.

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:06 pm   |  Permalink   |  1 Comment  |  Email
Tuesday, February 07 2012

Last time I hosted Congressman Marlin Stutzman on the radio show, he wasn't a Congressman. He was a Senatorial candidate for the Republican Party, competing for the opportunity to take the seat being vacated by Evan Bayh. Though that race didn't go in Stutzman's favor, it positioned him for the House seat later opened up by Congressman Mark Souder's unexpected resignation.

 

 

Since that time, Stutzman has been working on helping craft a conservative agenda in Washington. And a bill he recently authored is a large step in that direction:

As the 112th Congress begins a new session, Congressman Marlin Stutzman (IN-03) introduced the Volunteer Freedom Act, a bill to end wasteful federal programs and save taxpayers over $10 billion. The legislation eliminates the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) while embracing the American tradition of real volunteerism.

 

"Hoosiers expect Washington to set realistic priorities and cut the national debt with common sense solutions," said Stutzman. "My bill is based on a simple truth: it's not volunteering if it comes with a paycheck. The Volunteer Freedom Act saves taxpayers billions of dollars by ending programs that cut checks to volunteers. It does nothing to discourage the millions of Americans who work for their communities and not for pay. Like so many projects cooked up by Washington's bureaucracy, the CNCS is unnecessary and expensive. Last year alone, the program cost taxpayers over a billion dollars. It doesn't make sense. Americans volunteer because we believe in better communities, stronger families, and personal commitments. Volunteering isn't something we do for our bottom line."

It's not too tough to figure out how the liberals will attack this: cold, heartless conservative trying to deprive the needy of support and trying to discourage people from giving. In light of that, I invited Congressman Stutzman on the program to explain his position that "it's not volunteering if it comes with a paycheck."

 

Hear the full interview here.

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

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

 

Call it Planned Parenthood's war on choice. In less time than it takes to scald a child to death with a saline injection into the womb, the rabid pro-abortion lobby descended like vultures down upon the Susan G. Komen for the Cure foundation. The Komen crime? They dared exercise their right to choose when it came to whom they gave donations and funding.

 

 

The relationship between Komen and the abortion mill has always been a baffling one on several levels. Komen was started as an organization that sought to find ways to save the sick and suffering. Planned Parenthood began as an organization based upon the Margaret Sanger lie of eugenics that taught weaker beings should be exterminated. Komen exists upon the fundamental concept that all life is valuable. Planned Parenthood exists upon the fundamental deceit that only "wanted" or "convenient" life is worthy of protection. Komen's answer to social problems is to strive to find ways to support the living. Planned Parenthood's answer to social problems is to increase access to killing procedures.

 

And then there's the abortion/breast cancer link that leaves a rational mind boggled as to why an abortion provider would ever receive funding from an organization fighting breast cancer. While pro-abortion activists rail that any supposed link between the two is debunked, that just isn't true.

Planned Parenthood claims that the National Cancer Institute officially denied abortion as a risk factor for breast cancer in their 2003 conference. But what they conveniently omit to mention is that the decision to do so was purely political and was accompanied by many dissenting voices like Joel Brind of Baruch College. Brind, a PhD endocrinologist in New York City, complains that the conference "refused to allow attending scientists to present the opposing position of the scientific research establishing the link, showing that abortion was declassified as a cancer risk for political and not scientific reasons." They also ignore the inconvenient fact that the NCI's lead researcher has now completely retreated from her position.

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:09 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Monday, February 06 2012

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

 

I was talking to a friend the other day who is about as far left as I am to the right. Yes, we are friends. We just try to avoid politics as much as possible when we talk. Nevertheless, the subject drifted into the realm of the Republican presidential primary. As I was recounting my now standard line that there are things about all of the candidates that I like and that I prefer to focus on that rather than the things I don't like about them, he interrupted me and pounced.

 

 

"How can you possibly say that there is anything likable about Newt Gingrich?!" he asked. And before I could start giving him a list of the things I like about Newt, he was all over me. "You're a Christian! You're Mr. Moral! You're Mr. Family Values! The dude (Newt) is a serial adulterer! He's been caught with more women than Mitt Romney, and Romney's a member of the polygamist sect of Mormons for crying out loud." I just stood back and let it go for a while. I hadn't even wound the crank, but it was a show to behold - equipped with arms flailing, head on a swivel, some minimal frothing at the mouth - it was impressive.

 

When he finally slowed down I smiled and said, "Are you alright?" "Alright?! Alright?! No! You don't make any sense!" And we were off again for another journey down insanity road.

 

After I duct taped his mouth shut and chained him to a chair, I finally got a word in. Which, by the way, I always love it when people say, "Oh, you radio guys never let the other guy get his say in. You just cut them off before they have a chance to pin you down." Frankly, we stopped taking calls a while back because we just have a problem with the logistics of the whole thing - including keeping a call screener on staff with the very minimal amount we can pay someone to do it. As in, nothing. But my long-standing belief is not to cut a liberal off when they're talking. Let 'em talk. Let 'em keep talking. Beg them to talk more. It only helps my cause.

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:08 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Monday, February 06 2012

While the Super Bowl dominated much of the news coming out of Indianapolis for the last couple weeks, there has been substantial movement on the legislative front from the Indiana General Assembly. On Monday's show, I welcomed Micah Clark from the AFA of Indiana on for our monthly update about what is happening in our state from a pro-family perspective.

 

 

Micah and I also discussed the recent retirement announcement from Indiana Representative Dan Burton and what that means going forward for the 5th District.

 

Hear the full conversation here.

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

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

 

We're going to have to get our friend of the show Brian Sikma - who is up in Wisconsin fighting the conservative fight in the northern parts of the country - back on the program to talk about this one. Have you seen what the conservatives are doing up there to combat this statewide union temper tantrum being thrown against Governor Scott Walker?

 

 

Just as a refresher, Walker took office with all kinds of budget shortfalls. Just like every state that is led for too long by liberals, Wisconsin was heading towards bankruptcy real fast. And one of the major reasons is because of the lavish benefits packages that had been doled out to public government workers by Democrat politicians. Remember, the money that they promise these public sector unions isn't theirs to begin with. That's the problem with public sector bargaining.

 

Collective bargaining is usually done with the union representing the workers bargaining with the management who controls the company's money. But the money being bargained over in a public sector job is not the "managements' money," it's the people's money. These Democrats who are sitting at the bargaining table across from the unions aren't having to hand money out of their pocket to the other side. In fact, they know that if they give the other side enough, that other side will write some big checks back to them in the form of campaign contributions. So if there's incentive at all for these Democrats, it's to hand out more and more of the taxpayers' money. That means more thanks coming from the unions in the form of contributions. And that's exactly what had gone on for a long time in Wisconsin.

 

KEEP READING

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

The Indiana legislature recently proposed to include the science of creationism in public school curriculum. Immediately, the usual list of suspects jumped out of the woodworks to shackle and silence scientific inquiry and methodology.

 

The rational person would think that scientific investigation, research, and analysis should take place in laboratories, on-site locations, and classrooms. However, there are those who prefer to silence robust scientific research and debate through judicial tyranny. Although scientists in various fields are thinking through ongoing discoveries and insights into the origin of the universe, judicial tyrants seek to have the scientific methodologies and inquiries subject to the approval of lawyers and judges. I have no animosity toward lawyers, judges, and our judicial system, but are the courts really the valid locations to engage in scientific research and study?

There are qualified biologists, physicists, educators, and even rocket scientists who are bringing to light evidence that calls into question some of the historical scientific methodology and conclusions of evolution theory. I have yet to see any species somewhere in the process of morphing into another species. Neither have you. If this phenomenon existed, we would all be exposed to it and would have to carefully consider it in the conclusions we draw about the origin of life. Yet, instead of welcoming investigation and inquiry, those who adhere to a strict dogma of evolution seek to impose their conclusions, even those derived from flawed or uncertain evidence, upon everyone through court order.

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 06:28 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Saturday, February 04 2012

The Indiana legislature is nearly at its half-way point when bills passed in one chamber move over to the other. The legislature is heading out of town due to the Super Bowl, but here are a few updates on some bills of interest.

The House and Senate unanimously passed in very quick order a bill to strengthen our sex trafficking laws due to the likelihood of increased prostitution during the NFL championship week festivities in Indianapolis. Governor Daniels signed Senate Bill 4 into immediate effect on Monday. The legislature acted properly, but it is a sad indictment of our sex-saturated, morally confused state of our nation when a sporting event enjoyed by millions of families winds up being a haven for prostitution. How many relationships and marriages will be harmed by Super Bowl infidelity and sexually transmitted diseases from this problem? We should all pray for the success of various church ministries around central Indiana who are working to help address this problem through various means.

Senate Bill 89 allows local schools to choose to teach alternatives to the evolutionary theory of life and creation. The bill passed on a 28-22 vote. The ACLU is licking their chops just waiting to file a lawsuit on this bill. Frankly, they have good reason for it. As simple and optional as it is, the bill still poses some legal problems. However, there are states that have done this, such as Louisiana that have not had any legal problems. I will be talking to some legislators about this in the House. You can view the roll call on SB 89 here: http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2012/PDF/Srollcal/0108.PDF.pdf

KEEP READING

Posted by: Micah Clark AT 10:40 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Saturday, February 04 2012

As you know, Congressman Dan Burton shocked the media and political observers when he announced from the floor of the Indiana House of Representatives that he would not seek reelection after fifteen terms in the US House of Representatives. The announcement came from the location that Dan Burton began his political career back in 1966.

I have always had a very deep admiration for Dan Burton in a very peripheral sense. We have crossed paths, met and even spoken to each other dozens of times, though I doubt that he actually knows me. Yet, some of my closest friends, colleagues and advisors were among the inner circle of the Congressman's closest advisors. Bill Smith, who first hired me some twenty years ago at IFI, and serves on my board at AFA had been the Congressman's first campaign manager and chief of staff. (Bill is now Congressman Pence's Chief of Staff.) The Congressman's brother, State Representative Woody Burton, is a close friend in the Indiana House. State Senator Mike Delph is also one of my closest friends in the Indiana Senate. He served as Congressman Burton's District Director, and there are many others in government who were mentored by the Congressman like Former Rep. Jim Atterholt who is now the head of the Indiana Regulatory Utilities Commission. Each of these high-caliber individuals seem to have a lot of Dan's fighter instinct that has rubbed off on them. It is a legacy in government that few other political icons in Indiana can match.

Congressman Burton reminds me of what Winston Churchill once said. He noted that the bulldog was his favorite animal because it was among the few that could bite onto something and still breath. Congressman Burton has been a fighter who clamped onto many issues of value to AFA of Indiana and, regardless of the opposition, never let go. His voting record is near perfect with a host of conservative groups including the Family Research Council. He has a list of enemies, who often get a lot of media attention. The Congressman's personal shortcomings large or small always made front-page news to the joy of his detractors. On this day, it is worth remembering that he has a host of people and constituents who deeply appreciate his service and consistent dedication to conservative principles. AFA and I are among them.

Posted by: Micah Clark AT 08:36 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Saturday, February 04 2012

Here we go:

Perhaps we ought not be surprised. It is not exactly a secret that America is a nation of illiterates where its history is concerned.

 

But Paul's transgression speaks to more than just the shortcomings of the ignorant. It speaks also to an overriding shallowness, an obsession with the superficial and trivial that seems unfortunately characteristic of this era. It was difficult to look on that poster without feeling that, OK, here we are, this is finally it, the moment when reverence died.

 

But of course, one can hardly get through the day anymore without feeling that. Reverence dies repeatedly in a nation where ironic distance and postmodern cynicism are worn like armor to protect against the possibility one might accidentally feel something profound or hear some deep, affecting truth.

The origin of this indictment against the death of reverence in America? Leonard Pitts, Jr., a columnist whose articles over time have contributed to the death of reverence. He has championed the type of freedom typical of liberalism - the type that jeers boundaries of decency and moral imperatives. The type of freedom that champions coarseness and vulgarity on an ever-expanding scale. The type of so-called freedom that George Carlin appropriated to mock decency rules covering radio and television programming, and the type that Howard Stern says is due him so that he can spew any venom he wants over open airwaves.

 

Then the day comes when these liberals and their so-called open minds are offended by a "lack of reverence." Now that is laughable, is it not? Mr. Pitts is bent out of shape because some strip clubs used Martin Luther King, Jr.'s image with scantily-clad women to promote their "I Have a Dream" bashes. So it took a poster that he found personally offensive to determine that reverence finally died.

 

 

Sadly, reverence died a long time ago. Yes, this episode is a travesty of decency, but it is far from being the event marking the "moment when reverence died."

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 07:22 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, February 03 2012

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

 

There's a lot of talk about the national polls and how well Obama is fairing in them despite the terrible economy. And frankly, I am shocked that 48% of the country says they approve of the job this president is doing. It defies reason and explanation. Who are these people, exactly?

 

And as a result of these abnormally and unreasonably high levels of personal approval, that's a wholly different matter than saying President Obama is in good shape heading into the 2012 election cycle. There are so many polls to look at, so many internals to study that you can keep a political nerd busy for months prognosticating and predicting outcomes. But ultimately, this election will hinge on what happens over the course of the next several months - who the Republican nominee is, whether there's any economic rebound, what the unemployment rate looks like, any foreign affairs issues...the very kind of thing that polls can't and don't account for.

 

But for those who really want a snapshot of where we are in terms of "if the election were held today," a lot of depressed Republicans and heartened Democrats might be surprised. Keep in mind we do not elect our president based on who has the most votes. What matters is the outcome of various states, and the corresponding electoral votes those states have. And in that department, according to Gallup, it's not good news for Mr. O:

Gallup released their annual state-by-state presidential approval numbers yesterday, and the results should have 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue very worried. If President Obama carries only those states where he had a net positive approval rating in 2011 (e.g. Michigan where he is up 48 percent to 44 percent), Obama would lose the 2012 election to the Republican nominee 323 electoral votes to 215.

 

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:09 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, February 03 2012

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

 

A friend of mine named Kent sent me a column teaser in email that he knew would get my attention. It was the abstract of a larger article written by Georgetown professor and leftist Michael Kazin. I know, shocking that a college professor would be a leftist. Who would have thunk it? I went over and read the whole piece as it appeared in the New Republic (a left wing mag). The piece was entitled, "The End of the Christian Right."

 

 

It's funny, actually, because I've been reading a lot about the death of evangelicalism and the end of Christian America and all this stuff, from a variety of sources. A couple of my colleagues who are evangelicals have been lamenting with me and to me quite often recently about the sorry state of evangelicalism if we as Christians are ready to champion the family values positions of men like Newt Gingrich or Donald Trump. But Kazin's piece, obviously, took a different angle. Far from rallying conservative Christians to hold firm to their beliefs, Kazin was taking an analytical approach, if not with an undercurrent of taunting towards those he undoubtedly looks on with disdain.

 

It was Kazin's contention that the Christian Right is simply losing influence and dying out in America. And he had ample evidence to support his thesis. Here's a sample of it:

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:08 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, February 03 2012

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

 

There is a God, and we aren't Him. There is right and wrong, and we don't make it up for ourselves, we discover it in Natural Law. These are the principles that demand a verdict. Either they are right or they are wrong. Either we will use them as the backbone of our civilization, or we will not. For two centuries we did use them, we did believe them, we did promote them, and the consequences and outcomes speak for themselves.

 

If we abandon them, that is our prerogative. But there will be consequences for that as well. And if you'd like to see what kind, just take a look at this shocking story, reported by The Blaze:

 

Two bioethicists ? one from Duke University, the other from the National Institute of Health ? bring up the question "What makes killing wrong?" in the latest issue of the Journal of Medical Ethics. Using their definition of killing, the authors conclude if the person is "universally and irreversibly disabled" and has "no abilities to lose" then killing them to take organs for donation in order to save the lives of others should not be considered morally wrong.

As shocking as this may seem to your conscience, it was totally necessary and expected when you consider the philosophical arguments that we have accepted already in this country. We allow women to kill their children because we decide that life doesn't start until the point of birth. We rationalize away the very definitions of humanity and soothe our consciences with philosophical fluff as we rip the spinal cords from babies in their fetal stage of development. We are butchers, but are attempting to portray ourselves as civilized butchers.


That's what this argument is about. We don't value human life for what it is, anymore. We stopped that the moment we started having all these discussions about abortion for children to be born with disabilities - mental or physical. That was deemed a life not worth living. We deemed it that so that we could satisfy our selfish desires. And it's coming back to bite us.

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:07 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, February 03 2012

Congressional candidate Jackie Walorski joined me on the radio show today for our bi-weekly conversation. After sharing the stage with her last weekend at the Allen County Right to Life March for Life, we discussed the 39 year legacy of Roe on the program.

 

 

Additionally, Jackie shared her thoughts on the Obama Administration's seemingly politically motivated decision to announce our coming withdrawal from Afghanistan. Is it a retreat? Is it an election year strategy? And then there's Defense Secretary Leon Panetta's prediction that Iran could have a nuke within a year. Jackie talks about how serious this pronouncement is, and how it doesn't comport with the actions being taken by the administration.

 

Hear the full interview here.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:06 pm   |  Permalink   |  3 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, February 02 2012

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

 

The left believes in free speech as long as it is liberal speech. That has been a common refrain repeated with multiple examples over the course of the last few years. And here's another piece of evidence to add to the list:

A pro-life event at the Rhode Island State House was disrupted by Occupy Wall Street protesters who heckled speakers and dumped condoms on Catholic girls in the crowd.

 

 

Last Friday, an estimated crowd of 150 pro-life supporters (including a reported two dozen legislators) had assembled in the rotunda of the State House for the 39th annual Pro-Life Rally, but they were prevented from speaking by members of Occupy Providence and other OWS sympathizers who shouted and chanted during speeches, held signs in front of the faces of speakers and prevented the delivery of the closing prayer by local Catholic leader Father Bernard Healey.

 

Rhode Island's Right-To-Life Executive Director Barth Bracy was the scheduled keynote speaker, but the chanting and shouted made it impossible for him to deliver his speech. Bracy told Fox News radio that one Occupier climbed to the third floor balcony and dumped a box of condoms on a group of Catholic girls gathered below. Mr. Bracy wondered:

 

"What kind of individual throws condoms on Catholic school girls?"

Degenerate riff-raff, that's who. The depraved state of the mind of anyone who believes in child killing for any reason - no less convenience - is not tough to prove. But when you add that to the radical left-wing thuggery of the Occupy movement and it's a recipe for disaster.

 

There's no doubt in my mind how the media will play this. First, they will do their best to ignore it. You won't see this story leading any news cycle on the networks. But if the conservative media does its job and makes this a story people hear about, the liberal press will spin it as nothing more than a scuffle between extremist groups. You'll be told that the condom-dumpers don't represent real liberals. But before this is passed off as just a bunch of extremists getting into it with another group of extremists, let's set the record straight.

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:09 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, February 02 2012

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

 

Oopsie-daisy...one has strayed from the reservation. I never watched that show called Sex and the City, primarily because it all seemed to be about sex and cities. But I do know that it was a big show that was watched by a lot of people. For my part, I would just as soon remember Sarah Jessica Parker only for her role in the classic 80s Disney movie "Flight of the Navigator." Now that was a show worth watching.

 

 

But anyway, one of the stars of that show, named Cynthia Nixon, has followed the fad of "announcing" her enjoyment of homosexual conduct. The only problem is the way she worded it was not exactly pleasing to the folks running the whole homosexual political machine. It's all about image, Cynthia...you've got to stay up on the memos of what is okay to say and what is not. Here's how it started:

Earlier this month Cynthia told The New York Times: "I gave a speech recently, an empowerment speech to a gay audience, and it included the line 'I've been straight and I've been gay, and gay is better.' And they tried to get me to change it, because they said it implies that homosexuality can be a choice. And for me, it is a choice."

Yikes, Cynthia! Even I knew that acknowledging sexual preference as a choice was a big no-no for your movement. Sure, you're just being honest about your sexuality, but that's not what is wanted by the homosexual lobby. They don't want people thinking that those who practice homosexuality are not forced into that behavior by nature or by God. If people believe that way - if people believe that sexual conduct is a choice even if temptations aren't - that totally destroys the faux civil rights cloak that the activists are advancing their political and cultural revolution under.

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:08 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, February 02 2012

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

 

Any Christian who has ever engaged a political or cultural issue and has dared to condemn sinful behavior (whether that's abortion, homosexuality, pornography, adultery, or whatever) as sin has undoubtedly heard the oh-so-thoughtful retort: "Uh, judge not lest ye be judged." Or at least some variation thereof: "I thought you weren't supposed to judge," or "Love, don't judge."

 

This famous quotation if Jesus in Matthew 7:1 is perhaps the most over-used, and consequently and not surprisingly the most misused statement of the Savior. It is used, erroneously, as a way to get Christians to feel bad about rebuking sin and silence them in the culture.

 

 

Dr. Randy White, Senior Minister of the First Baptist Church in Katy, TX, has written an excellent analysis of this popular distortion. Here's a portion of it:

In the context, the Pharisees are in view. Jesus said in Matthew 5:20 that one's righteousness needs to exceed that of the Pharisees. One of the perennial pharisaical problems was a nasty judgmentalism that went to the core of their being. Their attitude seemed to always be, "I thank God I am not like one of them." In the broader view of Scripture, here are six kinds of judgment we should avoid.

 

1. Judgment outside of our sphere of authority. If it isn't your business, don't make it so! (1 Thessalonians 4:11, 1 Peter 4:15, Romans 14:4).

 

2. Judgment outside of authenticated facts. We often judge for motive, but we are not very good at accurately discerning the motives of others-or even of ourselves! In Job 1:8-11 Satan attacked the motive of Job. Judgment of motive is a satanic activity!

 

3. Judgment with hypocrisy. Sometimes we judge others for that which we have not overcome. (Romans 2:1, 2 Samuel 12:1-11).

 

4. Judgment with haste. How many times have we jumped to conclusions. and jumped into a swamp! Proverbs 18:13 says that fools answer before they even know the question, and John 7:24 says that we should not judge "according to appearance." Sometimes the facts call for a judgment, but sometimes the appearance is deceptive!

 

5. Judgment that is beyond God's Word. The Bible is clear in many areas, and when it is, we should speak clearly, too. But we like to make the Bible clear about our pet peeves! It is easy to bring in "don't handle, don't taste, don't touch" commands where the Bible does not do so. (Colossians 2:20-23).

 

6. Judgment that is unmerciful. When we have to judge-and sometimes we do-we should do so with mercy. Our goal is a judgment that leads to repentance!

This is a snapshot of an excellent piece that is worth the read. I invited Dr. White onto the radio show to talk about this issue and the effect this misuse of Scripture has on Christians in the culture.

 

Click here to hear the entire interview.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:07 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, February 02 2012

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

 

I remember the day after the November 2008 elections waking up, and it was one of those moments when you know you made a great choice for a mate. Jen was awake and as I got up to get ready for work, she grabbed my arm and said, "Hey wait a minute...do you feel that?" And I said, "Feel what?" She looked back at me, half asleep, and said totally deadpanned, "Hope is in the air today." I lost it.

 

And I'm still losing it. The idea that the presidency of Barack Obama has brought anything remotely resembling hope is demolished to the point of insanity when you consider that more Americans than ever think their kids will have it worse off than them. The idea that the presidency of Barack Obama has brought anything remotely resembling change is destroyed to the point of craziness when you consider that the worst deficits of George W. Bush have been doubled, tripled, and quadrupled by his successor.

 

 

But perhaps the biggest fraud of all was the idea that Barack Obama was going to be ushering in a new era of civility, unity and harmony. He would be the post-racial president who healed our feuds and disagreements. After all, it was just a matter of being pragmatic, he told us, not ideological. And once elected he has delivered the most ideologically driven, bitter partisan administration in our history. And the proof is in the pudding:

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:06 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, February 01 2012

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

 

Could someone check on this for me? I thought, for some reason, that Chris Matthews was Catholic. Is that right? The best information I have on him is that he's a professing Catholic. So something just doesn't add up here. The outright hostility this guy takes routinely now towards the Biblical text is pretty telling. And I'm not just talking about when the Biblical text interferes with the modern agenda of the Democrat Party that Matthews champions. I mean even on non-political issues.

 

 

He was at it again the other day when he took the time to rip into Republican strategist Ron Christie for his belief in God as the Creator. Here was the perplexing exchange:

Chris Matthews: In other words, there is no manmade influence on climate change? Is that your belief, Ron Christie? I didn't know that. Are you out there with the full-mooners on this one?

Ron Christie, Republican strategist: Let me enlighten you on this one, Chris. I think global climate change is the biggest fraud that's been perpetrated in this country. The scientific evidence isn't there. This is something that Al Gore and his cronies have made millions of dollars of perpetuating a myth. That's what I think.

Matthews: How are you standing on evolution these days?

Christie: I'm feeling pretty good in evolution.

Matthews: Do you believe in it?

Christie: God it our creator and I think that we all evolved from the good Lord.

Matthews: So you don't believe in evolution?

Christie: I believe that God is our Creator and we all evolved from the good Lord.

Matthews: What is with the troglodyte? The Luddites? What is the party that used to believe in things?

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:09 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, February 01 2012

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

 

I'm not a big believer in reading too much into the results of a single election. But I did think that Jim Geraghty did a nice job of highlighting the important things to notice about what happened yesterday. Geraghty pointed to five realities that could affect the race going forward. His first point was one that I think is significant:

The gender gap returned with a vengeance.

 

As odd as it sounds, I think that Newt might benefit politically if more of his ex-wives would come out shortly before each race and blast him personally. That's exactly what happened in South Carolina, leading to a masterful moment at a debate that turned Newt into a sympathetic victim rather than a serial adulterer in the eyes of many voters. That included women, whom Gingrich carried over Mitt 38-29.

 

Fast-forward to Florida, and Gingrich was overwhelmed by Mitt in the race for women 51-29. Newt offered no explanation for why this happened, but if it continues, it's a major factor.

The elderly abandoned Newt: Throughout the primaries, voters 65 and older have been Gingrich's strongest demographic. Newt has won a larger share of voters in this age group than any other. He won 17 percent among this group in Iowa (second only to Romney), 14 percent in New Hampshire (third behind Romney and Jon Huntsman), and 47 percent in South Carolina (ahead by a wide margin).

There are any number of reasons why Newt would do well among the elderly: everything from his age to his past successes, his ability to speak plainly and honestly about issues facing older Americans. But in a state that boasts a large percentage of retired people, Newt's weak performance in this demographic is somewhat concerning. Whoever the Republican nominee is in November will need to be able to reach this sector of the population.

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:08 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, February 01 2012

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

 

I suppose I understand why there's all this talk out there now about the end of the nomination race on the Republican side. Florida is the biggest state, by far, to host a primary, and they've chosen the frontrunner. They picked Romney last night and gave him all their delegates. And Marco Rubio did proclaim that whoever won Florida would be the nominee. So there you go.

 

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not discounting the importance of Florida, and I certainly think a lot of Marco Rubio. But there are plenty of reasons I don't think the race is over, the most chief among them being that it's up to voters in other states now. The people of New Hampshire chose differently than the people of Iowa. The people of South Carolina chose differently than both. And it stands to reason that the voters in future states will have their own minds and their own thoughts and their own preferences.

 

The Washington Post has a piece out today about how Gingrich is going to need to resurrect his campaign again for the third time. Has it only been three times? It seems like Newt is resurrecting his campaign with every strong debate performance. I don't think that's an issue for Newt. Nor do I think the cash factor is going to be the difference maker. Here's what is maybe the bigger story coming out of Florida:

 

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:07 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, February 01 2012

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

 

One thing that became incredibly clear to anyone who put themselves through watching this year's version of the same State of the Union speech we've heard for the last few years was that this president is totally in over his head. That, or he is completely oblivious and completely unserious about the issues facing the country.

 

 

It was almost as though we saw a pre-recorded version of the speech that was taped the day he took office - it was that detached and seemingly oblivious to everything that is going on in the country right now. If he was aware, his speech might have been a lot shorter, and a lot more to the point. Mark Steyn summed up the State of the Union this way:

"The State of our Union is broke, heading for bankrupt, and total collapse shortly thereafter. Thank you and goodnight! You've been a terrific crowd!"

While it wouldn't rank as one of the most encouraging and inspiring State of the Union addresses (something the speech was never really intended to be - it was supposed to be more about an executive report than a bizarre political rally), it would have been one of the most honest.

 

But even if you would expect Obama to be as uplifting as possible about the situation (it is an election year, after all), the country needs - and deserves - a president who will level with them about our serious state of affairs. Steyn agreed:

 

KEEP READING

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