Like all Hoosier drivers, $4 a gallon gasoline is taking a heavy toll on the Clark family budget, and I am not very happy about it, particularly knowing that we have billions of barrels available to Americans identified below US soil. Recently while reading a classic car magazine, I saw some interesting statistics that you may find of interest too.
The average cost of a gallon of gas in 1971 in the US was .36 cents. (US Dept of Energy)
The average cost of a gallon of gas last year was $3.49 (American Petroleum Institute)
The average cost of a gallon of gas in Great Britain last year was $9.50. The UK Guardian)
300 – The numbers of gasoline refineries in the US in 1980. (US Energy Information Administration)
149 – The number of gasoline refineries today. (US Energy Information Administration)
(Internet Sources say that the number of US gasoline refineries peaked at 324 under the deregulation efforts during President Reagan’s first term.)
121,446 – The number of gas stations in the United States. (US Census Bureau)
12,684- The number of gas stations in Canada. (Canadian Business.com)
There is an astonishing story out of Seymour, Indiana that will leave you scratching your head wondering if our government opposes God more than it does poverty. Maybe it will just reconfirm your answer to that query.
A faith-based food pantry, founded in 1997, which is regularly helping 300 needy people a week with free food has been placed in a position that is becoming more and more common: choose between your faith and the government’s secular dictates. About 15% of the food being donated to the pantry comes from a federal Emergency Assistance Program.
A regular practice of the pantry volunteers is to ask, as their last question in an interview with those in need, if there is anything for which the person would like the workers to pray. If the client says “no” the interview ends and those in need go get their food. If they answer “yes” which is a very common response, the worker will pray with the client then they go get their food. It is pretty simple, but in this age of “tolerance” and “diversity” not even voluntary prayer is to be allowed.
It’s incredible to me that this isn’t all over the national news. Well, by incredible I don’t mean that I’m actually surprised the media wouldn’t cover a story tremendously damaging to President Obama’s re-election hopes, but that they actually have so little shame in attempting to hide it.
In a Rose Garden speech, the President of the United States announced a plan that would see gas prices rise on Americans even more dramatically than they already have:
"Instead of taxpayer giveaways to an industry that's never been more profitable, we should be using that money to double down on investments in clean energy technologies that have never been more promising."
First of all, this speech demonstrates the total incoherence and tone-deafness of this administration. It’s like the speech was buried in a time capsule from Obama’s 2008 campaign and has been opened again now, three and a half years later, with no respect for what has occurred under his leadership.
But let’s make something very clear here. Regardless of how you feel about the issue of taxpayers subsidizing anything – which I have commented on a number of times – stop and consider the immediate ramifications that would come from this policy. Removing those subsidies, as Obama is calling for, would immediately drive up the cost of production and business for oil companies. Only someone with absolutely no business sense would fail to understand what would then occur. Oil companies, like any companies, would do all they could to avoid absorbing those costs. They would pass those increased costs of business to the consumer, meaning your gas prices will inevitably go up from this move.
If you’re not familiar with Carson Daly, the easiest way to explain it is to consider him a “poor man’s Ryan Seacrest.” He is a radio host, entertainment television star, and – at least for a while – hosted a late, late, late, so late-it’s-almost-morning television program (although I don’t know if it still airs). But anyway, Carson Daly really stepped in it amongst his fellow entertainment glitterati, by trying to crack a joke about the recent JetBlue pilot incident.
If you didn’t hear about the JetBlue case, a pilot apparently freaked out on board and had to be locked out of the cockpit by his co-pilot and subdued by a passenger. As it turned out, the plane was full of law enforcement personnel heading to a convention in Las Vegas – a fortunate turn of events to be sure. Daly was attempting to make light of that coincidence:
Daly, in joking about the odds of the pilot going nuts on a flight full of law enforcement, said on Wednesday morning: “There was a bunch of ... well-trained dudes. What are the odds of that? ... Thank god... My luck, it would be like ‘This is the flight going to [the gay pride parade] in San Francisco’ ... I mean, that would be my colleagues... ‘Uh, we’re headed down to Vegas for the floral convention.’... ‘Can we get a little help up here with the pilot?’ ‘Oh, Nooo!’”
Daly took was blasted by gay and lesbian groups for making the joke, and apologized Wednesday afternoon in a tweet: “This morning on my radio show I attempted to make fun of myself & offended others by mistake. I sincerely apologize.”
The talk show host went even further and issued a statement after consulting with the gay rights group GLAAD, which read in part: “I'm truly saddened that my words today suggested otherwise. I've long been a supporter of gay, lesbian, and transgender rights, and I'm saddened that my comments, however unintentional, offended anyone, specifically members of the LGBT community.”
Now, as tough as that was for Daly, it’s not like he’s Rush Limbaugh or something. He has enough connections within the sexual anarchist community to be able to make amends and be forgiven without any dire consequences. But Daly also got hammered by a different source as well. Alice Hoagland, mother to 9/11 Flight 93 hero Mark Bingham wrote to Daly:
Fresh off a big week for her campaign that saw Karl Rove come to town, Congressional candidate Jackie Walorski came on the show to talk about the big ObamaCare showdown before the Supreme Court.
I asked her whether she was as surprised by the Court’s strong skepticism of the law as many of the liberal reporters were, and what Congress will need to do even if the law is overturned by the Court.
We also took up the question of why there are so many issues being brought up by the media – from Trayvon Martin to pornography – but little emphasis being placed on the critical issue of job loss in America.
Other “don’t miss” segments of the radio show today:
Former President Jimmy Carter advises Democrats to back off their slavish devotion to abortion. Funny how we always hear about extremist pro-lifers hurting Repubs when the real radicals are the bloodthirsty abortion addicts. (listen)
The Supreme Court refused to take up the case of a teacher being ordered to take down banners from his CA classroom that announce the Congressionally approved national motto. This is where liberals are taking us: no pledge, no motto, no heritage. (listen)
The parents of two British students viciously murdered while vacationing in the United States are asking why after repeated overtures to President Obama he has refused to comment, instead wading into the case of Trayvon Martin where the facts aren’t nearly so cut and dried. (listen)
This is the conversation I didn’t want to have. It’s a conversation that many conservatives hesitant about Mitt Romney didn’t want to have. But it’s becoming increasingly likely that it’s one that we’re going to need to have. And I’m willing to have it – and I hope others will as well. The danger may be that Santorum supporters and Newt supporters or Ron Paul supporters may not want to come to the defense of Romney, or specifically the significant difference between RomneyCare and ObamaCare but we have to.
One of the reasons many of us said that Romney would not be the best Republican to face off against Obama is because of this noose of RomneyCare. The left would hang it around the neck of Romney and every conservative who attempted to use ObamaCare against the President during the campaign. And here we are.
The conversation that took place on MSNBC’s Hardball is a sign of the deceit and misrepresentation that is to come for Republicans should Romney be the nominee. And what is particularly galling about it is that Matthews knows better. And the guests he brought on – an economist from MIT and Howard Fineman – know better as well.
You can watch the shamelessly deceptive exchange here, but let me put it in a nutshell since this is going to be an argument that will become very common in the coming months should Romney get the nomination. The argument goes that RomneyCare and ObamaCare are the same bill, that there is no distinction between them, that the same advisers who helped Romney craft his bill, helped Obama craft his. In fact, the screen graphic on Hardball actually said, “It’s the same f*$^%* bill.” Of course it’s not, but this will be the Democrat talking point, so it’s best we establish this now so we can spend the next several months “speaking truth to power” (media power, that is).
It’s always funny to me to hear Democrats on the left lament the state of public discourse in this country. I mean it’s seriously funny. They somehow intellectually remove themselves from the ground level of political exchange, lift themselves high in the air and attempt to sit as arbiters of civil dialogue. But if you think about it, if there’s hostility being expressed between two sides – which is what they complain about – there must be a second side...there must be their side. But you would never know that by listening to them.
And one of the worst violators of this simple point of common sense is the President of the United States, Barack Obama. Rarely has there been someone so guilty of stirring up division and discord, of inciting people towards their base instincts and worse angels, of being a bitter partisan – all while pretending to be the morally independent and superior judge of everyone else’s partisanship.
If you want a perfect example, just look at what Obama’s deputy campaign manager just said on MSNBC regarding the issue of Trayvon Martin’s death:
"His Republican opponents have jumped all over him because they do want to play politics with this issue...People have to stop politicizing it...It's no surprise that some of our Republican opponents are trying to make an issue with this. But the President spoke from the heart and we need to let the investigation take its course."
That’s the most incredible thing I’ve ever heard, and I wonder two things: 1. Does Team Obama really believe that people will fall for this, and 2. Are there really people out there who will fall for this?
Two nights ago, Jen and I were flipping through the channels and stopped for a second on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno. That’s not normally a show that I watch, but when I saw Mitt Romney sitting there on the couch, I decided to stick around.
Let me state two points very plainly: 1. Anyone who says Mitt Romney could not win the presidency is not thinking straight. 2. Anyone who says this long primary process has been bad for Mitt or for the Republicans in general is not thinking straight. Now, I will be the first to admit that Romney is not as laid back or as “in his element” as Barack Obama on that Leno couch. For one, Romney’s got his guard up. For two, it’s just not his personality. I’m sure Romney would be far more comfortable in a board room or in a meeting room than he is shooting the breeze with a late night comedian.
And if this was a normal election year, that might prove to be a hurdle for Romney. But what you saw if you watched this interview was a guy who exuded confidence on economic policy and clarity on foreign policy. Both of those things are going to be strongly desired in this general election and both of those things Romney has over Obama in spades.
Other "don't miss" segments of the radio show today:
The justices of the Supreme Court make light of how "cruel and unusual" it would be to have to read the 2,700 page law. They should just invite "Silent Joe" Donnelly in who went around telling everyone how he read every page. What a joke. (listen)
Every Democrat in the House of Representatives who voted, voted against Barack Obama's budget proposal. The AP reports that as "GOP-run House easily rejects bipartisan budget." Good grief. (listen)
A big endorsement for Barack Obama over potential Republican opponent Mitt Romney: the former Soviet official communist state newspaper Pravda puts their stamp of approval on Barry! Who would have thought that, eh comrades? (listen)
Well there is great mourning, weeping and gnashing of teeth on the left today...and I love it. The bloodbath for ObamaCare that took place yesterday at the U.S. Supreme Court is not sitting well with liberals everywhere, and they’re looking for people to blame. You know, I actually kind of feel bad for the Solicitor General who is representing Obama and the Pelosi Congress and their unconstitutional takeover in this case.
Because you’re already hearing liberals scapegoating him and saying things like, “He wasn’t prepared! How could he not be prepared for these questions?!” Listen friends, you don’t get to the point where you’re arguing before the Supreme Court if you don’t know how to prepare. You don’t get to be Solicitor General if you aren’t able to handle yourself in a courtroom. You don’t take on a case as high profile as the ObamaCare constitutionality suit if you aren’t aware of the arguments that are going to be made.
Mr. Verrilli was not the problem yesterday. The problem for the left was the argument. The problem for the left was the Constitution. There’s simply nothing that you can say to some of these points and questions if you are arguing in favor of the left’s statist point of view. First, Chief Justice Roberts:
One of the funniest things to happen after yesterday’s oral arguments in the ObamaCare case before the Supreme Court was to watch these liberal legal experts come out in tatters. Their world had been rocked. They couldn’t even comprehend what took place inside the chambers. They thought this was going to be vindication of the mindless spin that they had been placing for the last several months on a law that is so plainly, so obviously, so clearly a dramatic overreach of federal government authority.
Jeffrey Toobin of CNN was perhaps the best of all. Visibly shaken, he spoke from the steps of the Supreme Court chambers and sounded like an embedded reporter at the scene of a massacre:
"This was a train wreck for the Obama administration. This law looks like it's going to be struck down. I'm telling you, all of the predictions, including mine, that the justices would not have a problem with this law, were wrong. Justice Kennedy, the swing vote, was enormously skeptical. Justice Alito, Justice Scalia were constantly skeptical. Justice Thomas didn't say anything, but we know his position on the issue. The only conservative justice who looked like he might uphold the law was Chief Justice Roberts, who asked hard questions of both sides."
Now, can I tell you what every conservative was thinking when they heard this? Every conservative was saying, “Well, duh!” This is exactly what we’ve been saying since the law was first debated – this is not constitutional. It’s why you’ve got over half the states in the union fighting it. Remember the James Madison quote I shared on the program yesterday – that the powers of the federal government are “few and defined,” while the powers of the state governments are “numerous and indefinite.” This ObamaCare law is the inverse of that.
EDIT NOTE: The original post included a reference to Dave Silverman being the co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation. He is actually the president of American Atheists. The post has been edited accordingly.
I got a very insightful email from a listener who thinks they figured out where I was on Monday:
Peter, I noticed on your show Tuesday, you didn’t give us much detail about your whereabouts on Monday. I think I know why. Perhaps you thought we were unaware that the big “There is No God But Ourselves Atheist Rally for Nothing” event was held in Washington over the weekend, but I know it was. And perhaps that’s where you were. One of those closet atheists they were talking about. You were driving back from the event Monday and just haven’t figured out how to break it to your listening audience. Am I close?
He got me. I was sitting there last week thinking, “You know, believing that the grand design of creation necessitates a Grand Designer is just too logical.” So I decided to board the trolley to make-believe and head out with Richard Dawkins to the atheist shendig. And by the way, his reference to the closeted atheists was something that these event promoters were talking about and counting on. David Silverman, the president of American Atheists, kept talking about how this event was going to be the “largest atheist event in world history” because all these closeted atheists were going to come out of the woodwork and show up.
In case you were wondering, it didn’t happen. The weather wasn’t the greatest, so maybe that had an effect. I love that, by the way: God rained on their parade. Literally. A few thousand apparently showed up there, which is equal to a typical big city tea party event...maybe. Of course, this atheist-fest was a tad bit more vulgar and hostile than the tea party events – not that you’d know it from the media reports.
Other "don't miss" segments of the radio show today:
It must be really hard to be a Jesus skeptic. Now the claim is that the apostles were confused by the Shroud of Turin into believing they'd seen the resurrected Christ. There's where the skeptics are - a sheet fooled everyone. Oh my. (listen)
Accepting an honor from a radical homosexual group at the GLAAD Awards, ABC reporter praises ABC for their willingness to engage in "advocacy journalism." Shameless. (listen)
Well this is perfect: liberals circumvent the ratings process to put out their movie Bully with no "R" rating. Now, they are bullying theaters to violate their rules and run it anyway. (listen)
All eyes are on the Supreme Court right now as they take up the momentous 26-state challenge to Barack Obama and the Democrats’ unconstitutional governmental mandate on our healthcare freedom. But, as Rich Lowry points out so eloquently in a recent column, it’s not really ObamaCare that is on trial. It’s James Madison. Or at least, it’s the Madisonian model of government that he bequeathed us.
If you want proof of that, think about the conversation we’re having over ObamaCare. Think of what is the first question for so many of our lawmakers who enacted it. They wondered things like, “Will it work, will it lower costs, will it be enforceable?” Very few of them – and of those who voted in favor (all Democrats mind you), virtually none of them – actually paused to consider whether it was constitutional.
Remember Nancy Pelosi’s incredulous response to CNSNews when they asked her where Congress got the constitutional authority to enact such a mandate on every American. She asked, “Are you serious, are you serious?” That’s astounding when you think about the fact that she was the sitting Speaker of the House at that point in time. That’s what I mean when I say that Madison is on trial. It’s Madison vs. Pelosi, friends...whose side do you stand on? Lowry writes,
I’m not surprised that President Obama decided to wade into this Trayvon Martin situation out of Florida.I’m also not surprised that the President is, in the midst of an election year, applying a different standard to this situation than he has previously.And I’m certainly not surprised that no one in the media has decided to call him on it.
And this isn’t a case of me injecting presidential politics into the Martin tragedy.The president did that himself.I don’t fault the president for his decision to speak to the situation.But the moment he does, he becomes accountable for the way he approaches it and speaks to it.And it’s on those grounds that I am very uncomfortable.
Remember it’s only been a couple years ago that we had the “Skip” Gates situation where President Obama came out and injected racially divisive tones into the conversation.Without any evidence he proclaimed that the white police officer acted “stupidly” and suggested that profiling was potentially the motivation.Apparently it didn’t dawn on him that drawing such a conclusion was a bit of profiling in and of itself.
Once it became clear that the President was the one who “acted stupidly” by speaking publicly about a situation – and against law enforcement officers simply doing their jobs – the president attempted to pivot and act as a calming arbiter over the whole situation.You might remember the morally superior position he attempted to take, hosting a “beer summit” between the differing parties.
Yesterday I was away from the radio show and driving in my car back from a meeting, which gave me an opportunity to listen to some other broadcasts that I don’t normally get to hear, obviously.I came across one on the dial where the host and his co-host or producer or sidekick or whoever were talking about what they perceived as a rift within the tea party movement.
Honestly, this discussion is nothing new to those who have been involved with the movement since its inception.We’ve been hearing stories about the fractured nature of the tea partiers, and how the movement is not sustainable because it is so decentralized.Whether it’s the division over whether to make endorsements of candidates or not, whether to form a third party or not, whether to allow candidates or officeholders to speak or not, the media is always seeking to carry forth the narrative that the movement is doomed for failure as a result.
These two guys on the radio yesterday – and I’m not going to mention the name of the show because I have no real desire to pick a professional fight with another program...I’d rather pick a fight with the dumb idea that they were espousing – were suggesting that the tea party was fracturing around the socially conservative members who want to make traditional morality part of the movement’s thrust.
Other “don’t miss” segments of the radio show today:
Well this can’t be encouraging news for Sasha and Malia. Barack Obama seeks good parenting tips from the Islamist Prime Minister of Turkey. (listen)
I’ve arrived: a Kardashian agrees with me. I’ve been saying for a long time now that if you’re looking for the biggest bullies in the country, look no further than the “tolerant” left. Glad Khloe gets it. (listen)
Why is it that politicians’ kids are off limits if the politician is a Democrat (Clinton , Obama), but are fair game if the politician is a conservative (Palin...and now Santorum – as his daughters become sex joke fodder for depraved liberals)? (listen)
I have read where some atheist organizations are running an anti-Islam billboard, so kudos to them for displaying a spine. Nevertheless, the recent decision of the New York Times to refuse an anti-Islam ad continues to highlight the duplicity and basic cowardice of the left. Their duplicity is underscored by BBC director-general Mark Thompson’s admission that his network treats Christianity with less sensitivity than other religions, including Islam, in part due to threats: “Without question, ‘I complain in the strongest possible terms,’ is different from, ‘I complain in the strongest possible terms and I am loading my AK47 as I write.’”
Liberal cowardice does not end there. In virtually every significant anti-war and/or anti-gun protest, Big Entertainers love to put in their face time. They run around showing off their concern for society with photo-ops at peace rallies, then return to their studios to continue the production of the vilest, goriest, and most violent junk ever made. Seriously. Stop and count how many recent movie and novel plots are resolved without resorting to physical violence. In reference to “Hunger Games” opening this weekend, Australian actor Liam Hemsworth says that the violence in the film isn’t for nothing. “None of it is glorified and it’s not about that.”
Last Christmas, my wife and I watched quite a few of the specials on the Hallmark and other channels. Hey, I’m a guy, and I like movies with action and heroism and, yes, some shoot-em-up-blow-em-up scenes. What can I say? It’s a DNA thing. Yet, as the shows of the season progressed, I found myself genuinely enjoying programs where plots were resolved without hatred, physical violence, and obscene vulgarity. They were refreshing.
This week’s lib-quote comes from an Associated Press article covering the higher gasoline prices:
In truth, there is not a lot the president and Congress can do in the short term to push down gasoline prices. They are tied to oil prices, which have climbed in recent months, pushed by increased consumption from developing nations in Asia, Latin America and the Middle East and by concerns about supply disruptions in Iran and elsewhere.
Wow, the AP makes reference to global economic forces present in product pricing. That, in itself, is newsworthy.
What is not newsworthy is their habitual duplicity. Four to six years ago, Big Media and Big Government had no difficulty overtly declaringthat there is a LOT that Washington can do to push down oil prices and that the source of blame for $3.00 to $4.00 gasoline prices rested squarely on the “two big oil men in the White House.”
Leader Admits It Has Always Been About Government Approval
In case you missed the late Friday afternoon announcement, the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles announced that it was revoking the specialty license plate for the homosexual recruitment center the Indiana Youth Group because they had violated their contract in how the organization was raffling off plate numbers to the highest bidders.
The media contacted AFA-IN immediately after the news broke. I told reporters that while I was very glad that the plate was revoked, it should have occurred due to the content of the organization’s activities with children as young as 12 years of age. As noted in my editorial I shared last week, which appeared unedited in the Indianapolis Star the day before the BMV decision, this organization tears down the inhibitions of children between the ages of 12 and 21 and reinforces all sorts of risky and even bizarre sexual activities as normal and OK. (Keep reading, this will become quite obvious at the end of this email.)
Of course the far left is having a conniption over this news. I have been called all sorts of names in the blogs, Internet, email and phone messages, but that is typical of the worshipers of tolerance. Everyone is required to embrace their moral anarchy. Those who don’t are immediately labeled as “intolerant” and “bigots” regardless of our reasoning or motivation.
“Malcolm Out Loud” is a smart and witty national social and political commentator who has appeared on FOX News and CNN. He has recently taken on Rick Santorum for what Malcolm calls Santorum’s “War on the 1st Amendment.” Today I had a debate with him on the radio show about porn and Rick Santorum.
What drew my attention to this was Malcolm's recent commentary:
Every President has a war on something, Reagan was the "War on Communism", Bush was the "War on Terror" and if elected Rick Santorum's personal vendetta will be against the porn industry, the latest in his attacks on Americans' private behaviors such as marriage and contraception.
Despite preaching "less government", Rick Santorum's attack on the porn industry is opposite to what he's calling for. It will take strict government regulations, inspectors and tax dollars to patrol the internet. This could also be a violation of their 1st Amendment rights, regardless if we agree or not with their content as long as it abides by the rules on sales and production.
It made me curious as to whether Malcolm believes in unrestricted pornographic access or whether he has his own moral restraints he demands. If so, is it fair to say that he wants to abolish the First Amendment as well? This allegation against Santorum seems to be coming from an untenable absolutist position that I doubt Malcolm would really defend.
I also wanted to debate Malcolm on the concept of liberty vs. licentiousness and the fact that our founders believed the latter would bring the destruction of the former. I invited Malcolm onto the show today to debate these ideas.
If you’re looking for the face of fascism, look no further. The homosexualists over at GLAAD have come out with a new hate list for those who disagree with them, and are using it to try to blacklist them from all media. If you disagree with them on the issue of homosexuality as completely normal and moral, you are termed a hater who should not be allowed to speak to the issue. No joke. Check this out:
The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation has created an enemies list of 36 commentators – including pastors, authors, radio talk-show hosts, pro-family activists and researchers – in an effort to limit the effectiveness of their media outreach.
The list includes Chuck Colson, Joseph Farah, Tony Perkins, Don Wildmon, David Barton, Bill Donohue and Gary Bauer.
The formulation of the list is the work of GLAAD’s “Commentator Accountability Project” that aims to “educate the media about the extreme rhetoric of over three dozen activists who are often given a platform to speak in opposition to LGBT people and the issues that affect their lives.”
“Hate is not an expert opinion,” said GLAAD’s Herndon Graddick. “In most cases, news outlets invite reputable experts to speak on the subject at hand, but when talking about LGBT issues, open hostility and anti-LGBT bias seems to be all the credibility required. This project holds these so-called ‘pundits’ accountable for the extreme anti-LGBT rhetoric they continue to spread.”
You get what’s going on here, right? GLAAD is trying to use their media allies to totally silence any contrary view on the issue of homosexuality in the culture. If you don’t share their views, you are a hater who shouldn’t be allowed to be heard. So much for the marketplace of ideas, so much for free speech. They simply term those who disagree with them “full of hate,” and then threaten media outlets not to empower or enable the spreading of hate. It’s Fascism 101.
Poor Steny Hoyer. I mean, he’s only the number 2 man of the House Democrats. How is he supposed to keep up with all the rules that he and his fellow Democrats have crammed through? If you haven’t heard, poor Steny had an embarrassing exchange at a no cameras allowed news briefing with a CNSNews.com reporter:
CNSNews.com asked Hoyer: “The administration has approved a regulation under Obamacare that says, quote, ‘all women with reproductive capacity,’ end quote, must be offered free sterilization –”
Hoyer interrupted: “How is that related to a pre-existing condition?”
CNSNews.com continued: “--hold on--free sterilization in their health care plans. Do you support the mandate for free sterilization for college-age women?”
Hoyer said, “Free sterilization? I don’t know anything about free sterilization. I don’t know anything about that. I’m sorry. The answer is, I don’t. But I don’t think anybody is proposing that.”
Well, nobody except of course the very people you empowered to demand it, Mr. Hoyer. Remember how Nancy Pelosi told us we had to enact ObamaCare to figure out what’s in it? Evidently Steny Hoyer (one of the law’s major proponents) is still trying to figure that out. He could start with what HHS passed through a week ago:
The "preventive services" guidelines issued by the HHS, say that new health insurance plans in the United States must “provide coverage without cost-sharing" that includes: “All Food and Drug Administration approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling for all women with reproductive capacity.”
On Friday, the department of HHS announced a regulation making clear that this mandate extends to the student health care plans offered at American colleges and universities.
Yes, that means that regardless of what they want to offer, every health insurance company in the country must only offer plans that cover free sterilizations – for college girls if they want them. Free contraception, free sterilization, free abortifacients – that’s how you reduce healthcare costs in America according to the Democrats. Just don’t look at your coming premiums.
Other "don't miss" segments of the radio show today:
Barack "Doesn't Point Fingers" Obama points fingers at Congress for being responsible for the Solyndra failure - which, by the way has left an environmental mess. (listen)
Has Santorum "jumped the shark" suggesting that Romney would be no better than Obama? Maybe not, but that's not the kind of language the right needs. (listen)
Let's put this plainly: these "wrongful birth" lawsuits where parents win money from doctors saying that had the doctors told them their child would be disabled they would have killed their kid...they're just plain creepy. (listen)
Pat Robertson opens his mouth. Nothing good can come from this. (listen)
This is too precious to miss. I think a new segment on every one of my radio programs needs to be the “Encouragement Corner” for conservatives who are getting distraught by all the media talk about how Obama has this election in the bag. And all we’ll do in the “Encouragement Corner” is just play an audio clip or read a statement from one of the folks associated with this president’s re-election campaign. Whether it’s Jay Carney or David Axelrod or Biden (oh gosh, yes, Biden), a little dose of reality would be quite helpful.
Take, for instance, this clip of the president’s mastermind, David Axelrod, on with Bret Baier. The man is just embarrassed on what is one of the most straight-forward, simple, and totally predictable questions that anyone would have: how can you claim to be leading a party of fiscal responsibility when Senate Democrats have not passed a budget in 1,057 days? Baier wasn’t that direct, but he didn’t have to be:
Axelrod punted. "Well, I think you understand the dynamics in the Senate, Bret," said Axelrod. "And you know, there are lots of things that we haven't been able to pass over the course of the last three years, and a lot of it...some are procedural..."
What a pathetic answer! As Baier went on to point out (thankfully), the dynamics in the Senate have nothing to do with the Democrats’ failure. It doesn’t matter if every single Republican disagrees with their budget, you can’t filibuster a budget. The Democrats only need 51 votes (which they have) in order to pass a budget, and they haven’t done it upward of three years now. That’s inexcusable, and it’s pretty apparent that’s why Axelrod couldn’t defend it. After Baier pointed out this reality about the 51 votes, Axelrod countered:
This is my one request – at least for now. Can we all, Republicans, Democrats, conservative, liberal, libertarian, all of us – just agree to stop talking in euphemisms? It’s crippling us. And I’m not saying I never do it. The whole practice has become ingrained in our culture. We dumb down our language or we coat it in euphemistic terms that don’t seem to “hurt” as much in an effort to make our positions and ideas sound more palatable. Basically, we try to trick people into saying they agree with us – or at least that they are comfortable with what we’re saying and touting – without them really knowing the truth.
Perfect example came this week with Michelle Obama’s speech to a couple Democrat fundraisers in New York City. Here’s the line of the report that sent me to the top of Mount Frustration:
First Lady Michelle Obama told Democratic Party donors at two New York City fundraisers Monday that the two Supreme Court justices her husband appointed would be important in cases involving “privacy,” and the right to “love whomever you choose.”
See what I mean? What does Michelle Obama mean when she says cases involving “privacy?” Is there any schmuck out there that doesn’t realize she means abortion? Is there anybody out there that thinks this means anything else? Then why can’t Michelle say it?
And the same thing goes for this nonsense about the right to “love whomever you choose.” Think about how silly that is. Obviously that is referring to the left’s willingness to open the door to types of behavior previously regarded as immoral and improper. That’s what she really believes in here. The truth is that those of us who are conservative and hold to traditional, Christian morality, believe everyone should love each other. And we believe that you are not showing someone love by subjecting someone else to the physical, emotional or spiritual consequences of sexual immorality – whether that’s homosexuality or adultery or polygamy or whatever.
If this would have been Sarah Palin or Michele Bachmann, we would never hear the end of it. It would have led the news cycles on all the major networks as groundbreaking stuff. But instead, it was the first Muslim member of the United States Congress, liberal Democrat Keith Ellison who made a fool of himself in the course of an interview with Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly the other night.
But here’s a piece of advice for conservatives: don’t get too caught up with the ignorance. Because the principle behind what Ellison is saying – the position of liberals on the issue of national security – is what is really scandalous. Here’s how it got started:
CONGRESSMAN KEITH ELLISON (D-MINNESOTA): No, they [Iran] don’t have a weapon. They have not made a decision to do one. The inspections...
BILL O’REILLY, HOST: How would you know they have not made a decision to do one? How would you know that?
ELLISON: Because. I’m glad you asked. Because we have satellite technology. We have technology that can detect.
O’REILLY: They’re underground. The satellites can’t penetrate the earth. They’re underground.
ELLISON: We have inspections that have gone on.
O’REILLY: They won’t let the inspectors in as I’ve said three times.
ELLISON: Yes they have. There have been a number of inspections.
O’REILLY. No there haven’t. They went two weeks ago and they wouldn’t let them go in.
ELLISON: Well, Bill, I’m sorry, but I’m not going to back a war based on a maybe. 4,409 Americans are dead because somebody—
Okay, so that’s bad enough – the whole Superman technology that can peer through the earth thing. Or the idea that Iran is welcoming in inspectors. But notice that Ellison goes back to reference the Iraq war as a reason why he can’t support any kind of military action with Iran. I said after the WMD stockpiles never emerged there that the big concern would be the corner the left would paint us into if a situation like it ever arose again. And here we are.
Other “don’t miss” segments of the radio show today:
Christian “Idol” contestant Colton Dixon gives glory to God on national TV despite warnings from producers it could hurt his chances of winning the show. (listen)
Utter buffoonery and bigotry of liberal sports editor, ripping the New York Jets for bringing in the Christian Tim Tebow to play football. Editor says Tebow wants to “set gays back 30 or 40 years.” Actually he wants to win football games. (listen)
California teachers’ union files complaint against parents volunteering in school because they aren’t unionized and paid by tax dollars. A real eye-opener. (listen)
Having to play by the same silly rules they established, Obama campaign forced to condemn DeNiro joke about having a “white first lady.” More race in politics thanks to the left. (listen)
I was absolutely stunned when I saw the story that the Obamas had let Malia Obama go to Mexico for a Spring Break trip. In fact, my first thought was, “Somebody’s going to be embarrassed for reporting that because there’s no way.” Then the story comes out that the Obamas had asked the media to pull the stories about her being there – which would make sense, by the way...we don’t need to know the travel plans of the Obama girls. But that made me start thinking that there might be something to this. And then I got my confirmation with this report from CBS:
First daughter Malia Obama, who is reportedly in southwestern Mexico on a school trip, "is safe and was never in danger" in the wake of a 7.6-magnitude earthquake that hit near Acapulco on Tuesday, the first lady's office said.
The White House does not traditionally discuss the Obama children, but broke with the policy to announce that Malia Obama is safe. Word of her trip to Mexico was reported by a number of media outlets on Monday, though CBS News has not reported her trip until now.
The Monday reports prompted the first lady's office to reach out to media outlets and ask them to pull the stories, which many elected to do. In order to protect the "privacy and security" of the first daughters, the first lady's office said, it was reiterating its longstanding request that news organizations not "report on or photograph the Obama children when they are not with their parents and there is no vital news interest."
I’m just astounded by this. Completely astounded. Reports are that the White House sent 25 Secret Service to protect Malia. Me being astounded has absolutely nothing to do with the expense of sending Secret Service to protect her. That makes total sense. Send 25, send 250, send however many needs to be sent. This has everything to do with horrific judgment on the part of our president and his wife to let their daughter go on this trip.
I just cringe when I see stories like this. Last week we talked on the radio show about the coming alliance between the Warmers (those leftists wanting to control our lives in terms of how far we can travel and what temperature we can set our home thermostats) and the Movers (those leftists wanting to control our lives in terms of what we can eat and how much of it). It looks like they may be joined by a third freedom-destroying group, making up a three headed monster of regulation and manipulation:
During a discussion series on Monday at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, D.C., speaker and activist Kavita Ramdas argued that contraceptives should be part of a strategy to save the planet, calling lower birth rates a “common sense” part of a climate-change reduction strategy.
At the event, titled “Women’s Health: Key to Climate Adaptation Strategies,” Ramdas pointed to studies conducted by health consultants at the for-profit Futures Group, the government-funded National Center for Atmospheric Research and the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, in Austria, to connect contraception with climate change.
Ramdas told The Daily Caller that the research shows “empowering women to time their pregnancies” and avoid unwanted births would reduce carbon emissions between 8 to 15 percent globally.
Did you notice that slight change of language, but dramatic pivot that these liberals just articulated? We’re no longer calling them “unwanted pregnancies,” but rather unwanted births. Think about the power of that word change. We are now moving into a brave new era where these abortion fanatics are going to unabashedly acknowledge what is really the problem to them: it’s not the inconvenience of a pregnancy. It’s the lack of willingness to accept responsibility for a child.
I hope someone has called the Department of Homeland Security. It appears that Obama supporters, the entire group of them...every single person that plans on voting for Barack Obama in 2012...are radical wackos that represent a security threat to the country.
How do I know that? This:
A Tennessee man described as an Obama “fanatic” has been convicted of threatening to kill Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his family, possibly in connection with the lawman’s investigation into the president’s eligibility for office.
Adam Eugene Cox, 33, of Knoxville, was arrested Jan. 27 in connection with graphic online threats that came to light last October.
Cox’s threats included: “I plan to kill Arpaio first. He will be filled with a thousand bullet holes before the year is out. I promise you this. He won’t f**k with Obama. He will be buried 10 feet under and his whole family will be murdered along with him.”
Authorities say Cox’s postings indicate – and his own mother confirms – that Cox is a “fanatical supporter” of Obama, and Arpaio’s ongoing investigation into the legitimacy of the president’s purported birth certificate may have been the reason behind the threat to kill the sheriff.
And this isn’t some idle threat, mind you. Mr. Cox has a history of acting on his violent impulses:
Other "don't miss" segments from the radio show today:
The great one, Mark Steyn, absolutely demolishes Obama’s condescension towards conservative “flat-earthers.” If you’re going to mock the vision of others, at least have your facts straight. (listen)
Romney’s victory speech after Illinois was about as encouraging a speech as conservatives could have asked for coming from Mitt. Of course, his adviser follows it up with a bonehead statement. (listen)
Afghan president Karzai calls American soldiers “demons” and condemns our “Satanic acts.” It’s time for a serious conversation about what our mission is there. (listen)
Remember when CNN told us when gas prices went up under George Bush that it wasn’t “as bad as you think?” No, I don’t either. But, no surprise, that’s exactly what they’re saying now. (listen)
You know what I miss? I miss the atheists who just didn’t really care. Here’s what I mean: I get why Christians evangelize. As a Christian myself, I understand the vital importance of reaching out to a lost world and trying to introduce them to the grace that can bring them eternal salvation. For those of us who follow Christ, who said He is the only way, truth and life, we don’t really have a choice – it’s the Great Commission – to spread the Gospel message of Good News.
But for an atheist, what’s the point of getting other people to think like you? If there’s no such thing as salvation, if there’s no such thing as redemption, sin or grace or any of that stuff, then should it really matter to you what another person believes or doesn’t believe? It doesn’t. And for a while, that’s where most atheists were when it came to involvement in the public square. They kept their unbelief to themselves because they didn’t see how spreading their unbelief was in any way a benefit to society (by definition it wouldn’t be, because unlike Christianity there’s nothing gained from embracing unbelief).
But those days are long over, as the evangelistic atheists have descended upon us. And they’ve struck again, this time in Polk County, Florida. Here’s the story:
Until recently, if someone asked me to name my favorite funny movie of all time, I would have told you it was a toss-up between the classic Don Knotts comedy “The Ghost and Mr. Chicken” (where Attaboy Productions, Inc. got its name, by the way) or the hilarious Knotts-Tim Conway comedy “The Private Eyes.” That’s one that I’ve had committed to memory since my elementary school days.
But a new contender has now risen to the top. I’m not going to say it has eclipsed the other two, and I will reserve final judgment until after I have actually watched the entire thing from start to finish. But based on the clips I have seen, this is pure comedy gold. Perhaps you’ve heard of it. It’s called “The Road We’ve Traveled,” and stars the voice of Tom Hanks (another one of my favorites) chronicling the first term of Barack Obama.
Now some have told me this isn’t supposed to be a comedy, but I think they’re clueless. This is pure satire. It has to be. Just watch a few clips and you’ll see what I mean. Take this hilarious line, for instance:
There was an interesting assessment of the recent Republican-led short session of the Indiana Legislature that appeared in our local paper, the Kokomo Tribune, over the weekend. A few Republican lawmakers, all friends of the radio show and men that I hold in high regard, gave their thoughts on what Republicans were able to accomplish with their large majorities:
Three Republican state legislators representing the Kokomo area gave high marks to the recently ended Indiana General Assembly, a session dominated by GOP legislative priorities.
Senator Buck, as well as Representatives Karickhoff and Van Natter shared their views on what they saw as the success of passing Right to Work, a nine-year phase out of the inheritance tax, fully funded all day Kindergarten and a statewide smoking ban. With all due respect, I look at that list and scratch my head.
Yes, I think that the courage to pass Right to Work is something laudable. I think every worker should have the right to choose whether or not to join a union, and I like the fact that the law empowers the individual over union bosses. And I agree that getting rid of any tax is a nice thing – particularly something as odious as taxing inheritance (“Hey your Dad just died, let us take some of his money now that he’s out of the picture”). But outside of that, I can’t get excited about the government getting its hands on our kids at an earlier age. And as much as I dislike smoke being blown in my face, more government isn’t always the way to do it. Neither of those two things seem overly conservative to me.
Over the course of time, my colleagues and I at Liberty Tree have made observations concerning the impact that sexual anarchy has and will have on our culture. The most alarming observation is how the removal of sexual boundaries and morality is lending itself to the “final frontier” of sexual anarchy: the institutional legitimization of adult-child sexual relationships.
There are those, of course, who attempt to dismiss such concerns as complete exaggeration. It appears, though, that those who take this attitude choose to ignore credible evidence.
Although such evidence continues to emerge, as cited in past Liberty Tree commentaries and other places, I recently discovered an alarming testimony made years ago concerning this issue. As a member of the Attorney General’s Commission on Pornography in the 1980s, Dr. James Dobson said:
I will never forget a particular set of photographs shown to us at our first hearing in Washington, D.C. It focused on a cute, nine-year old boy who had fallen into the hands of a molester. In the first picture, the blonde lad was fully clothed and smiling at the camera. But in the second, he was nude, dead and had a butcher knife protruding from his chest. I served for 14 years as a member of a medical school faculty and thought I had seen it all. But my knees buckled and tears came to my eyes as these and hundreds of other photographs of children were presented showing pitiful boys and girls with their rectums enlarged to accommodate adult males and their vaginas penetrated with pencils, toothbrushes and guns.
When many people hear of an issue concerning homosexuality, they automatically draw conclusions before looking at the bigger picture. The controversy over the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles (BMV) issuance of a specialty license plate, which raises funds for the Indiana Youth Group (IYG), is no different. It seemed doomed to be pushed into a liberal versus conservative box. Even when Governor Mitch Daniels was asked about his agency’s approval of the controversial plate, his response was, “I don’t know, and I don’t care.”
State approved messages children receive should be a concern to every legislator, the Governor and every Hoosier. The Indiana Youth Group is characterized as a homosexual organization, but many of its web and printed materials indicate that the IYG is a place for any sexual orientation: “straight,” “homosexual,” “bisexual,” “lesbian,” “polysexual,” “pansexual,” “transgender,” “transvestite,” “transsexual,” “genderqueer,” “questioning,” and other categories of which many readers may have never heard.
Problems with the IYG escalate when you realize that this is an organization which promotes sexual activity among children as young as 12 years old up to the age of 21. Placing 20 year olds and children under the age of sexual consent in settings regularly advertised on the IYG calendar should concern all responsible Hoosiers.
According to a disturbing story from Life Site News, the Obama Administration has finalized its rules concerning the funding of their national health care plan. Included in those rules is an “abortion premium mandate” that dictates that every person, regardless of age or gender, enrolled in the Affordable Care Act will pay a $1 surcharge for abortion coverage.
It is one thing to recognize that this administration is full of socialist ideologies, but it is the cultural Marxism, the efforts to radically reorder society and tear down our Judeo-Christian heritage, that is the most disturbing. If they believe in “free” government medical care, and compassion, where are the calls for free Alzheimer medicines, for free heart drugs, free cancer medicines? Answer: there are no such calls or plans. This administration is too busy undermining our marriage laws and working on forcing people, employers and religious entities to pay for contraceptives and abortions.
The last two weeks have been incredibly busy as the Indiana General Assembly wound down to an end. I was scrambling to follow through on several issues. Unfortunately, I have to agree with the Indianapolis Star’s observation this weekend when it assessed the winners and losers of the session. The big losers, according to the Star, were Democrats and social conservatives. Their reasoning was hard to refute. They noted various bills that died in the House on creation education and specialty license plates. They should have also mentioned the death of Senate Bill 72 a pro-life bill that passed the Senate unanimously, but never received even a hearing in the House.
People have asked me why, given the make up of the legislature, so many issues failed to pass. The reason is simple and reflected in our culture as well as our politics. Too few legislators can clearly discern right from wrong in this postmodern culture and follow through with the courage needed to stand strong on such matters. Too many of them are afraid of what the liberal media might say or write about them and their ideas. As one disgruntled legislator told me of Speaker Brian Bosma’s decision to kill SB 72, which would have passed with close to 80% support, “it is as if after being shot at by the cannons of the unions, they [GOP leadership] are now afraid of the BB guns of the far left's abortionists.”
Did you happen to see this story about the New York Times refusing an anti-Islam advertisement for their paper? It was a full page ad being sponsored by Pamela Geller and her organization, Stop the Islamization of Nations, that basically ran down all the reasons that practicing Muslims should leave their faith. At the bottom, the plug for the group sponsoring the ad says that they are, “a human rights organization dedicated to freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of conscience and individual rights.”
And so the ad pretty much touted the idea that Islam runs counter to those values and so people should leave that faith. The New York Times decided not to run it. Basically told Geller and her crew – who, by the way, were the same ones very actively involved in the effort to stop the Ground Zero mosque – that they didn’t want their money and that the ad wouldn’t be allowed on the pages of the Times.
In the letter explaining why they made their decision, here’s what the Times said:
Well this is a new one, but nonetheless unsurprising coming from the left and their war on traditional values. Secular progressive liberal writer Jessica delBalzo is going her part to advance liberalism in the country by waging a war against...adoption. Yes, you read that right. See for yourself:
If anyone is encouraging you to surrender your baby to adoption, please contact us by phone or email us. Our volunteers have experienced adoption in their own lives, and they can tell you what it feels like to be adopted or surrender your own child. We’ll also help you find the support you need to keep your baby – the best thing for both of you!
Don’t let anyone tell you that adoption is the “right choice” or the “loving option” for your baby. YOU are the only mother or father your baby has, and no one will be able to take your place in his or her life. People who try to convince you to surrender your baby are probably in a position to get something out of the adoption for themselves – either money or your child himself.
Other people may tell you that you’ll be “giving a wonderful gift” to an infertile couple – this is NOT your responsibility. Your only job is to be the best mom or dad you can be for your baby. Your child isn’t going to want or accept any substitute for the real thing!
Yes, don’t believe any of those radicals telling you that giving up your baby to a loving family rather than cutting its head off is a loving or wonderful choice.
Now, with as galling as it is to see a liberal railing against the loving act of choosing to adopt a child and writing as though it is some traumatic (rather than joyful) experience, this offers a great opportunity to once again see who the radicals are in our culture. Because this delBalzo chick isn’t just anti-adoption. No, she puts the icing on the cake by making the unbelievable statement that she “loves abortion.” Though that is certainly the position that many of the modern liberal feminists hold to, they understand it doesn’t poll well. So they say things like wanting abortion, “safe, legal and rare.” Not delBalzo:
Since the last time I talked with Congressional candidate Jackie Walorski, the left has run wild with their declaration of a conservative War on Women. As a woman, and a conservative, Jackie brings a unique perspective to this recent line of attack from the left.
I also asked her take on Barack Obama calling for a “task force” to study the issue of rising gas prices, and his accusation that Republicans are “flat-earthers” for not seeing the wisdom in green energy projects like the corrupt and bankrupt Solyndra.
Could it be possible? A pro-family, pro-life, funny and uplifting movie made in Hollywood with professional quality? Really?
On Friday’s show, I invited Brian Imbler – a man with roots here in central Indiana – onto the program to talk about his exciting new project that is in post-production stages in Hollywood. Buzz is just now starting to build for “re-Birthday,” and Brian joined me to discuss what it’s about, why he felt a calling to do this with his life, and the surprising undercurrent of Christian conservatives there in the belly of the Left Coast beast.
Have you paused to consider the reasons the left is giving you to vote for Obama? It’s really a remarkable exercise to step back and think about this. And it’s very revealing. They are saying, “You should vote for Obama because the Republicans are racist.” Or, “You should vote for Obama because the Republicans are sexist and are warring against women.” Or, and this one is just crazy: “You should vote for Obama because the Republicans are wealthy.”
No positive reason to vote for Obama. No accomplishment. No nothing. He ran a campaign against Bush in 2008, and now he’s running a campaign – after four years in office – against Republicans again. And notice that each of those reasons are encouraging division and bitterness and hate between Americans. For all their talk of tolerance and hope and change, this is who they are.
Let me draw your attention towards the particular comments of one of MSNBC’s finest, Al Sharpton. Check out this bit of bitterness-baiting as Sharpton considers the possibility of poor voters in Mississippi choosing Mitt Romney:
That George Stephanopoulos question in the Republican debate months ago that seemed so bizarre at the time now makes perfect sense.When George asked Mitt Romney, seemingly out of the blue, about whether states had the right to ban contraception (and it was weird because, as Romney pointed out, this isn’t an issue – no state, no candidate is advocating this idea), it was the opening volley in what was about to become what the media would term the “Republican war on women.”
We should have known something was up at that precise moment.Many of us wondered how the media would possibly defend such a failed presidency – and now we know.They will attempt to concoct phony issues that are extremely emotional and attention-grabbing.War on Women certainly does that.
Unfortunately, Rush Limbaugh’s critical verbal error on the air only added more fuel to this fire.An unjust and unsubstantiated and unreasonable fire?Of course.Because, as MediaResearchCenter’s Brent Bozell points out, if you’re looking for those bashing women on a regular basis, you don’t look to the right.Actually, all you have to do is look at NBC’s liberal collective:
Great news for all Americans struggling to pay the Obama gas prices: the President has announced a bold, new plan to deal with the crisis.Sure, his policy of spending massive amounts of taxpayer money on green energy boondoggles while limiting or shutting down domestic oil exploration has brought us to this point, but at least he’s getting serious about the problem now that it’s election year.And oh, how serious he is:
I think the American people understand that we don’t have a silver bullet when it comes to gas prices. We’ve been talking about this for 30 years. The only way to stabilize gas prices is to reduce our dependency on fore oil and we just put out a report that over the last year or so, we’ve been able to reduce our dependence on foreign oil by a million barrels. That’s’ significant. In the meantime, cuz I know people are hurting right now and it feels like a tax out of their paychecks, what we’re doing is looking at every single area that can affect gas prices, from bottlenecks that are out there, we’ve set up a task force to look into speculation to make sure people are taking advantage of the situation on the global oil markets," President Obama told WKRC-TV.
So forget the “staycations” this summer and book the cross-country road trip in the family roadster, happy days are here again!After all, these government financed task forces always result in savings and success for the American people – particularly when they are commissioned by this president.
Remember the last task force we experienced.Shortly after taking office, the president tackled our looming deficit crisis head on by appointing a task force.It was called the Simpson-Bowles task force as you might remember.After months of study, the bipartisan committee reported their findings to Obama and advised him on steps he could take immediately to reduce the deficit.Obama promptly ignored their findings and ran up record deficits the likes of which we have never seen before.
I’ve gotten the question what I think about Christians who support Barack Obama’s re-election bid. My response is that I question either their sincerity or their sanity. How else, unless unserious about their faith or a few bricks short of a load, could a Christian support the most anti-Christian president in American history?
Let me start by saying I understand how explosive of an accusation this could appear to be to call President Obama the most anti-Christian president in our history. So let’s stipulate a couple things right off the bat. First, you have to keep in mind that we’re working with a small sample of 43 guys. Yes, I know there have been 44 presidents, but 2 of them were the same guy, Grover Cleveland, with his terms split. So 43 guys that you’re comparing Mr. Obama to when you make this accusation. It’s not saying he’s the most anti-Christian world leader in history.
Second, let’s really define what we mean by anti-Christian. It does not mean he is the Antichrist. It does not even mean that he’s not a Christian. Seriously. There are plenty of Christians who support ideas that are detrimental to the faith, or that undermine the cause. That’s what we’re talking about here. When you step back and look at the policies, the positions, the worldview of the various presidents of America’s past, Barack Obama is by far the most hostile to basic Christianity than any other.
Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) absolutely grilled, fileted and served President Obama’s Energy Secretary Steven Chu the other day at a Senate Energy committee hearing. I mean this was brutal for the administration to watch. Not that I feel bad for them. President Obama is the one who went out and tapped a guy to head up his energy policies who – shortly before becoming Energy Secretary – had boldly proclaimed his belief that “somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels of Europe.”
If you haven’t seen the exchange, you need to. If anybody was under the impression that this coming election would be about the differences and disagreements within the Republican Party, watch this hearing and think again. If gas prices do what gas prices always do during the summer – go up – then the disagreements between Mitt, Newt and Rick are going to seem like distant memories to the American voter. Guaranteed.
So here’s a question for you: suppose that a year before the 2000 presidential election, Dick Cheney was on tape stating, “We have to find a way to make Halliburton’s profits increase.” Then a few years into the Bush/Cheney administration it just so happens that Halliburton’s profits were increasing dramatically because of the government contracts they were suddenly receiving. What do you suppose the liberals would say with assistance from their leftist media cohorts? Do you think there would be questions asked or conclusions drawn?
And then suppose that in the midst of the controversy, White House press secretary Dana Perino or Tony Snow or Ari or whoever it was at the time explained it away by saying, “Oh, he said that BEFORE he became Vice President. Now that he’s Vice President, he doesn’t feel that way, and you should understand that.” Do you think the media would accept that? Would liberals demand that we give him the benefit of the doubt?
Yet that is exactly what is going on with this whole Steven Chu thing. The President’s Energy Secretary said just before becoming the Energy Secretary he wanted to see gas prices increased to the level of Europe. He becomes Energy Secretary and we have doubled our price at the pump since then. Yet, when asked about it, here’s what Press Secretary Jay Carney had to say:
I can’t say I’ve ever really cared for the Chicago Bears. And now I have another reason as their head coach Lovie Smith has decided to join in the war against Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “Dream” by shilling for Obama’s racially divisive campaign strategy:
Chicago Bears head coach Lovie Smith doesn’t seem to mind that President Obama has disappointed many in the African American community as he is now asking that same community to “be patient and look into the future,” while actively supporting his reelection bid.
“I’m pleased with where we are now,” Smith says in a new web video.
“The President has done so much: health care, end of the Iraq War, new jobs, but it‘s not about where we’re at now, it‘s about our future and that’s what I’m excited about. You have to be patient and kind of look into the future. And our future is looking bright because I trust the man that will be leading us in the future. And that man is Barack Obama. I have the President‘s back and it’s left up to us, as African Americans, to show that we have his back also[.] [J]oin African Americans for President Obama today.”
I asked this question a couple weeks ago, but how would a “Whites for Romney” go over? How would that fly? Can someone please explain to me how this transparent appeal to racial divides is not seen as offensive? Explain to me how saying things like, “it’s up to us, as African Americans, to show that we have his back?” Why? Why is it up to those with dark skin pigmentation to show they have the back of a socialist and secular progressive radical? Why can’t people with dark skin pigmentation hold to conservative Christian views? How is that not offensive?
Contradiction is a way of life on the left. So much so that it’s virtually unrecognizable to them when they self-contradict. They don’t even realize that it’s happening. Take, for instance, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s off the cuff remarks made at the Women of the World Summit in New York City yesterday:
Clinton’s words began innocuously, as she spoke about an encounter she had at a recent town hall meeting in Tunis, Tunisia. She said that an Islamic woman stood up and shared her personal experience working with the U.S. and the surprise that many had at her willingness to collaborate with the West (and vice-versa).
Then, Clinton told the audience, ”I told her that, in America, in Tunisia, anywhere in the world, women should have the right to make their own choices about what they wear...how they worship...the causes that they support.” These words led Clinton to make statements about extremists who are trying to strip away women’s rights across the world.
That’s incredible to me that she is making such a statement as the administration she serves is in the midst of telling millions of American women that they must violate their conscience and finance free abortifacients. What about the women whose cause is Christian morality, Ms. Clinton? Or what about Catholic women whose convictions teach them to avoid contraceptives. Why is the administration opposing the rights of women to make their own choices about the causes they support? Hmmm.
Now, let’s get onto that “extremists” stuff. Bet you can’t guess where this is going:
Some very interesting testimony took place at Capitol Hill last Thursday that you need to know about. Particularly as the left is continuing to thrust social issues in front of everybody’s face for reasons that I think are totally based on wishful thinking. Now maybe this will end up working out for them, but I just don’t see it.
Liberals are victims of their own success in this election. By that I mean that they won the argument four years ago. They won the battle for the public’s confidence and trust. They won the White House, they won both houses of Congress. As a consequence they won the appointments to federal courts. That’s all you can do – it’s a full sweep. So that’s great at the time, but then presents a bit of a challenge to whoever accomplishes it. The challenge is that you are going to be held totally responsible for what comes of it. And what’s come of liberal control in Washington, D.C. is not pretty.
Massive deficits and debt, no budget even proposed since what, 2009? We’ve seen the massive expansion of the role of government, the stagnation of a high unemployment rate longer than any time since the Great Depression. Public confidence is at all time lows. Kids are staying on their parents insurance policies well into adulthood now. The government is wanting to take over college loans, they have control of healthcare, they’re making orders to violate people’s religious conscience. And that’s just in a couple short years.
Imagine that you’re driving down the road and some woman driver comes up behind you driving erratically. After a while, she pulls out to pass you and you notice that her daughter is in the front seat with her. Your kids are with you too. As the woman passes, she leans over and flies the bird – flips you off – as she speeds by. Unnerving, right?
Now, suppose that after a few minutes of her being out of sight on up the road, you come upon a burning vehicle in the ditch and notice it’s the woman’s car. She and her daughter are trapped inside the vehicle. What do you do? Seriously, what do you do in that situation?
As you think about it, realize that this isn’t a made up story. It just happened to a woman in Florida. Here’s the account:
CRYSTAL RIVER, Fla. (CBS Tampa) – Local resident Kristyn Dominy risked her life to save that of another driver on W. Ozello Trail — even though the other driver had made a rude gesture at her just moments before.
According to the Tampa Bay Times, Dominy, 22, was driving home on the windy path with her daughter when a Jeep sped past her, its driver behaving erratically and making crude hand motions at her.
“She did flip me off whenever she passed me,” Dominy told the paper about the events preceding the crash, which took place Monday night.
Not long after, Dominy spotted the car on fire, stuck in some trees just off the road.
“My first thought when I came around the corner and saw that her vehicle was on fire, I was thinking karma,” Dominy told the Tampa Bay Times. “But the same time, I could never — even though she flipped me off down the road — I could never just sit there and watch that happen.”
As this whole liberal generated outrage over Rush Limbaugh runs its course and dies the miserable death that it’s dying – in case you didn’t know, apparently at least one advertiser who bailed on Rush has come crawling back and has been denied by the radio giant – the backfiring has begun.
Now you might remember that I was saying towards the middle of last week, as Carbonite’s stock was tanking and as Mr. Obama’s Press Secretary started taking questions about a pretty apparent double standard on “offensive rhetoric” that Mr. Obama apparently holds, that Obama’s anxiousness to distract from his offensive contraception mandate was going to come back and bite him.
Remember, the outrage the left put out there after Rush’s “slut” remark was all feigned. It was all fake. They weren’t really upset about the use of the term. How do I know? It’s pretty simple – look at what they say themselves. Now again, that doesn’t justify or make Rush’s comment okay. It wasn’t...which is why he rightly apologized. But it does reveal that the whole shock and outrage that you were hearing and seeing from these liberals was nothing but a big front for another cause. And what was that cause? I think it was two-fold. For people like Obama, it was an immediate opportunity to distract from his truly offensive actions in violating Christians’ rights of conscience without remorse. For others on the left, it was a great opportunity to take another crack at silencing Rush.
The short-session of the Indiana Legislature has adjourned, and many conservatives are scratching their heads. The assembly is heavily dominated by Republicans, yet once again, it appears that when given a mandate to enact a solid conservative agenda, Republican leadership has approached it hesitantly.
Yes, Right to Work was enacted, as was a 10 year phase out of the inheritance tax (we’ll see if that is left in place for the next 10 years). Outside of that, a questionable smoking ban bill was passed, but major pieces of pro-life and pro-family legislation was killed by Republican leaders.
I invited Micah Clark, the executive director of the AFA of Indiana, on to the show to give his thoughts on a bizarre session of the legislature and what it means going forward.
Television broadcaster ABC is producing a televised series called “GCB.” The title prior to the acronym is “Good Christian [rhymes with witches].” I have read a few comments by folks who are upset, with good cause, over this. There are, after all, many reasons to expose this show’s creators and producers for the hypocrites they are, not the least is which they resort to a profiling which the residents of the land of left-believe claim they deplore.
I have, however, a different and, perhaps, surprising tact.
I’m all for the show. I’m not going to watch it, but I’m all for it if it gives an accurate portrayal of Christians who need a serious reminder of their vow to the Savior and the need to repent of sinful behavior. Unlike the secular realm, Christians are not afraid to face hypocrisy. We confront it frequently. The Savior tells us we will face it, and He tells us how to deal with it. Although the ABC program is like chasing a fly with a shotgun, the Lord instructs His Church to seek to lovingly restore the backslider. Perhaps this program will alert the respective church leadership to help their members restore their loving relationship with Christ.
I am all for unmasking hypocrisy. Since ABC appears to share this thought, perhaps they will consider additional shows to aid the cause.
Like every good conservative commentator, I believe in giving credit when it is due. To this end, I give President Obama the benefit of the doubt and credit for the difficult task of dealing with the Iranian situation. During his narcissistic interruption of the so-called “Super Tuesday,” he declared:
“We have a window through which we can resolve this issue peacefully,” the president continued. “We have put forward an international framework that is applying unprecedented pressure. The Iranians just stated that they are willing to return to the negotiating table. And we've got the opportunity, even as we maintain that pressure, to see how it plays out.”
Referring to the campaign rhetoric about Iran from Romney, Santorum and Gingrich, Obama said his worries include the men and women who would fight such a war -- a conflict that he believes right now would be a mistake. “Typically, it's not the folks who are popping off who pay the price,” he commented.
“This is not a game. There’s nothing casual about it.” The president discounted campaign discussions about Iran as “a lot of bluster and a lot of big talk,” and he said his rivals’ proposals are less about solving a serious problem than scoring political points.
I wrote last week that there was a time when American adults, even those actively engaged in some form of sexual debauchery, sought to protect children from exposure to it. We may identify that as hypocrisy (that is, do as I say and not as I do), and it may not have resulted in perfect protection, but there was nonetheless a cultural sense of some form of sacrifice for the recognized good of our children. Unfortunately, the attitude that pervades now is one of self-centered entitlement. Access to pornography and various forms of sexual debauchery are demanded and expected with no regard to the damage exposure brings to children at an early age. The attitude has shifted from “erring” on the side of protecting our vulnerable young to one of demanding access as a right in spite of the havoc it wreaks.
Such is the category of the demands that the ACLU placed on school districts across the nation last year. No, the ACLU is not demanding unfettered access to hard-core pornography sites in our nation’s public schools. But what they are demanding demonstrates clearly that they are not concerned with any resulting unintentional consequences. They would much rather err on the side of a self-centered few than on the side of protecting the vulnerable.
This week’s lib-quote is provided by a response posted on a recent Liberty Tree comment. In response to my post, Mr. Tim Soderlund writes:
If you want anyone besides the kool-aid drinkers to find you credible you really should cite sources.
I find it amusing how many times the use of “kool-aid drinkers” shows up in comments, letters, etc. Whenever those speaking from the left use it, I am even more amused and bemused at their detachment from historical reality.
The reference is, of course, to the mass murder-suicide in 1978 of more than 900 followers of Jim Jones at Jonestown, Guyana. And that is probably the extent of what most folks know.
That would be my extent except when we subscribed to Netflix a few years ago, my wife saw that a History Channel documentary of the Jonestown tragedy was available. I didn’t know why she wanted to see that, but we got it anyway.
PROGRAMMING NOTE from the Peter Heck Radio Show, as mentioned on yesterday's broadcast: due to contractual obligations of our flagship station WIOU Kokomo with Indiana University, IU's participation in the Big Ten Basketball Tournament Thursday and Friday will air during the 3-5 pm time slot. That will preempt the radio show, which will return at normal time on Monday, March 12. Direct any questions to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Coming off of Super Tuesday and a big win for Mitt Romney in Ohio, the commentators are back at it with the usual storylines: Mitt won, but is a weak frontrunner.Santorum is too radical and talks about sex too much.Gingrich can't win this thing.All the same storylines.And what will it lead to?It will lead to the larger theme feared by conservatives and commonly repeated by liberals: this crop of Republicans just can't get it done.There's just no way that any of these guys can beat Obama.
In fact, see if this story from Feb. 29 in the New York Times pretty well sums it up about the Republican struggles:
Not since Herbert Hoover has a party out of power had such an opportunity to run against everything that troubles the American family?prices, interest rates, unemployment, taxes, or the fear for the future of their old age or the future of their children?than is now presented to the Republican Party.
The Republicans, however, haven't figured this out. This is their basic problem. They have no strategy for defeating an administration that is highly vulnerable on both domestic and foreign policy.
Pretty well encapsulates the conventional wisdom, doesn't it?Now, let me fill you in on some rather important details for those of you conservatives who buy this silliness and those liberals who peddle it, wishfully:
We have to get to this Obama press conference.First of all, how classic is it that this man - who holds fewer press conferences than any president in recent memory - just happens to randomly decide to hold on Republican's Super Tuesday and at a time when he knew he would be asked a question about the Rush Limbaugh distraction?I'm sure it's all coincidence, aren't you?Nothing nakedly political there at all.Just a president doing his job.Ahem.
And sure enough, he took a question about why he called Sandra Fluke to offer his support.His answer was exactly what we should expect from this guy, but still annoying to say the least:
"What I can comment on is the fact that all decent folks can agree that the remarks that were made don't have any place in the public discourse. And, you know, the reason I called Ms. Fluke is because I thought about Malia and Sasha, and one of the things I want them to do as they get older is to engage in issues they care about, even ones I may not agree with them on. I want them to be able to speak their mind in a civil and thoughtful way. And I don't want them attacked or called horrible names because they're being good citizens."
Powerful, isn't it?Drag your daughters into the fray...there's a good call.Not that I doubt his sincerity.No one wants to see his daughters speaking their mind in a civil and thoughtful way and be attacked or called horrible names.You know, like "teabagger" or "terrorist."You know, the terms that Barack Obama himself and his Vice President Joe Biden used to describe other people's daughters who were speaking their mind in civil and thoughtful ways.
I love the way that Rush handled the loss of some of his advertisers.I'm getting ticked off about the cowards and Rush just says, "Their loss."And that's just it.It will be their loss if conservatives are smart about this.We're getting a list here of businesses that have pulled their advertising and they need to hear from you folks.
Listen, I've never been much into boycotts for a number of reasons. One is that it almost always hurts the local businessman and local community far more than it hurts who it's supposed to hurt.You boycott a place like McDonalds and make a big deal of it, and who it hurts is the guy you go to church with who runs the local McDonalds franchise.It doesn't hurt Ronald too much.So that's one reason.
The second reason is that I'm fundamentally opposed to silencing free speech.A company has the right to do with its resources and it's money what it wants to do with it, whether I agree or not.And if I don't agree, I have every right now to go and shop there.But intentionally trying to destroy a business with organized boycotts has always seemed a little shady to me.I've been uncomfortable with it, let's put it that way.
Other "don't miss" segments of the radio show today:
Far from an innocent, wide-eyed victim, Sandra Fluke turns out to be a long-time radical liberal abortion activist who thinks society should not just pay for recreational sex, but sex changes too. (listen)
Backfire: Carbonite bailed on Rush as an advertiser, and now investors are bailing on Carbonite. (listen)
National Review writer makes a case you don't hear too often: Mitt is the most conservative of the Republican candidates (listen)
No more Dennis Kucinich as the alien-believing, UFO spotting radical liberal loses in a bitter primary. (listen)
Obama finally finds somewhere to cut spending: funding for the life-saving "snowflake adoption" program of frozen embryos. Of course.(listen)
I know I go against all the conventional wisdom when I maintain what I've long maintained: that our president is a bit of a dim bulb.Everybody loves to tell you how brilliant this man is, but I always come back to the same question: based on what evidence?Seriously.I'm not going to go all Forrest Gump on you and say, "Stupid is as stupid does," but what in his actions or his writings or his work tells us he's brilliant.Nothing.The media tells us he is, and that's not good enough for me to bestow the title upon him.
Now, that being said, I will tell you that if you're paying attention right now, you are seeing the one thing that this president is very good at.Again, it's different than being an intellect.People have skills that they can be very proficient at, but not be a brain.That's Obama.He's very good at Alinskyism.He's an excellent community organizer.He stinks as an executive, he is a terrible leader in that sense.But he can rabble rouse with the best of them.
And that's what we're going to start seeing again.We saw it in 2008 when he was a masterful campaigner.He knew how to exploit people's emotions and he drew on that to conduct a great campaign.He had people pulling together from every corner believing he would pay their mortgages and cause the oceans to recede.That's what caused such a bewilderment over these last few years, by the way.The chasm between what the campaign was and what the administration has been is just staggering.And it's ticked off some folks and disgruntled others.
Friend of the show and frequent guest host Joel Harris has distinguished himself as a political poll numbers nerd.And that is said with all due respect.He has a tendency to know the trends and voting patterns of virtually every Congressional district in the entire country.Call him the Peter Heck Show's resident Karl Rove/James Carville...without the self-evident partisan loyalties.
In light of the importance of this Super Tuesday, I invited Joel to come on the show and give listeners ideas of what to watch for, what to expect and where the Republican race will be at the end of the day.
Will Mitt secure his front-runner status?Can Santorum totally turn the race on its head with key victories in swing states?Will Newt win his home state, and does he have a chance anywhere else?Joel takes on all these questions and more.
We probably need to make a note of this, because it's the first time I remember going on record as saying I appreciated something that left-wing sicko radical Bill Maher had to say.Seriously.
On his perversion fest that he hosts every week on HBO this last week, Maher took up the topic of the coming 2012 presidential election with a message for liberals.Here are his comments, suggesting that liberals better break out of their bubble where they believe that Obama can't be beaten.
Now, of course there is some classic Maher in there.First, his comments about Rick Santorum were out of bounds:
If Rick Santorum is your youth minister, you'd ask your parents to switch you to the one who just molests.
Again, this is the sensitivity of the left.This is the kind of attack they make regularly on conservatives and think is hilarious.Remember that when you're tempted to buy their fake outrage over a woman testifying before Congress about her need for you to pay for her contraception being called a "slut."
Other "don't miss" segments of the radio show today:
Big liberal Joe Klein of Time admits Republicans right, Obama government has overstepped its bounds on contraception, and he inadvertently spills the beans on the left trying to distract everyone. (listen)
The Great One compares himself to Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King Jr., Gandhi, and Susan B. Anthony. (listen)
After getting an email telling me I'd never make it as a liberal radio host since liberals talk about "serious things," liberal radio host Randi Rhodes shows just how serious they get on the left. (listen)
Forget the nonsense about how it takes courage to "come out" as a homosexual in our culture. CNN's treatment of Kirk Cameron, makes it clear you've got to have guts to be a Christian in Hollywood. (listen)
So President Obama has decided to get involved in this media-generated Rush Limbaugh scandal.Which again, it is NOT a Limbaugh scandal.It's a scandal that this woman is testifying to Congress that society should pay for her sex habit.That's what's offensive.
But Obama sees a moment here to try to score political points, so he gives this chick a call to give her support.Now stop and think about that.Does he call a 14 year old Christian girl who recently had death threats against her simply for standing up for traditional marriage?Nope.He calls the 30 year old Georgetown law student who testifies before Congress that society should pick up the tab for her $1,000 a year promiscuity habit.
The fake outrage being generated by the left over Rush Limbaugh's "slut" remark reached a fever pitch on Friday when President Obama's spokesman Jay Carney expressed The Civil One's disappointment over the radio king's comments:
It's pretty amazing to watch all this play out.This is exactly what I was talking about last week when I said that liberals attempt to use the virtue of conservatives against them.It's all-out war to liberals in the political world, and no contradiction is too brash for them to use.No trickery is too much, no double standard too obvious.And the sad thing is that conservatives let them get away with it.I'm looking at this fake outrage about Rush Limbaugh's comments and I'm shaking my head.
There's just no way - no way - that these liberals who are acting so offended are really offended.How many worse things than "slut" do they say about conservatives on a daily basis?Just do a quick Google search on some of the names liberal talkers have called conservatives just in the last six months and you'll see what I mean: racist, bigot, homophobe, terrorist.No way they are really upset or offended by Rush's comments.No way.
But they feign outrage.They call this Georgetown woman a "young girl" as though she's 8.She's a thirty year old woman for crying out loud.And they just go on and on about how awful and terrible and reprehensible Rush's "attack" was and I'm just sitting here saying, "There's no way conservatives are going to fall for this, are they?"Conservatives, don't let it happen.Don't fall for this.Boehner already did.He's already come out and said how inappropriate Rush's comments are.Notice liberals never do this.When have you seen Pelosi or Obama distance themselves from something Bill Maher or Chris Matthews or Mike Malloy have said?Malloy has called for conservatives to be murdered.Matthews has called Newt the devil.And I don't even need to broach the Maher topic.
Well this is a ready-made piece for the liberal media coming out of Illinois.I can only imagine the giddiness the Obama propaganda wing in the mainstream press is feeling over this:
Arthur Jones, a 64-year-old insurance salesman from Lyons, Ill., is hoping to be the Republican candidate to run against Rep. Daniel Lipinski (D) and is making headlines with some shocking statements.
"This idea that six million Jews were killed in the Holocaust is the biggest, blackest lie in history," Jones told CBS St. Louis. "There is no proof that the Holocaust took place in Europe against the Jews."
"As far as I'm concerned, the Holocaust is nothing more than an international extortion racket by the Jews," Jones, a Vietnam War veteran, said according to the Oak Lawn Patch. "Millions of dollars are being made by Jews telling this tale of woe and misfortune in books, movies, plays and TV. The more survivors, the more lies that are told."
In other words, Arthur's a buffoon and he's making statements similar to those of the nut running Iran.The fact that he chooses to wear an R after his name is a dream come true for the liberal media.For them, this will confirm every caricature they have wanted to develop for the right.
Of course, calling this guy a Republican is a bit misleading:
A former member of the Nationalist Socialist Party, he told the Oak Lawn Patch he votes Republican "90 percent of the time" even though "philosophically, I'm a National Socialist."
Now, Arthur is certainly free to vote for whoever he wants to vote for, but any national socialist with a brain isn't going to favor a free market conservative economic agenda.Then again, a guy who is a big enough lunatic to deny the reality of the Holocaust can't really be expected to think clearly about socio-political realities either.
Libs are really howling these days. First, they are howling mad at Mr. Rush Limbaugh and his comments about Ms. Sandra Fluke. They have mobilized their massive hate machine to misrepresent and mischaracterize Mr. Limbaugh.
Second, they are howling glad that they elicited an apology of sorts from him. His radio program will not be hurt. If the sponsors lost during this episode do not return, others will replace them. Both he and his sponsors have weathered numerous storms over the years.
What I hope that Mr. Limbaugh does, and I am certain he will, is to turn this event into what he calls "a teachable moment." I do not know how he will approach it, but I know the tact I would take.
I would toss the libs' cups of vile bile right back into their faces. I still get frosted whenever I hark back to the obscene caricature of the Rev. Dr. Jerry Falwell by Larry Flynt in Hustler, his magazine of debauchery. In a nutshell, a satire of the Rev. Falwell's "first time" was concocted as an interview in which he admitted to having an incestuous affair with his mother in an outhouse while being drunk on Campari. Surprise, surprise; Rev. Falwell was a bit upset with that profane and vulgar caricature. He sued Hustler and won an award for damages in a jury verdict trial. The case was appealed and proceeded to the Supreme Court where, in 1988, the previous verdict was overturned. I include the description of the court decision from the Wikipedia article:
At what age should children be allowed to access and view pornography? According to some homosexual behavior advocates, elementary age children are not too young. Public schools in 24 states are being threatened with lawsuits filed by the ACLU if they do not remove internet filters that "censor" sites that "children involved in homosexual behavior need to access." The web filters that these advocates want disabled block access to hard-core pornography sites available on the internet. In testimony before the Pornography Commission, ACLU chief Washington lawyer stated that, in the ACLU view, our Constitution protects the distributors of child pornography from prosecution and prohibits legislatures from protecting children from exposure to hard-core pornography.
There was a time when even fathers who engaged in sexual debauchery sought to protect their children from exposure to it. Now, unfortunately, the attitude has grown that access to pornography is a right no matter what the risk to children and teens. Even with various filtering and protection measures, do we seriously believe that we can keep our tech savvy children in the home from gaining access to it?
It is well past the time for dear children of God in our churches to wake up completely to the steady progress of evil and immorality. What used to be argued as rights for "consenting adults" are quickly transforming into rights for children to choose and practice their own sexual behavior and be guaranteed access to formerly adult sites at increasingly younger ages. Is this the culture in which you want your children and grandchildren to grow? If not, it is time to stand up to this bullying by the immoralists. We have many tools at our disposal. From prayer to education to the ballot box, it is time to stand up and take responsibility for the sake of the generations that depend on us.
This week the Indiana Senate rejected an effort to place sweeping new regulations (15 pages of them) on all church childcare ministries in Indiana. The issue comes up almost every year, but gained new momentum last week following the tragic drowning death of a child in a baptismal at a church day care center in Indianapolis.
As I cautioned in two TV interviews this week, we need to avoid turning to the government for help every time a tragedy occurs. This was truer than I realized at the time of those interviews.
Floor debate yesterday, over Senator Taylor's amendment was emotional. Senator Vanetta Becker went so far as to claim that had these regulations been placed upon churches, the death of this child would have been prevented. Senator Travis Holdman, perhaps the top advocate of these new regulations on churches said in a clear reference to the Bible and his Christian faith that they were necessary to "protect the least of these."
Amidst the euphoria of sweeping "hope and change," newly elected President Obama told Americans:
Today, I'm pledging to cut the deficit we inherited in half by the end of my first term in office. This will not be easy. It will require us to make difficult decisions and face challenges we've long neglected. But I refuse to leave our children with a debt that they cannot repay ? and that means taking responsibility right now, in this administration, for getting our spending under control.
It was a bogus pledge from the outset. The Obama voting bloc is not going to stand for measures required to cut the deficit, and Obama has absolutely no need or interest to do anything good for America. Therefore, his budget proposal sent to Congress raises the deficit by trillions of dollars - dollars that will be trashed through the Fed currency devaluation policies, by the way.
This is not going to be a pretty ride, but never fear. We always have a lib-quote to cover any and every contingency:
In an article entitled "Trashing TRICARE," Bill Gertz begins, "The Obama administration's proposed defense budget calls for military families and retirees to pay sharply more for their healthcare, while leaving unionized civilian defense workers' benefits untouched."
Yet again, our elected leaders - our Commander-in-Chief no less - propose to erode benefits earned by the service of men and women in America's Armed Forces. Robert Reich, Secretary of Labor during the Clinton administration, constantly pounded private businesses for failing to provide generous transition benefits to downsized employees. Yet when it comes to the real-world management of one of government's legitimate "businesses," the United States Armed Forces, the current employer insists on moving in the direction of gutting the benefits afforded to military personnel, veterans, and retirees.
At my last regular checkup at the VA clinic in Marion, I overheard one of the doctors speaking with a vet in the hallway about the cuts they are facing. I thought to myself then, how in the world do these wingnuts in the White House think that they can foot the healthcare bill for every American when they can't even afford to run the limited program already in place? Budget proposals like this confirm my conclusions.
The annual Indiana Association of Home Educator's "Home Education Day at the Capitol" took place this week at the Indiana Convention Center.
Speaking of home education, the Internet is abuzz with conversation among home education forums on an effort targeted toward what some describe as a "loophole" (though I don't agree with that term in this case) allowing high school students to drop out and claim that they are home educating. Some schools appear to be encouraging this as a means of padding their graduation rates or word has gotten around that this is a way to drop out.
We have been working with Representative Bob Behning, the Department of Education and the Home School Legal Defense Association on this issue, which has reappeared in the House as an amendment to Senate Bill 384. There was some initial misinformation concerning our "support" for an amendment, which required home school parents of high school students to provide and education plan before transferring to a non-accredited private school setting. We did not support any new requirements for home school parents who have a fundamental right to direct the education of their child.
So here's an email I received from Ryan, who thinks I'm a lunatic for crediting Barack Obama with our persistently high gas prices (apparently believing that it is but coincidence that gas prices have doubled since Obama took office):
You and all the other conservative talkingheads (sic) are idiots.Obama doesn't want high gas prices.Why would he want high gas prices because he knows ppl like you will try to make him look bad and lose elections.Obama is doing all he can to lower prices and if you think he wants them to be high it's because your (sic) a racist who doesn't want a black man in office no more.
Look, the easiest way to do this is to go through what we know.Fact: Obama has based a majority of his presidency's credibility on the government promotion of the development and expansion of alternative "green" energy.Fact: "Green" energy options cannot compete with fossil fuels on the open market.Fact: Many of these "green" energy schemes have fallen flat, even with government subsidies trying to prop them up.
This is what happens when the government tries to manipulate the market, pushing products or industries before they're ready or before they're viable.Alternative energy sources are too expensive, too inefficient and have too many shortcomings to be able to supplant fossil fuels.Obama knows that.He has tried to artificially drive down the costs of those sources of energy by flooding them with taxpayer dollars.It hasn't worked.So what's the only other option?Artificially drive up the costs of the current sources of energy (fossil fuels).
The big news out of Indianapolis last week wasn't the legislation going through the Statehouse.Representative Bob Morris of Fort Wayne incurred the wrath of the national liberal media by his refusal to sign onto a commendation of the Girl Scouts for what he said was their association with the nation's largest abortion mill and willingness to accept cross-dressing boys into their ranks.
Representative Morris has been receiving requests for interviews from national media outlets around the country.Despite turning down a number of them, he graciously agreed to appear on the air with me today to talk about this issue.
For our bi-weekly conversation I asked Congressional candidate Jackie Walorski about whether she agreed with Barack Obama's claim that his apology to the Afghans "helped calm things down."Jackie's response was classic Jackie.
We also talked about the ever-increasing gas prices and the Democrat talking point that more drilling has been done under Obama than in the previous 8 years...conveniently omitting the fact that almost all that new drilling was approved under Bush.Jackie gave her take on what our energy policy should be to alleviate the pain at the pump.
This one is tough to take in.Seriously, if you don't want to feel depressed about the future of American and Western Civilization, it would be best to just skip this.I know that other conservative talk programs have run this audio already, but I have to publicize it too.Not because it's pleasant.Not because it leaves you with a good feeling.Not because it makes you feel confident that we, as a people, are going to be capable of surviving the decade.But look, the mainstream media is not going to talk about this because it embarrasses them.They do all they can - they work overtime with entire portions of their staff undoubtedly dedicated - to keep the truth of what liberals have done and are doing to our culture from ever becoming public news.So we've got to do their work.
If we keep embracing liberalism, we're toast.As in, we can't survive it.The effect it has on the public mindset, the virtues and values that are necessary for self-government and freedom to endure, is absolutely devastating.And make this exhibit 13,278.
Remember when the Nancy Pelosi led Democrats got all exercised because the Republicans were holding these "men-only" hearings regarding contraception?Of course that was nothing but a publicity stunt.It wasn't true, first of all.Women testified.It's just that the women who testified were pro-life women, and in the classic insult that liberals apply to minorities who don't agree with them, Pelosi and the NARAL and Planned Parenthood ladies don't consider pro-life women to be "real women."Just like you're not a real black if you aren't a liberal black, and you're not a real Hispanic if you're not a liberal Hispanic - just ask Harry Reid.See, conservatives have this idea that just because you have certain physical traits, you still have your own mind and can believe what you want.Liberals aren't quite so open-minded.
And let's remember that those Issa hearings were about religious freedom anyway, not birth control.But nonetheless, the liberals got all worked up about it.And they demanded that women like this expert named Sandra Fluke be allowed to testify.This is the best and brightest for the left - a law student at Georgetown.She calls herself a "reproductive rights expert."Don't you love that?She's an abortion advocate - that's what that means.Then again, maybe I should follow her lead.I should just start calling myself a digestive rights expert.Bill myself as that.I don't believe the government should tell people how much salt they can eat, what can be in their Happy Meals at McDonalds or how many Cokes they can drink in a day.I am now a digestive rights expert.
There's always a danger in talking about things like this after a major emotional event like what just took place at Chardon High School in Ohio.The danger comes in making brash, emotion-based decisions that are irrational and overreaching.And everybody understands that on some level - you try to avoid heat of the moment reactions in dealing with your spouse, your kids, your co-workers, you let things settle after being ripped by your boss before you just quit and storm out of the building, and so on.
In terms of this Chardon situation, though, I can't say that I think I'm in a position of using too much emotion in coming to this suggestion for a couple reasons.First, this is something that I've thought is pretty much a no-brainer since Columbine back in the 90s, not something that just came to me in the last 24-48 hours.Second, I don't know any of the victims or their families that were involved in this tragedy.And third, if you want to say that I'm too close to the issue given the fact that I'm a teacher, you would have to exempt everyone who has had kids who have gone to a school as well.That's a lot of people, and I don't think that objection stands up to the credibility test.
It's time that teachers and administrators are trained in the use of firearms.I don't think it's necessary that every teacher be armed.And I certainly don't think that they have to carry one on them at all times.And I also don't believe it to be a wise course of action for students to know which teachers are packing and which ones aren't.But the idea is long past due.Let me explain why:
It was bound to happen.Here's what the NARAL ladies and Planned Parenthood activists have brought us:
Two ethicists working with Australian universities argue in the latest online edition of the Journal of Medical Ethics that if abortion of a fetus is allowable, so to should be the termination of a newborn.
Alberto Giubilini with Monash University in Melbourne and Francesca Minerva at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne write that in "circumstances occur[ing] after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible."
Yes, you read that correctly.Two "ethicists," applying the exact same logic as that used by abortion activists and accepted as legitimate by the United States Supreme Court have called for the legalization and moral acceptance of "after-birth abortion."Now, we have a term for after-birth abortion.It's called murder.Infanticide to be precise.But, then again, that's what the appropriate term for abortion is, so it's no surprise that the euphemism is being re-used to justify another kind of murder.
And let's not forget, before the accusation is made that this is using a couple far-left kooks to misrepresent an entire movement, this is exactly what Barack Obama refused to vote to make illegal when he was in the Illinois legislature.
Here's a story you won't hear about in the national media so you're going to hear about it here.You won't hear about it in the national media because of the blood covenant they have with the homosexual lobby that prevents them from ever reporting on any story, any reaction, any activity that paints those who embrace homosexualism in a bad light.There's a total media blackout on any of those stories.All that is printed, reported, or displayed on television screens is homosexualists in a role as courageous, rights-defenders or victims.It's all you see.
Stories like Jesse Dirkhising and others are ignored.And stories like this go unreported.
It happened after a young 14 year old homeschooled girl named Sarah Crank who was invited to testify before the Maryland state senate when they took up the issue of gay marriage.Here's what she said:
Hi, I'm Sarah Crank. Today's my 14th birthday, and it would be the best birthday present ever if you would vote "no" on gay marriage. I really feel bad for the kids who have two parents of the same gender. Even though some kids think it's fine, they have no idea what kind of wonderful experiences they miss out on. I don't want more kids to get confused about what's right and okay. I really don't want to grow up in a world where marriage isn't such a special thing anymore.
It's rather scary to think that when I grow up the legislature or the court can change the definition of any word they want. If they could change the definition of marriage then they could change the definition of any word. People have the choice to be gay, but I don't want to be affected by their choice. People say that they were born that way, but I've met really nice adults who did change. So please vote "no" on gay marriage. Thank you.
Certainly expressing an opinion, and expressing it with dignity, respect and good manners.And what was the response from the agents of tolerance on the left, you ask?As you read this, remember this is an innocent 14 year old girl.