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

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

Monday, April 30 2012

Listen

One of the questions I’ve always asked liberals looking to score cheap political points on President George W. Bush’s “stupid decision” (or in some cases, deemed “criminal decision”) to invade Iraq is this: would you honestly want a president who would evaluate the same evidence that was presented to George Bush from the CIA and every intelligence community in the world – about Saddam’s WMD program and the threats he/it posed to the West – and not act?

Usually when I ask that question, I get silent, blank stares. Because the answer is obvious. Any president worth his salt, particularly in a post 9/11 world would act to protect the American people if our best intelligence said that an imminent threat had materialized. That is the evidence that George Bush received and acted upon. And while it’s been fashionable for the Monday morning quarterbacks of the left to try to render judgments like “war criminal” on Bush based on information and intelligence we found out later, most of them (only the lunatics) really believe the accusations that they make in that regard.

What’s ironic is that many of them supported Barack Obama in 2008 because he was the self-proclaimed ‘anti-Iraq war’ candidate. Most observers believe that the major distinguishing factor that crystallized Obama’s support early in the Democrat primary against Hillary was the fact that she voted for the resolution to invade Iraq. Remember, that is what led to the famous Bill Clinton accusation that Obama was making up a fantasy scenario where he had opposed the war when in fact he hadn’t. Clinton called Obama “the biggest fairy tale” he’d ever seen.

But the anti-war lefties were in love. And they got their man in the White House. One wonders what they’re thinking after the recent revelations that emerged on CBS over the weekend, that should have the impact of a bombshell to these true believers. The conversation centered around what Obama is desperate to make the centerpiece of his campaign – the raid to kill bin Laden last May:

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 06:09 pm   |  Permalink   |  4 Comments  |  Email
Monday, April 30 2012

Listen

Remember in 2008 when Barack Obama campaigned on the need to get big money out of our political process? That was funny, wasn’t it? If you didn’t realize how funny, wait until you see what’s just been revealed.

Last Friday when I was talking with Indiana Congressman Mike Pence, I asked him about the issues arising with President Obama making “official presidential trips” (meaning they are financed by tax dollars) that have a very strong look and feel of campaign trips – for instance, a college campus tour, in addition to “slow jamming the news” on Jimmy Fallon’s Late Night show.

I can understand the ambiguity a little bit, because certainly in an election year, every presidential speech and action is going to be scrutinized in the context of his campaign for re-election. But I also think that such ambiguity can be exploited and abused by the President, and according to a new study that’s out, Obama’s misuse of this presidential privilege is unique because his focus has seemingly been on re-election alone.

Here’s the shocking scoop:

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 06:08 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Monday, April 30 2012

Listen

Famed anti-American agitator and Hollywood star (these two descriptors just kind of go hand in hand anymore, don’t they?) Sean Penn appeared on CNN’s Piers Morgan program recently. And I could be wrong, but I think the entire point of him going on there was simply to prove exactly what I’ve been complaining about for the last several years: that we have arrived at a point in our society where we are willing to pretend that nothing short of mindless drivel is somehow intellectual and worthy of our contemplation.

I’m being completely serious. Maybe it’s expecting too much from a guy who has never pursued any honest intellectual pursuits and has confined himself to playing make-believe on television to be able to string together logical thoughts, but I don’t think so. There are some in the acting community, and there are certainly those who have never pursued any serious academic degrees who can be extremely wise, and extremely logical in their approach to issues. Needless to say, Sean Penn is not one of them.

But don’t tell him that – or any of his buds on the far left. Read this following statement from Penn that he spewed on CNN and tell me in what universe this actually makes sense.

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 06:07 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Monday, April 30 2012

Other "don't miss" segments from the radio show today:

  • In a perfect depiction of the Obama economy, a hotel in Cocoa Beach has decided to go nudist in a desperate attempt to attract clientele to keep their doors open.  Sounds like a Romney ad made to order, doesn't it? (listen)
  • They are becoming more and more bold: NBC anchor Ann Curry proudly proclaimed that it's "fundamentally unfair" that some have more money than others. Yes, because socialism always ends up so much "fairer" for people, doesn't it? (listen)
  • Not sure how much it will affect the voting on Election Day, but Richard Mourdock picked up the endorsement of former VP candidate Sarah Palin.  Will it solidify the conservative block? (listen)
Posted by: Peter Heck AT 06:06 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Sunday, April 29 2012

Popping up like ragweed along with the spring flowers, the hypoccupiers are once more on the move. Picking up where they left off last fall, they are back to their mob antics of vandalism and blocking access to public and private buildings... all in the name of what they consider peaceable assembly.

But I digress... let us remember that a purpose of the hypoccupiers is to demand “economic justice” by protesting against, and interfering with, citizens they perceive to be “one percenters” and/or those they perceive to be supporting the “one percenters.” They believe that “one percenters” have attained their wealth only through illegal and/or unethical means. They are the “ninety-nine percenters,” and they’re not going to take it anymore.

So they pursue their path to success by marching, chanting, and, when the opportunity presents itself, living in squalor.

KEEP READING

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 07:14 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Sunday, April 29 2012

But Christ is a Great Savior.” This is a quote from John Newton, author of the hymn, Amazing Grace, but it is also one routinely repeated in the opening of most all of Charles Colson’s speeches. America lost one of its greatest theological minds and voices over the weekend with the homegoing of legendary figure Chuck Colson.

It was interesting to observe the media coverage of Colson’s passing. What minor coverage this major event received in the mainstream media predominantly focused on the first 40 years of Colson’s life. Typical headlines mentioned the death of a Watergate figure with stories focused on the man who had once done President Nixon’s political dirty work for what was a brief time of his 80 years of life.

Less attention was given by secular sources to the second half Colson’s extraordinary life. There was the occasional mention of his founding of Prison Fellowship ministries, but none mentioned that the ministry is working in 113 countries bringing the gospel to those behind bars and helping minister to their families. There was so much to one who has been described in Christian circles as a modern day CS Lewis and Francis Scheaffer. (On Monday, an emotional Ravi Zacharias described his friend as a mentor and modern day William Wilberforce to the Moody radio audience. A tearful Joni Eareckson Tada told listeners that it was Colson who personally helped her develop a complete Christian worldview on the issue of life.)

KEEP READING

Posted by: Micah Clark AT 05:39 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Saturday, April 28 2012

In one of the most bizarre, convoluted columns I have read in a long while, Marc Lame, Ph.D., writes that we should think of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as an abused child.

Like an abused child too terrified to perform normal tasks, is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency too terrified to do its job?

His column’s opening question above, as printed in the Kokomo Tribune on 4/25/2012, sets the stage for the inanity that follows.

Dysfunctional, co-dependent and functionally paralyzed describe some children who have been physically abused by their parent. These situations are made worse when the victim realizes those who are supposed to protect them will not. This is exactly what happened to the EPA under the George W. Bush administration regarding global warming and pesticide regulation. At this point the victim becomes damaged and confused to the point where they seek attention from the abusers. As surely as these victims of abuse become less able to function in a normal world they also become more vulnerable to co-optation. I believe this is what might be happening to the EPA. Not only is it afraid to function but when it does, it functions to please their abusers. The EPA needs to be protected and learn to trust. In kind it must learn to behave properly and be accountable.

My first reaction was a resounding, “Huh?” The United States Constitution was not written and ratified for the creation and protection of government agencies. It was written and ratified to prevent government from becoming the kind of expanding, controlling entity that our Founders experienced and soundly rejected. Yet Dr. Lame, a professor of environmental management in the School of Public Affairs at Indiana University Bloomington, herein indicates that not only do government agencies have a human-like nature of their own, but that it is the role of the representative body of this nation to care for these unelected bureaucracies with loving concern and tenderness.

KEEP READING

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 07:17 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Saturday, April 28 2012

President Obama has created hundreds perhaps thousands of jobs and almost single-handedly revitalized, one private sector segment of the economy. However, it is doubtful that you will hear him or his legion of supporters in the media mentioning it during the 2012 campaign.

Since 2008 President Obama has boosted this economic sector by 61%. He has taken a significant manufacturing arena from a $19 billion to a $31 billion yearly industry. That segment of the economy is the nation’s gun and ammunition industry.

The number of jobs in the gun industry increased by 30 percent to 98,750 employees, and firearms businesses paid $2.5 billion in federal taxes, up 66 percent in the three-year period. Additionally, background check requests for purchases of firearms set records in 2010 and 2011 according to FBI data.

Fear can be a great booster to some economic areas and an enormous restriction to other segments. The fear of what an Obama Administration might do to Second Amendment freedoms and the restriction of gun ownership, particularly in a possible second term, has clearly been a driving force behind most all of this growth in a down economy. Some industry leaders have even joked about giving the President a “salesman of the year” award.

Posted by: Micah Clark AT 07:09 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Saturday, April 28 2012

What is to become of society when four out of five teens regularly access hardcore porn on the Internet? This is a question many leaders in England are asking after a disturbing new report finds that the viewing and sharing of hardcore pornography among high school students has become epidemic.

About 25% of young patients seeking counseling in the UK are there for Internet porn addiction. There are fears that the rise of Internet pornography is leaving teenagers unable to maintain normal relationships and even increasing their susceptibility to grooming by sexual abusers. The increased victimization of teen girls is among the most common of several concerns mentioned in the report.

As one leader told the UK Daily Mail, "This generation is going through an experiment. No one knows how they will survive this unprecedented assault on their sexual development. They are guinea pigs for the next generation."

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

Indiana Congressman and Gubernatorial candidate Mike Pence joined me on the radio program today to discuss a wide range of topics beginning with the tax debate going on in Washington, D.C. and how it affects Hoosiers. What does the Congressman make of the ‘Buffet Rule’ proposal of the president, and the typical left wing charges that Republican tax plans will only benefit the wealthy?

We also discussed gas prices and whether citizens will slump into a complacency about the high prices once it becomes routine. I asked Pence to respond to the idea that Presidents really can’t control and therefore aren’t responsible for gas prices.

Finally, we discussed the state of the Governor’s race in Indiana on the cusp of his uncontested primary – looking towards a head-to-head matchup in the fall with former Statehouse Speaker John Gregg.

Hear our full conversation here.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 06:09 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, April 27 2012

Part One ... Part Two

I will start by admitting that I have a real problem with the “Emerging Church” movement led by folks like Brian McClaren, Rob Bell and others. A listener to my radio show recently sent me a post from McClaren’s blog site listed prominently in the “Frequently Asked Questions” section that depicts the nature of my concerns perfectly.

McClaren started the post entitled “Why is There So Much Hatred Towards Homosexuals?” with a heart-breaking email he received from a man practicing homosexuality:

Today I’m a [middle-aged] man, and have come to terms with my sexuality and my relationship with god (sic), and I realize that god (sic) does not hate me, and never abandoned me. But because of the churches (sic) out right (sic) hatred of homosexuality I was condemned to a living hell for most of my life.

Please explain to my (sic) why there is so much hatred towards homosexuals.

Also I hear over and over how it is us who are trying to force our views on you, and the rest of the world. But that simply is not true, it is the church that is forcing it’s (sic) view on us. We are not asking you to be gay, or change your life in any way (sic), we just want you to leave us in peace and let us live our lives. And if you are right and we are going to hell, fine, let that happen. Please stop making our current life a living hell. Please leave that up to God to decide for our eternal souls.

Obviously this is written by a man in pain, and a man with a very distorted view of the church and its mission. In this small portion of the email alone, there is such a desperate cry for answers, for truth, for help. But because the Emerging Church is so paralyzed with fear over the thought of being divisive, they fall over themselves to hide their light under a bushel and tamp down the proclamation of truth. In its place, they offer meaningless platitudes and fruitless fluff like that embodied in McClaren’s “response”:

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 06:08 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, April 27 2012

Listen

I’ve talked a number of times about the political tactics and strategy used by the left in their efforts to cram their agenda down the country’s collective throats. And one of their most effective ways is to play the victim card as frequently as possible – all while committing the same acts that they are supposedly condemning.

And one of the most common examples of this comes in their supposed “anti-bullying” crusade in schools – which is nothing but a thinly veiled cover for their true objective of advancing the homosexual political agenda in schools.

Now, particularly as an educator, I always feel it necessary to being these kinds of conversations with the blanket statement that I would hope is obvious – but in our political environment, you simply must acknowledge anyway. All bullying is wrong. All bullying. Bullying someone because of their race, their intelligence, their size, their sexuality, whatever...it’s wrong. Kids should feel safe in school and I believe schools should deal harshly and severely with bullying. Period.

But I also know that these supposed voices of “anti-bullying” do not agree with me on that point. They want to end bullying against certain groups (kids who are confused or experimenting with various sexual behaviors) by directing judgment and bullying upon other groups (Christians, Jews, and those kids with traditional morality). Their tactics are to create an environment where Christian kids feel ostracized or evil for holding to their faith, and are punished for speaking it.

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 06:07 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, April 27 2012

Other "don't miss" segments of the radio show today:

  • The Obama administration has said that "no one knows" if gas could go to $9 a gallon here in the U.S.  Umm, isn't that uncertainty the VERY REASON we should be seeking to lessen our dependency on this volatile situation by developing our own liquid fuels?! (listen)
  • The Washington Post has officially declared that Obama is "cool" and Mitt Romney is just not.  Sure, if you believe that staggering unemployment, a stagnant economy, and collapsing influence around the world is "cool." (listen)
  • Nearing the top of the all-time list of bad ideas: a teacher is arrested for lining up his students against a wall and firing a blank gun at them.  What possesses a person...  (listen)
Posted by: Peter Heck AT 06:06 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, April 26 2012

Listen

The President of the United States descended to the depths of partisan hackery and outright lies recently when he appeared on Univision to condemn Mitt Romney for his support of the Arizona immigration laws. The President didn’t lie when he said that Romney supported the laws. He lied when he suggested that meant Mitt Romney supported racial profiling. Remember, racial profiling is explicitly forbidden in the law that Obama is referencing...and he surely knows that given the fact that he’s got his Justice Department fighting the law in federal courts.

So why would the president do this? That’s a pretty simple one for anybody remotely politically aware: it’s about winning the Latino vote. Obama, like most all Democrats, believes that Latinos all think alike. I guess if you think that all blacks and all women and all Hispanics must think like a Democrat (otherwise they aren’t really black, woman or Hispanic), why not lump in all Latinos?

So imagine my surprise when it came to my attention that Obama is engaging in a subversive war on illegal immigration. While going out in public and supporting things that amount to blanket amnesty for illegals, the president has been working behind the scenes for four years to drive illegal immigrants from our country.

How has he done it out of the view of the mainstream, you ask? Well, he really hasn’t. We just never connected the dots until now. Charles Hurt, writing in the Washington Times, makes perfect sense of it all. Obama isn’t using fences – physical or virtual – to keep illegals out of the country. No, he’s just been working overtime at making our economy so weak and unappealing that illegals would rather stay home. Who knew?

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 06:09 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, April 26 2012

Listen

You simply cannot parody the left. That is a fact we reiterate often on the radio program. Sometimes the lunacy that liberals spout with such self-assurance and pride is far funnier than anything a conservative could ever dream up. Case in point: the other night on the network by liberals, for liberals (MSNBC), self-proclaimed socialist Lawrence O’Donnell was railing against the Republican War on Women (and then later, the newest War liberals have accused Republicans of waging...a War on Sex...I kid you not).

And who was the great intellectual source O’Donnell turned to in justifying his argument? Oh, just the man who has done more than any man in America to objectify and demean women, turning them into pieces of meat in front of testosterone and hormone driven men – Hugh Hefner.

Just stop and think about that. How the stupidity of using a pornographer to advance your meme that Republicans don’t care about women didn’t cross Lawrence’s mind – or any of his producers minds – is all you need to know about who really has the best interest of women in mind. Here’s how it went down:

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 06:08 pm   |  Permalink   |  1 Comment  |  Email
Thursday, April 26 2012

Christianity lost one of its foremost voices in our culture recently when Chuck Colson passed from this life to the next. The story of Colson’s life – from politics to redemption to ministry – is a remarkable story. (If you want an example of the kind of redemption we’re talking about, read this story about Colson from former Clinton operative, Lanny Davis)

And that remarkable story is told best by those who knew him well. On today’s program, as a tribute to Colson and the impact he had on my life and so many others, I welcomed Colson’s friend (and friend of the show) Mr. Jim Butcher on to the program to share his memories of a great man with a great ministry.

Hear my conversation with Mr. Butcher here.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 06:07 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, April 26 2012

Other “don’t miss” segments of the radio show today:

  • After descending to Kindergarten maturity and attacking Romney over the treatment of his dog, David Axelrod got burned when it became known that Obama once ate dog.  Now, Axelrod tries to rewrite history and blast the Romney camp for bringing up “silly” stuff. (listen)
  • Muslim cleric announces that gays are lower than dogs and pigs.  Condemnation of such Islamic teaching from the LGBT activists on the left?  Nope – they’re too busy going after the Christian kids who are trying to show the love of Christ. (listen)
  • Well doesn’t this make you sleep safer at night?  The same Obama administration that has never been able to even say “radical Islam” now declares the War on Terror is over.  I guess we’re all friends now. (listen)
Posted by: Peter Heck AT 06:06 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, April 25 2012

Listen

You know the names of Richard Dawkins, Madalyn Murray O’Hair, PZ Myers and some of the other more strident, more condescending and aggressively hostile atheists. And there’s no questioning the fact that their arrogance and pride greatly limits their influence. That’s why the name Todd Stiefel, while not as recognizable, may have more impact for the agenda of the atheists than the boisterous evangelists of the group ever could.

Called the “Atheist George Soros,” Stiefel is a 37 year old multimillionaire businessman who has committed the rest of his life to finance and help spread the agenda of the atheist, with a promise to respect the views and freedom of expression for people of faith (this might be because Stiefel’s wife still attends Protestant Christian church services).

While Stiefel’s story is an interesting one, the most intriguing part of his mission is found in the way he describes what he is pursuing. Check it out:

“I want to fight for love, freedom, integrity and reason...I see this as a civil equality movement in a very similar vein to other movements of the past,” he said, referring to atheists’ fight against the discrimination they claim to regularly face.

Leave the question of whether atheists really face discrimination or whether they are actually advocates of discrimination alone for the time being. Notice the four values that Stiefel seeks to promote: love, freedom, integrity and reason. Don’t miss the significance of Stiefel wanting to advance these ideals, and ask the questions why and how?

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 06:08 pm   |  Permalink   |  1 Comment  |  Email
Wednesday, April 25 2012

Listen

I’ve been out of the studio for the last couple days, speaking at some great “home events” sponsored by Indiana Right to Life in the northern part of the state. Granted, the sample of women I was surrounded by was obviously tainted, but I saw the face of compassion resonating on their faces when it came to protecting unborn children. When I got home Tuesday night and started doing some show prep for today, I happened across a video clip of Barbara Boxer from the end of last week.

While it’s a little dated, the contrast between what she said – and the way she said it – and what I saw on the faces of those women the last two days was profound. Here’s what she said:

Barbara Boxer made a strong statement about the 2012 election this week.

"I gotta say to the women out there, whether you're Republican or Democrat or Independent, if you're a self-respecting human being, please vote for President Obama, and to the men who care about women, do the same thing", she told Al Sharpton Wednesday night on MSNBC's Politics Nation.

She went on to say that this is “the issue of our time.”

I’m amazed by this, to be honest. And not because I am a huge Mitt Romney guy. I’m amazed by this because when you consider that Boxer’s proclamation has everything to do with one issue: abortion. The obsession and fascination these liberals have with killing children is so profound that they can’t progress beyond it. They can’t think beyond it. And they use the most bizarre language to defend it.

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 06:07 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, April 25 2012

Other “don’t miss” segments of the radio show today:

  • A 13 year old white boy is doused with gasoline and set on fire by black teens saying, “You get what you deserve, white boy.” A white man is in critical condition for the fourth day after being savagely beaten by a mob shouting “Justice for Trayvon.”  Where are our racial healers? Obama? Holder? Sharpton? (listen)
  • Though the Tea Party swept a Republican majority back into the House of Representatives in 2010 and brought to a halt Obama’s America-threatening agenda, Richard Lugar isn’t sure that’s a good thing. (listen)
  • Jennifer Love Hewitt encourages us to respect prostitution - it's just people trying to find happiness after all.  Hey Jen, why don't you show a little respect for the countless families torn apart by infidelity? (listen)
  • National Review has taken notice of Richard Lugar of Virginia’s “juvenile” attacks on his primary opponent Richard Mourdock.  Let’s put it this way: confident incumbents don’t act this desperate. (listen)
Posted by: Peter Heck AT 06:06 pm   |  Permalink   |  1 Comment  |  Email
Tuesday, April 24 2012

Web traffic at THE LIBERTY TREE continues to exceed our wildest expectations, and for that, we're exceedingly grateful to our online community. With the numbers of visitors in April suggesting we may have a record month, we're reflecting back on our year-to-date.

January stands as the best month of web visitors for the year with 77,673 readers stopping by. That month, followed by slightly lower numbers (69,935) in February and (66,145) March give us an average of 71,251 visitors per month for the first quarter of the year.

These unique visitors have led to an average of nearly 100,000 page views per month.

Since the "planting" of THE LIBERTY TREE, we have welcomed almost 731,000 visitors to our site. Thanks for reading, and please come back!

Posted by: Anna Anderson AT 01:00 pm   |  Permalink   |  Email
Tuesday, April 24 2012

AFA of Indiana does not endorse candidates, but we do comment, when necessary, on newsworthy political items or stories. I have been surprised at the intensity and negativity of the Republican primary for the US Senate race. For this reason, I had expected some sort of response to Senator Richard Lugar’s often-repeated claim to have “a 100% pro-life voting record with National Right to Life.” (Lugar’s campaign has mentioned this in response to Indiana Right to Life’s endorsement of Richard Mourdock.)

When it comes to actual abortion legislation Senator Lugar is pro-life. It is also true that in the last four years the Senator has had a 100% voting record with NRTL. One would expect, if he wins the primary in May, that Sen. Lugar might get an endorsement from National Right to Life over his likely Democratic opponent because of Congressman Joe Donnelly’s support of Obamacare, though the Congressmen often scores in the mid 70% range with NRTL.

However, over the years Senator Lugar’s voting score with National Right to Life has actually dipped as low as 33%. Many might say that’s not truly a 100% voting record with NRTL.

The Senator has voted contrary to National Right to Life in support of embryonic stem cell research funding (H.R. 810 – 2006) (S.R. 5 - 2007), abortion dependent fetal tissue research (1997). NRTL also scored votes on McCain-Feingold (2001) and Shays-Meehan (2002) campaign finance bills, which NRTL opposed . (NRTL did not score Senate votes on judicial nominees who had records and views on life issues.)

Posted by: Micah Clark AT 10:50 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Monday, April 23 2012

There are some interesting findings from a polling organization’s research of Obama voters. Public Opinion Strategies has found that among focus groups conducted in Denver, Colorado and Richmond, Virginia there may be problems for the President this November.

In 2008 President Obama won a majority of the national vote due to his strong performance among Independents. As a result, he began his presidency with a deep reservoir of goodwill among swing voters. However, due largely to his fiscal policies, his support among this demographic has deteriorated significantly.

After three-and-a-half years of his presidency, these Obama Independents still like the President, even though many disapprove of the job he is doing. Yet, the President’s personal likability does not prevent many of these Independents from drawing some important conclusions. First, Obama has not delivered on their expectations of his presidency. Second, in spite of what the media is trying to say, they do not believe that things are getting better or have gotten better since 2009. It appears as though these swing voters are tuned into Obama’s record. They are negative about the economy and when asked about credit for any improvement, it is something they haven’t even considered.

KEEP READING

Posted by: Micah Clark AT 10:15 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Saturday, April 21 2012

The warmers are warming up the rhetoric once again. According to them, the world is melting:

It’s been so warm in the United States this year, especially in March, that national records weren’t just broken, they were deep-fried. Temperatures in the lower 48 states were 8.6 degrees above normal for March and 6 degrees higher than average for the first three months of the year, according to calculations by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. That far exceeds the old records. The magnitude of how unusual the year has been in the U.S. has alarmed some meteorologists who have warned about global warming. One climate scientist said it’s the weather equivalent of a baseball player on steroids, with old records obliterated.

“Everybody has this uneasy feeling. This is weird. This is not good,” said Jerry Meehl, a climate scientist who specializes in extreme weather at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo. “It’s a guilty pleasure. You’re out enjoying this nice March weather, but you know it’s not a good thing.”

When references are made to specific weather days in... oh, shall we say the middle of winter while the biggest blizzards and coldest temps are chilling Mr. Al Warmer Gore’s global warming conference... global warming truthers are soundly hounded that such observations are not valid. Global warming, which in the throes of record lows becomes climate change, cannot be defined by day to day local weather patterns.

Unless, of course, the local weather pattern happens to be hot. As in this past March. Then it is once again alarming. Well, almost...

KEEP READING

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 07:53 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Saturday, April 21 2012

David Axelrod was on Fox News Sunday last week where he displayed the left’s main debate tact by misrepresenting the conservative point of view. He argued we object to funding things like Planned Parenthood based solely on the fact that our government can’t afford it. He should know that is not our only objection. His misrepresentation must be a lie or a stupid mistake for a man in such an important position. Therefore, he is either a liar, incompetent, or so ideologically blinded he is incapable of listening to what his opposition is really saying.

The fact is we believe in the concept of a limited federal government. States and localities are capable of coming together to address the variety of circumstances which are common to all. There are only the few enumerated powers that our federal government needs to worry itself about, substantiated by the fact that there are numerous quotes of our founders clearly stating that charity is not the business of the federal government. They believed when the people began to vote based on what they could get from the treasury, our republic was doomed. Sadly, we are proving them correct.

KEEP READING

Posted by: Matthew W. Turner AT 06:37 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Saturday, April 21 2012

There is an astonishing story out of California, which may be a warning of things to come. I sent this story to our radio voice for an AFA news minute that airs today on 23 dial settings in 22 cities.

The story involves a mobile strip club owned by Hustler and pulled by a truck driving through San Francisco. The truck’s back section has advertisements for Hustler, pictures of barely dressed women and large windows. Inside there is a pole for live dancers who perform when the truck stops at intersections or parks in various locations. Some city officials are upset over this for various reasons including that the truck recently parked near a public library, where many children wee present.

Before you think this is just a California concern, there were similar trucks driving around Indianapolis during the week of the NFL Superbowl. While taking my family to the NFL experience, we had the misfortune of being stuck right behind one of them on Capitol Avenue just outside the State House.

Posted by: Micah Clark AT 06:13 am   |  Permalink   |  1 Comment  |  Email
Friday, April 20 2012

Listen

After a discussion early this week where I pointed out the reliability of Scripture and the fact that Christians don’t need to feel obligated to “get beyond the Bible” when making arguments and formulating their worldview and philosophies, I got a response from that ended this way:

“Let me put it this way: it is anti-intelligent to say that you believe a certain way, ‘Because the Bible said so.’ You have to realize that millions of people don’t believe the Bible and so you have to be able to talk and argue without always hiding behind your book of fables.”

Besides the condescension, I find this line of reasoning very intriguing, and it actually helps illustrate exactly what my original point was. Christians have really failed to understand this critical point and the consequences have been severe: a Christian begins at the starting point of the authority of God and His Word. It is the starting point for our thinking. Therefore, asking Christians to abandon that starting point and begin with the presupposition that there is no God in order to formulate their reason and their discussion is surrendering in a way that non-Christians never would.

Think of it this way to understand what I’m saying. Imagine that I, as a Christian, get into an argument with an atheist about a particular issue. He starts spouting off why he believes the way he does, and I say, “Whoa, whoa, wait a minute. Stop using all these philosophers like Nietzsche and Marx and Mill to justify what you’re saying. Use the Bible to make your case.” What would the atheist say? They would say, “No way.” It wouldn’t make sense, right? They don’t trust the Bible, so asking them to argue from that as their basis puts them at an immediate disadvantage in proving whatever idea they were trying to prove. They arrived at their conclusion on the basis that there is no God or Moral Authority, and so asking them to argue from the presupposition that there is such Authority undermines them from the start because it’s not the foundation point for their thinking.

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 06:09 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, April 20 2012

Listen

As we’ve documented on the program recently, the political tide is trending towards Indiana Treasurer Richard Mourdock in his primary challenge to once invincible establishment Republican incumbent Richard Lugar (of Virginia). Early this week I cited a poll released by the Mourdock campaign that showed him leading Lugar 42 to 41 percent among likely voters.

Our program poll expert, Joel Harris responded that report this way:

The poll was conducted by McLaughlin and Associates at the request of the Mourdock campaign. Typically when a campaign charters a poll, it tends to be skewed in their favor. That having been said, when I adjusted and made estimations for what I think the poll would accurately state and factoring for undecided voters, come May the result would be the following: Mourdock 52 Lugar 48

With the previous poll that I mentioned in the Libtree post, the result was: Mourdock 51 Lugar 49

I think it's fair to say that we have some consistency if my assessments are holding to form. In other words, Mourdock holds a very thin lead currently and if the election were today, we would probably have a new Republican nominee. There are a few weeks left, but momentum is working in Mourdock's favor. Mourdock had a strong showing at the debate and as long as he continues to demonstrate that he would be a capable individual, things will probably continue to either hold steady or shift in his direction. At this point it's very, very hard (impossible) for Lugar to reinvent himself, so about all he has left is to tout the highlights of his record and trash Mourdock. I wouldn't be surprised if we see polls soon showing Mourdock ahead beyond the margin of error. Lugar fans should be very nervous.

And to add more concern for Lugar folks, the National Right to Life Committee has taken issue with the Senator’s constant reference to his “100% Pro-Life Voting Record from NRLC.” As it turns out, his rating is not nearly that high when you look over the course of his career.

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 06:08 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, April 20 2012

Listen

Flip-flopper vs. Convert seems to be the question staunch pro-life conservatives have when it comes to Mitt Romney. There’s no debate that Mitt Romney used to hold pro-abortion positions, and there’s no debate that Mitt Romney now recants those positions and articulates a pro-life agenda. Is he serious? Can he be trusted? And isn’t taking a risk with Romney still better than accepting the reality of Obama’s abortion-spreading ideology? These are questions that pro-lifers around America are now facing.

This is an interesting conversation because the pro-life position has certainly been on the upswing in recent months and years. Technological advances and our increased scientific knowledge have made the pro-abortion position fatally weak. So is the defeat of Obama yet another step in that positive direction? Or is the selection of a replacement who isn’t staunchly pro-life a set back for the movement? Not surprisingly, different pro-life leaders have a different perspective.

Some say, rally for Romney:

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 06:07 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, April 20 2012

In our bi-weekly conversation, Congressional candidate Jackie Walorski talked about the possibility that Americans may become used to high gas prices before the election, and about Barack Obama's inability to wage a meaningful issues campaign.

Hear our full conversation here.

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

Listen

It’s April. That seven months away from Election Day. It’s April.

Nevertheless, the sitting President of the United States has already tipped his hand and proven exactly what conservatives have been predicting for the last three years: he’s got nothing to run on, and so the mud pits are prepped and ready. After four years in office, Barack Obama will not be campaigning on the hope he promised and the change he delivered. Instead, he will be telling you why you shouldn’t vote for Mitt Romney. Don’t lose sight of how profound that is.

The topic came up on a recent edition of The O’Reilly Factor when the host interviewed Charles Krauthammer about some of the desperate statements being made by Obama surrogates – specifically one who suggested that Mitt doesn’t want black people to vote. For my money, Krauthammer was as sharp in this interview as I’ve ever seen him and it made me wonder why the Romney campaign isn’t hiring him as a strategist.

You can watch the full interview here, but suffice it to say that Krauthammer perfectly encapsulated what the Obama campaign will be talking about for the next seven months: race, class, ethnicity and gender. Notice what is missing from that list is anything he accomplished in four years as president, half of that time spent with control over both houses of Congress. Here was the key part of the interview:

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 06:09 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, April 19 2012

Listen

Just asking the question, “Did Jesus tell a lie?” makes me feel blasphemous. The answer for Christians is an unequivocal ‘no.’ And the reason should be obvious: if He did, then He wasn’t the perfect sacrifice, the spotless Lamb who takes away the sins of the world – including our own. If Christ wasn’t perfect, His sacrifice wasn’t perfect, and we are still in our sins.

That’s why it is so preposterous to even ponder. Sadly, a Christian publishing company (the Baker Publishing Group), while passing on great books like 78: How Christians Can Save America (shameless, isn’t it?), are allowing one of their divisions known as Brazos Press to publish a book called The Evolution of Adam that suggests this very Christianity-undoing thesis. It’s kind of like a group of rats manufacturing D-Con (no offense meant by the rat analogy).

Here’s the scoop, covered by our friends over at Answers in Genesis:

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 06:08 pm   |  Permalink   |  1 Comment  |  Email
Thursday, April 19 2012

Listen

This hilarious dog business could very well be a sign of things to come. If you haven’t heard, an attempt by the Obama campaign to make political hay out of the Romney family’s bizarre practice of traveling in their car with their dog strapped to the roof of the vehicle (in it’s cage of course) has backfired, big time.

How big? Even the liberal crew at MSNBC’s Morning Joe program were cackling about it:

On Wednesday, panel member Willie Geist set his sights on Mitt Romney’s infamous dog-on-the-roof story for his segment “News You Can’t Use.” But before you go rolling your eyes thinking it’s just another anti-Romney piece in the media, just wait: Geist also introduced a far less known story about Obama’s own dog controversy. You remember, the time he admitted to eating dog.

Yes, Obama has eaten dog and admitted to it. In fact, the Daily Caller found it in Obama’s book, “Dreams From My Father”:

“With Lolo, I learned how to eat small green chili peppers raw with dinner (plenty of rice), and, away from the dinner table, I was introduced to dog meat (tough), snake meat (tougher), and roasted grasshopper (crunchy). Like many Indonesians, Lolo followed a brand of Islam that could make room for the remnants of more ancient animist and Hindu faiths.

He explained that a man took on the powers of whatever he ate: One day soon, he promised, he would bring home a piece of tiger meat for us to share.” [Emphasis added]

This may be handwriting on the wall for the Obama campaign heading into the next several months. What seems like an open slam dunk for them ends up clanging high off the back of the rim and into the waiting hands of their opponents. The Twitter exchange between the two sides perfectly depicts this.

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 06:07 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, April 18 2012

Listen

The recent attack by Democratic strategist and Obama adviser Hilary Rosen on the work of stay at home moms struck a cord for a lot of people, including me. Through the years on the radio, I’ve given plenty of anecdotal stories about the hard work my mom and now my wife have put in and continue to put in on a daily basis, raising their respective families. I suppose it’s fair to say that I get a tad bit defensive about the topic only because I know the great value of having a stay at home mom, and I also know the crock it is when people suggest that doing so isn’t “working.”

Obviously some people don’t mean the comment to be offensive, nor are they truly attempting to attack the value or significance of being a housewife. Many simply mean working outside the home when they say the word “work.” I also don’t want to turn this into a political correctness thing where everybody has to use precise terminology when referencing stay at home moms, lest they become the victim of an onslaught of hostility. My problem isn’t the terms we use, it’s the attitude and the perspective.

Rosen embodied much of the left’s views on the seriousness of being a housewife. To them, it is a decision that some women make that while perhaps laudable for its goals, is still something to be lamented. The world has lost the influence of a woman, they muse. Hardly. By staying home and raising their children, women influence the world in a far greater way than working in any office ever could. That isn’t cliché, it’s truth.

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 06:08 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, April 18 2012

Listen

We are all aware that the left is prepping for some intense anti-Mormon bigotry in the coming election cycle. But the fact that Mitt Romney is a Mormon is going to lead to some interesting discussions on the right as well. If there was any doubting that, consider the fact that the same minister who made waves after calling Mormonism a cult at a Rick Perry event has now endorsed Mitt Romney for president.

As can be expected, commentators are jumping all over him, claiming he is inconsistent (funny how such a move would be considered “pragmatic” if it happened on the left, but that’s a topic for another day). The minister’s defense is a logical one, and a sound one, but I’m guessing there’s a lot of folks who are going to miss what he’s saying:

Back in October, you may remember Pastor Robert Jeffress’ controversial statements about Republican president candidate Mitt Romney. The faith leader was introducing Texas Gov. Rick Perry at the Voter Values Summit in Washington, D.C., when he said that Mormonism is a “cult” and that it “is not Christianity.” Now, just months later, Jeffress has endorsed Romney, causing some to further criticize the evangelical preacher.

On Sunday, he appeared on “FOX & Friends” to discuss his take on Romney, Obama and Mormonism. Hosts Clayton Morris and Dave Briggs didn’t waste any time launching into what critics have said about Jeffrees, while asking the pastor how he rectifies his past opposition to Romney with his current support.

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 06:07 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, April 18 2012

Other "don't miss" segments of the radio show today:

  • The lines are being drawn very clearly, and for Christians who claim to be Democrats, things are getting very uncomfortable. Besides supporting a party whose platform rejects Christian truth, leading liberal groups like Media Matters are now openly acknowledging they are attacking Christianity. (listen)
  • Former host of the "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous" pulls the curtain back on Obama's claim to be "leveling the playing field," by accurately pointing out the reality that those who believe it is government's job to do that are socialists - whether they like the title or not. (listen)
  • An Illinois Bishop has made headlines by saying that Obama is "intent on following a similar path" as some of the worst human rights violaters in world history. (listen)
Posted by: Peter Heck AT 06:06 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, April 17 2012

Listen

Congress was on their high horse the last couple days as they’ve pursued investigations of the extravagant waste committed by the General Services Administration at a recent Las Vegas conference. The man caught in the middle of the firestorm is the former director of the Pacific Rim wing of the GSA, Jeff Neely.

By now, many have seen Mr. Neely’s “non-testimony” before the House Oversight and Reform Committee where he pleaded the fifth on every single question – even as CSPAN was displaying the answer to many of the questions on the screen because they were so generic. What stood out at me as I watched this was the sheepish way that Mr. Neely looked.

Let’s be honest: this guy knows he’s had it. He is now the whipping boy for Republicans who see a chance to use Neely as a prop for the corruption of the Obama government in much the same way that Pelosi and Obama used Mark Foley, Larry Craig and others to paint the “culture of corruption” tag onto Republicans a few years back. Neely also knows that he is going to become a scapegoat for Democrats who aren’t about to allow this corruption to be tied to Obama in an election year. They will do all they can to ostracize Mr. Neely and make him look like a one-man corruption machine.

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 06:10 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, April 17 2012

Listen

There are few people that I have more respect for than former Reagan ambassador Alan Keyes. Ever since I read his book in high school called “Our Character, Our Future,” I’ve believed that Alan Keyes is a voice for righteousness in a nation that sees darkness creeping in from all directions. That doesn’t mean I’m always going to agree with him, though I can probably count on one hand the times I remember disagreeing.

But beginning in the last election, I’ve been disappointed to see Keyes outline an absolutist position on politics that is unfortunate, and I believe untenable if we are to bring our country back from the brink of collapse. Don’t misunderstand, I believe in absolutes. I believe there is an absolute right and wrong for the situations we face as human beings. I also believe that we can absolutize nothing but Christ. And it’s on this latter point where I worry that Keyes is falling short. Seeking, or believing that a political candidate will arise who will be perfect in word or deed is not only impossible, it smacks of the same kind of unrealistic expectations for a flawed man that we saw the Obama Zombies place on “The One” in 2008. Yet, in a recent piece entitled “Obama or Romney: the Republic Fails Either Way,” Keyes writes the following:

In 2008 I refused to support John McCain and rejected the specious argument that made it imperative to support the “lesser of evils.” Christ made it unequivocally clear that it is always imperative to apply the standard of God. (“Be ye perfect even as your heavenly father is perfect.”)

While clarifying this standard, he goes on to note his belief that the “lesser of two evils” scenario is what we are presented with again, this time between Romney and Obama. Though this is a clichéd phrase, I think it’s important to be cautious before throwing around the term “evil” to define individuals. Certainly I have not been hesitant to use the term evil to describe some of the ideas and positions held by this president. And I do not argue with those who point out that Romney has once held similar positions on some of those issues. Does he still? Not according to his direct words. Is his word trustworthy? Is doubt in the authenticity of his words enough to define him as an “evil” choice in this campaign. Those are questions that I don’t believe can be answered so easily and so quickly.

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 06:09 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, April 17 2012

Listen

It’s gonna get bad. Real bad. The silliness and absurdity of the 2008 campaign is going to give way to the hate and bitterness of the 2012 campaign. And I’m talking about from the left side of the aisle. Many political analysts have already said that Obama is going to have a hard time running a positive campaign because he doesn’t have many “accomplishments” he can tout. Those analysts disagree on how negative he will end up going, but I am guessing it’ll be real ugly.

And to this point, he’s proving me right. Check out Obama’s outrageous performance on Univision where he blatantly lied in his attack on Mitt Romney for racial profiling:

"We now have a Republican nominee who said that the Arizona laws are a model for the country, that -- and these are laws that potentially would allow someone to be stopped and picked up and asked where their citizenship papers are based on an assumption," President Obama said in an interview with Univision that aired over the weekend.

Okay, first, that isn’t even true. The Arizona law – which we have covered repeatedly on the radio show, even reading specific parts of the law – allows local law enforcement that is making a custodial, lawful arrest to inquire about immigration status if there is probable cause. In other words, they can’t just see someone who looks Hispanic and walk up and demand papers. If Obama believes this he’s been watching too much of the embarrassingly left-wing propaganda ABC show “What Would You Do?” with John Quinones.

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 06:08 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, April 17 2012

Other "don't miss" segments of the radio show today:

  • Parents who are shelling out nearly $150,000 for their child's four year education at Harvard have to be thrilled that the "pretigious" Ivy League school will now be offering a credit for being in the Obama fan club. (listen)
  • Bringing depravity to your doorstep: the Hustler Mobile Strip Truck is only a phone call away.  Now, all the carnal and sinful pleasures of the smut club in the convenience of your living room.  This gives all new meaning to the "Highway to Hell."  (listen)
  • New Jersey Governor Chris Christie stops in Indiana to campaign for Congressional candidate Susan Brooks.  Not surprisingly, he made some comments about his future that are turning heads. (listen)
Posted by: Peter Heck AT 06:07 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Monday, April 16 2012

Listen

Great news for academic freedom...and sanity...is coming out of Tennessee, where the legislature has enacted a law that would protect teachers and schools that want to question some of the left’s rigid dogma when it comes to biological evolution (the religion of Darwinism), climate change and human cloning.

When I had a guest from the Discovery Institute on the program a few months ago to discuss their objections to the Indiana Creationism bill authored by Senator Dennis Kruse, this was the point that my guest stressed: the best way to achieve the goal of undermining the indoctrination of children with Darwinian dogma is to approach it through the avenue of academic freedom. That’s exactly what they did in Tennessee, and Discovery Institute is hailing its success:

"This bill promotes good science education by protecting the academic freedom of science teachers to fully and objectively discuss controversial scientific topics, like evolution," said Casey Luskin, science education expert and policy analyst at Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture. "Critics who claim the bill promotes religion instead of science either haven't read the bill or are putting up a smokescreen to divert attention from their goal to censor dissenting scientific views."

Not surprisingly, the liberals who control the educational establishment are not pleased, and are railing against the “undermining of science,” blah, blah, blah. No, what has been undermined is not “science.” What has been undermined by this bill is the hijacking of the word science by a movement that wants to protect its own interpretations of scientific data from any criticism or analysis.

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 07:05 pm   |  Permalink   |  1 Comment  |  Email
Monday, April 16 2012

Listen

When I first read about this story, it made me sick at my stomach. While it justifies and vindicates everything that we conservatives have been saying about the pro-abortion left for some time, it doesn’t make you feel any better to read it.

The story comes from the Journal of Medical Ethics (just gnaw on that title for a while) and is called, “After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?” And while I’ve commented before about the tragic and radical nature of this kind of dehumanizing thinking that the left has played with for years, Chuck Colson’s recent BreakPoint commentary on the subject struck a cord with me that I think needs to be expounded upon.

Here’s what Colson wrote:

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 06:58 pm   |  Permalink   |  11 Comments  |  Email
Monday, April 16 2012

Listen

There’s a very interesting court battle that is shaping up between the National Organization for Marriage and the IRS. And while the case is more about the rule of law than it is about the issue of marriage, I think that the publicity of the case is likely to help presidential hopeful Mitt Romney.

The case involves the leaking of confidential charitable donation information from the National Organization of Marriage to the fringe radical hate group known as the Human Rights Campaign. Somehow, the HRC secured confidential documents from the IRS that showed Mitt Romney donated $10,000 to the NOM back in 2008 – amidst the contentious Prop 8 battle out in California.

Not surprisingly, this information was released publicly by HRC and then echoed through the left-wing blog machine, and being publicized on the Huffington Post. The trouble is, it is illegal for such information to be given out. Someone broke the law, and both the HRC and Huffington Post have been instructed to immediately redact and eliminate the coverage of the information.

To the NOM, this isn’t about Mitt Romney or the issue of marriage. It’s about the rule of law:

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 06:12 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Monday, April 16 2012

Other "don't miss" segments of the radio show today:

  • The Meathead has spoken: Rob Reiner declares one would have to be "brain dead" to vote for Romney. What, pray tell, would that make those who vote for another four years of what we're living?! Good grief, man. (listen)
  • Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie have announced they are going to get married. Great. But Pitt stated that "they always hoped" they would one day be able to do that, "for the children." Uh...what was preventing it before, Brad? What was that Reiner was saying about being brain dead? (listen)
  • The lunatics at PETA were at it again, this time saying that Sea World has violated the 13th amendment prohibition against slavery. Another way of seeing this is that they are equating the humanity of African Americans and sea mammals. Where's the NAACP, Sharpton, Jackson, et al? (listen)
  • Alleged comedian Sarah Silverman got tired of being ignored, so she decided social commentary was the way to go. Tweeting pictures supposedly showing her before and after an abortion, Silverman demonstrated that to the left, there's nothing quite as funny as killing kids. (listen)
Posted by: Peter Heck AT 06:03 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Sunday, April 15 2012

I have admitted before that I watch some “reality show” contests, one of which is Trump’s “Apprentice” or “Celebrity Apprentice.” The current series is a “Celebrity Apprentice,” and I do not recall seeing a more contentious, vulgar, mean, and nasty group of contestants on either format. Usually by now I have picked one or two to root for. I told my wife as we watched the last episode that I do not have a clear favorite right now. Mr. Trump could fire them all, as far as I’m concerned.

Having thought and said that probably makes me a bully. At least, that is the context that “bullying” is placed in these days. One of the celebrities, Aubrey O’Day, is playing for GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network) as her charity.

During the course of the program, she has mentioned that she supports GLSEN’s efforts to combat “bullying.” Naturally, that means that anyone who fails to go along in full support of homosexual behavior is guilty of “bullying.” These frail folk, after all, might run out and commit suicide if they are criticized at all and not accepted. So no criticisms; no disagreement; no refusal to normalize their behavior. To do otherwise is to engage in fierce “bullying.”

Which leads me to my observation about the last episode in which the hypocrisy unavoidably inherent in liberalism quickly surfaced. Remember, failure to completely accept and normalize homosexual behavior is a form of “bullying.” So one would think that anyone seeking to expose and eliminate “bullying” would not engage in this self-defined version of “bullying” behavior.

KEEP READING

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 08:32 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Sunday, April 15 2012

In spite of Vice President Joe Biden’s praise of its “one child” policy, the Obama Administration, the most ardently pro-abortion presidency ever, has actually linked China’s one-child per family policy as a significant contributor to a tragic problem in the communist country.

It seems that terminating one’s unborn child is not as easy, nor as trouble free as the abortion industry would like for us to believe. According to a 2009 report, every day in China 500 women committed suicide. That is 3,500 women a week, 15,000 women a month and 182,500 women a year who took their lives in China. It is an abnormally high rate that is 300% higher among women than Chinese men. According to the National Institute of Mental Health, in the United States, four times more men than women commit suicide.

The US State Department report concludes, “violence against [Chinese] women and girls, discrimination in education and employment, the traditional preference for male children, birth-limitation policies, and other societal factors contributed to the high female suicide rate.”

Posted by: Micah Clark AT 06:20 am   |  Permalink   |  1 Comment  |  Email
Saturday, April 14 2012

There is a disturbing new report out which shows that Indiana has a top national ranking that should worry a lot of parents and policy makers. The report finds that Hoosier high school girls are among the least safe in the nation in terms of sexual assault and rape. The analysis of sexual violence conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that 17.3 percent of high school girls in 9th through 12 grades report having had forced sexual intercourse. The national average is 10.5 percent. Indiana's alarmingly high student rape rate places us as the second highest state in the nation.

The numbers may even be worse than this report indicates. Advocates have always claimed that only about 50% of rapes and sexual assaults are ever reported. Toby Strout, executive director of Middle Way House in Bloomington, said 80 percent or more of unwanted sexual activity involves people who know each other and are either in a relationship, dating or acquaintances. "We're not talking about people jumping out from behind the bushes," Strout said. Sadly, the news reports claim that the solution rests in better sex education (as if a violent boy using a condom really makes a dime’s difference in terms of victimization), rather than promoting character education and expecting moral restraint among high school boys.

Posted by: Micah Clark AT 12:22 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Saturday, April 14 2012

An excerpt from the Indianapolis Star concerning the death of Trayvon Martin expresses these thoughts and concerns:

…As such, there’s ample reason to hope that a just decision ultimately will be reached in this most high-profile and sensitive of cases… Without prejudging George Zimmerman, this case should lead to discussions here and elsewhere about racial profiling, stereotypes, and the easy judgments piled upon, and made by, people of all racial and ethnic backgrounds. Why was a young black man viewed as suspicious apparently only by the fact he was walking through a neighborhood at night? Why should a hoodie – a popular piece of clothing worn by people of all ages and racial backgrounds – lead a person to be suspected of some type of wrongdoing? …The specifics of this case must be handled with care. The full story of what happened on that awful night in Sanford, Fla., needs to be thoroughly researched and told before final conclusions can be made. Yet it’s not too soon to mourn another senseless death, nor to reflect on how and why such tragedies occur in our city and nation with far too much frequency. (Excerpted from Indianapolis Star by Kokomo Tribune, 4/9/2012, p. A4)

This is what passes for professional journalism these days. No wonder the person on the street with average intelligence and experience wonders why journalists are required to have a college education in order to qualify for professional journalism. No wonder the person on the street with average intelligence and experience believes that he or she could do a better job.

KEEP READING

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 10:26 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Saturday, April 14 2012

I have to admit that I am disappointed that former Senator Rick Santorum ended his presidential race last week. I had been recently contacted by some of campaign people about his coming to Indiana before the May 8th primary and I was eager to meet him. I simply wanted the opportunity to thank him for ignoring the establishment and the media and for speaking his heart on issues of faith and family. For example, no other candidate so consistently tied the breakdown of the family to the massive societal costs we pay financially and culturally for that problem. (The Institute for American Values study found that family breakdown costs taxpayers at least $112 billion each year. For Hoosiers, the annual cost of family fragmentation in Indiana was estimated at $839 million.)

Somehow, Santorum started at a mere 2% support, was outspent in every state by at least 4 to 1, faced an onslaught of negative ads from Romney and Paul, talked about issues the media hated and the establishment said no one cared about (they see voters as one-dimensional, self-absorbed beings who care only about what’s in their wallet), he failed to get the traditional bounce and momentum from an Iowa win that was not announced until after Gov. Romney won New Hampshire, and yet the former Senator still managed to win 11 states in spite of these things, and a less than perfect campaign.

Hoosier GOP voters almost had a presidential primary that mattered as much as the Democrats' primary did in 2008. We now know the November match up, and should soon see the rhetorical battle heat up between the President and Governor Romney. If you’re tired of politics today, brace yourself, everything just shifted into a higher gear.

Posted by: Micah Clark AT 10:12 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, April 13 2012

Listen

One of the favorite defenses to justify their behavior that homosexual activists utilize when they attempt to bully Christians who believe homosexuality is immoral into silence is to accuse the Christian of being secretly gay themselves. I’ve always found the strategy a bit ironic and inconsistent. The folks who claim that there’s nothing wrong with “being gay” attempt to shame someone into silence by accusing them of “being gay.” Uh...

But anyway, when I speak to Christians about the coming persecution that is setting in for Christians in America at the hands of the sexual anarchists, I always stress that one thing you can be guaranteed you will hear when speaking the truth about sexual sin is that you are only “attacking” the behavior because you’re secretly into it. Indeed, I can’t tell you the number of nasty, perverted emails I’ve gotten from homosexual activists that have leveled the accusation at me – suggesting that my wife and children are merely “cover” for my secret homosexual lusts and fantasies. Yeah, these are some real classy folks.

What’s interesting to me is the response I get when I don’t back down and get quiet. That’s what the left is trained to believe will happen. They utilize the bully tactics and expect them to work, and are sometimes perplexed when they’re called on it. When I respond by saying, “So you’ve resorted to the second grade tactic of saying that anyone who disagrees with you must be gay,” they come back with something silly like, “Well look at how many of the most vocal ‘homophobes’ – their word for people who disagree with their behavior – end up being closeted homosexuals.” I ask for a list.

They usually offer maybe 3 or 4 high profile examples. That’s when I think they know they’re toast. “So in 2000 years of Christian doctrine that teaches the homosexuality is sinful, and the countless millions of faithful Christians who have taught redemption from sinful behavior including homosexuality, you can produce 3 or 4 people who were caught up in that behavior? And you think that proves your accusation?” I ask. Backed in a logical corner, the disgusting perverted responses usually ensue without reservation.

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 06:09 pm   |  Permalink   |  2 Comments  |  Email
Friday, April 13 2012

Listen

A long standing question on my radio program is to simply reiterate the question, “who are the radicals?” The left has done an admirable job of propagandizing the public through their media control. Those with mainstream conservative thoughts are labeled “far right” or “right-wing extremist.” Those with liberal thought usually don’t get a label, and if they do, it’s something along the line of, “expert” or “scholar.”

That’s why I consistently ask listeners to look at the views, the opinions, the ideas being espoused by individuals and ask themselves personally whether they find those ideas to be “radical” rather than relying on biased media to tell them that they are or aren’t. For instance, is it really radical to believe that every human being is worthy of a right to life and that we shouldn’t be allowing infants to be murdered? Isn’t it more radical to believe that half-delivering a child, keeping its face buried inside the birth canal to prevent anyone from hearing the screams, and stabbing it to death with scissors is a “legitimate medical procedure” as Obama called it? You ask the majority of Americans that question and it’s a no-brainer, despite what the liberal media tries to convey.

And it’s not confined to abortion. Take the vast majority of what is liberal thought in America, and simply tell people the idea or the position, stripped of any labeling, and they will see who the radicals are in this society. Let me give another example of what I’m talking about. Several of you have probably heard about the Miami Marlins baseball team suspending its new manager Ozzie Guillen for making the idiotic remark that he “love(s)” Fidel Castro, the brutal communist thug dictator of Cuba.

Most people in America would understand why they did that – certainly anyone who knows anything about communism. But check out what the liberals at the Daily Kos had to say about it, as though that’s tough to figure out from the title of the piece, “Ozzie Got Screwed”:

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 06:08 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, April 13 2012

Listen

Disgraced former Democrat golden boy John Edwards has gone to trial for his alleged illegal activity of using campaign funds to hide his affair and love child during his last presidential run. And while everyone else seems to – including his own friends and former supporters – he just doesn’t get it:

His confusion extended to the latest chapter in the drama — criminal charges alleging that in an effort to conceal his affair during the height of his 2008 presidential campaign, he illegally arranged for secret contributions of about $1 million to take care of Hunter’s needs as she prepared to give birth to their daughter, Quinn. Sometimes his painful bouts of self-analysis turned to frustration over his belief that he had been singled out among a long list of philandering politicians, living and dead, for pariah status.

“He knows he made mistakes,” [Glenn] Bergenfield says on the eve of Edwards’s trial, which is set to begin Thursday with jury selection. “But John thinks that the treatment of him is so unflinchingly horrible and that what he did is not so different from what others did — JFK, Clinton, the whole rogues’ gallery. We’ve had this conversation about his situation, and I remember he did compare it to Clinton. He said, ‘I did a horrendous thing, but I don’t know why I’m getting such an unforgiving treatment when you think of what other people have done.’”

Let me first say that I always regarded John Edwards as a classic, trial lawyer phony. His pandering campaigns, fueled by class warfare where he constantly talked about “two Americas” were enough to turn my stomach. After all, here’s a guy who chased ambulances for a living, had a magnificent mansion and great material wealth who went out and lectured those who earned a nice living for themselves (but nothing on par with what Edwards enjoyed) that their prosperity was wrong.

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 06:07 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, April 13 2012

Other "don't miss" segments from the radio show today:

  • What might be being missed in the Democrat War on Moms flap is the quickness, strength and widespread organization of the Romney team's response to the situation.  Conservatives should be heartened: Team Romney is ready to fight. (listen)
  • An interesting study from Australia that claims the stronger a dude is, the more likely he is to be a conservative.  So if you don't like my politics, blame my burly, lumberjack physique. (listen)
  • A young 9 year old boy from LA becomes an entrepreneur.  I originally thought this was an admirable story...then I read Amanda's take.  She's right...this story of young greed is a terrible message for the 99%. (listen)
Posted by: Peter Heck AT 06:06 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, April 12 2012

Listen

Back when I played and then later coached varsity athletics I was aware of one major flaw I had as a motivator: I lacked the killer instinct. It’s always plagued me. I have a soft spot when I see a wounded enemy – I just don’t have that “finish them” attitude nearly as much as I have the, “poor guy” attitude. That’s not good in sports. And it’s probably not good in politics either.

I noticed that last night as I watched the long-awaited Lugar-Mourdock Senate debate here in Indiana. The race is garnering national attention as an indicator of whether or not the conservative surge that manifested mightily in the 2010 election cycle has staying power into 2012. And anyone who has paid attention to my commentaries or remarks over the past few years knows, I have felt strongly that Senator Richard Lugar (of Virginia) is no longer the conservative champion that we need in the U.S. Senate. And they know that I have felt strongly after several meetings with, and opportunities to get to know Richard Mourdock, that he is the man to replace Lugar.

So admittedly, I went into the viewing of last night’s debate with hopes that Mourdock would hold his own. By the middle part of the debate I knew that had happened. By the end of the debate, my lack of killer instinct was rearing its head as I found myself actually feeling sorry for Senator Lugar (of Virginia). Yes, I want him to be defeated, but I don’t want anyone embarrassed on television. That’s honestly how bad it got at moments.

Here were my general observations from the debate:

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 06:09 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, April 12 2012

Listen

One of the things that I’ve always laughed at is when liberals talk about the abortion issue and say all these pompous things about not wanting to “interfere in the private healthcare decisions of a woman and her doctor.” What a load of bunk. Logically, it ceases to be a “private healthcare decision” when it involves the killing of another human being. But beyond that, it truly takes the suspension of a rational mind to believe a liberal when they say they don’t want to interfere in any part of your life...particularly healthcare.

How can the same architects of the largest invasion of the government into your most personal and private healthcare decisions in the history of the republic – known as ObamaCare – possibly keep a straight face when saying something like that?

Along those lines, I came out of my seat in applause for Jill Stanek when she wrote a fabulous piece depicting the epic debate between Barack Obama and...Barack Obama, on this very issue.

Forgive the posting of such a large section of Stanek’s own text, but it’s too good to miss:

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 06:08 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, April 12 2012

Not long ago, the Susan G. Komen for the Cure foundation made a principled decision to stop offering grant monies to Planned Parenthood because of their numerous ethics violations (and pending investigations). It was a logical decision as well, given the fact that Susan G. Komen for the Cure seeks to save human life while Planned Parenthood makes its money primarily off the practice of killing human life. The two organizations are seemingly diametrically opposed in principle.

But not a week after that decision, Susan G. Komen for the Cure reversed itself following the threats and onslaught of propaganda from the abortion lobby groups (not that abortion is all Planned Parenthood does, of course...ahem). It was a risky decision given that many Komen supporters had previously been unaware that the abortion giant was getting Komen money to begin with – and they were understandably disgusted by the revelation. Nonetheless, Komen stuck by Planned Parenthood’s side. And now they appear to be paying the price.

On the show today, I invited the Executive Director of the American Family Association of Indiana, Micah Clark, on to talk about a recent Indy Star report that Komen’s support has taken a nose dive in the months since the controversy began. It’s a sad story, but an important one to note.

Hear our full conversation here.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 06:07 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, April 12 2012

Other "don't miss" segments of the radio show today:

  • Team Obama and the Democrats declare a "War on Moms" by attacking stay-at-home moms for "not working a day."  Backtracking and goofy distancing commenced, but the proverbial cat is out of the bag.  This is how liberals really feel about women who let down the YaYa Sisterhood by not having a career. (listen)
  • No joke: our brilliant Vice President Joe Biden stumbled across a microphone recently and once again embarrassed himself and his loved ones.  The man actually called former SNL star-turned-Senator Al Franken a, "leading legal scholar."  (listen)
  • If you haven't seen The Hunger Games, star Jennifer Lawrence will make you want to as she tells Rolling Stone, "Screw PETA."  Fantastic.  (listen)
Posted by: Peter Heck AT 06:06 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, April 11 2012

Listen

One thing we’ve been talking about on the radio show this week is that with the emergence of Mitt Romney as the assumed nominee of the Republican Party for president, the same media that had an aversion to any discussion of faith and politics in 2008 when Obama was the target, are gearing up for a full-on colonoscopy of Mitt Romney’s faith. Get ready for an explosion of religious bigotry in this presidential election.

And that previously taboo topic of faith and politics got kicked up on CNN again over the weekend with host Don Lemon and guest, Muslim comedian Dean Obeidallah. After playing a clip where Catholic Cardinal Timothy Dolan suggested that religion and politics must mix, Lemon turned to Obeidallah:

LEMON: Dean, do you think most Americans feel that way? I mean, this is – this is more than the separation of church and state here that we're talking about.

DEAN OBEIDALLAH, political comedian: I think – I don't think most people have a problem with faith or a candidate that's got moral and convictions. That's actually a good thing. I think the difference is when it doesn't – when it no longer maybe influences your decisions, but actually your decisions, your policy decisions, are based on Scripture. Like Rick Santorum's saying the Bible and our laws must comport.

To me, that went beyond any kind of accepted view of politics and religion. There was no longer separation of church and state. He was saying the same things honestly that the Taliban would say, that religious scripture and the laws of that state must agree. So, I think that went too far. But, of course, people – if morals and ethics are what religion's about, and (Unintelligible) to be a better person, that's a great candidate. It's a great elected official for us to have.

Now, obviously Santorum is the great boogeyman to liberal commentators. He is the personification of everything they fear: a white, Catholic social conservative who lets his faith influence his character and decision making. The left is far more comfortable with folks who wear their religion as a cloak than they are with people like Santorum who make it their worldview and lifestyle. So it was no surprise to hear Obeidallah go after Santorum.

What was surprising was the depths of the ignorance of his statement. First of all, though Obeidallah did not offer any direct quote of Santorum to be able to fact check, it’s safe to assume that he is meaning the candidates suggestion that the laws of the United States should be consistent with God’s Law. If that’s a problem for Obeidallah, someone should inform him he’s up against American icons far beyond Rick Santorum.

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 06:09 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, April 11 2012

Listen

I heard a liberal Democrat yesterday gloating about the reality that Mitt Romney would be the Republican nominee for President in 2012. He was, according to this particular individual, the “quintessential Republican: wealthy, out of touch and totally oblivious to the needs of the middle class.” While I disagree with the assessment, I understand the excitement Democrats feel in being able to easily paint such a picture of Romney – he fits the mold.

Along those lines, I hope every woman in America takes time to read the recent piece by British journalist, Laurie Penny. If there has ever been a better embodiment of modern liberal feminism than Ms. Penny, I don’t know who it would be.

If you’re unsure who this is, Penny was the lady who was recently saved from walking into oncoming traffic by Hollywood star (and apparent “Dreamboat”) Ryan Gosling (of “The Notebook” fame). According to Taylor Bigler at the Daily Caller, Ms. Penny isn’t the most grateful for his help. In fact, she’s downright perturbed about being made into the innocent girl saved by the dashing man. That’s just way too paternalistic for her, apparently.

So, to set the record straight, Ms. Penny decided to write an article to tell everyone how she’s no damsel in distress. She’s woman...hear her roar:

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 06:08 pm   |  Permalink   |  1 Comment  |  Email
Wednesday, April 11 2012

Listen

Do you know how much fun the Republican Party could have during this coming election season with the line from the Obama self-documentary “The Road We Traveled?” That’s the campaign video that Team Obama put together where Tom Hanks embarrassed himself by providing the voice over. Let’s put it this way: the copy he read for Woody in Toy Story was more believable than this.

The one line we had quite a bit of fun with was where Hanks intones, “He would not dwell in blame or dream in idealism.” Forget his epic performances in Castaway or Forrest Gump, delivering a line like that without bursting out laughing may be Hanks’ greatest cinematic performance ever. We’ve already documented why, rolling out the Obama Blame list on a previous show.

But now as the 2012 campaign begins to roll out, you know it’s going to get even better. Obama is not going to be able to defend his miserable record in office, and so his already itchy blame finger is going to get even more restless. Take, for instance, what just occurred once the story of the General Services Administration lavish Vegas conference broke:

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 06:07 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, April 11 2012

Other "don't miss" segments of the radio show today:

  • It is the height of hypocrisy for ABC to talk about a "War on Women," or to complain about Rush Limbaugh's use of the word "slut," when airing TWO primetime shows that glorify the idea of women as "b**ches," dontcha think? (listen)
  • So let's get this right: Romney is a wealthy dude out of touch with the common man.  Unlike the sitting President who is having a $1 million pizza party thrown in Illinois on sterling silver plates and charging $40,000 a head?  Gotcha. (listen)
  • Might this be the most ridiculous statement made on TV this year?  Barbara Walters says on The View that you can't tell whether most journalists are Republicans or Democrats.  Oh my. (listen)
Posted by: Peter Heck AT 06:06 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, April 11 2012

As the Indiana primary steadily draws near, the spotlight and with Rick Santorum calling it quits, all eyes will be on the Republican primary for Senate between Richard Lugar and Richard Mourdock. The first major poll from Howey politics/Depauw University came out and on the surface it looks like Lugar is holding a seven point lead. This has to be good news for the Lugar camp, right? Think again.

According to the poll, the percentages stand at Lugar 42%, Mourdock 35%. But here is how polls should be interpreted leading into a primary. First, if the incumbent is under 50%, it means he is vulnerable. A reelection bid is first and foremost a referendum on the incumbent. People are creatures of habit and prefer what’s familiar to what is unknown. So if a candidate is above the 50% threshold, then it means that even an impressive challenger would have difficulty toppling what voters see as a sure thing. Lugar clearly falls well below the 50% threshold meaning that a significant percentage of Republican are dissatisfied.

Second, undecided voters tend to break for the challenger. This is because most voters tend not to be politically engaged until it comes time to make a consequential decision. Most voters tend to stick with what’s familiar, but if doubt has entered their mind (see above point), they tend to be open to change. It’s not an exact science as to percentage but as a general rule you can guestimate that undecided voters will fall 2:1 for the challenger. If this holds true then the poll result is more like: Mourdock 51%, Lugar 49%.

Posted by: Joel Harris AT 11:30 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, April 10 2012

Listen

As I suggested on the radio program yesterday, the media is in the midst of an enormous flip-flop that cannot be ignored, and conservatives must expose at every opportunity.

Remember how the media went out of its way in 2008 to downplay the significance of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright issue for Barack Obama. It didn’t matter, they said, that the man who would be president had sat in the church pew of a race-baiting, America-hating blasphemer for 20 years. It wasn’t a concern, nor should it provoke any questions about Obama’s worldview or his judgment that he regarded this Wright radical as his spiritual mentor, or the fact that he allowed his children to be baptized by him.

One of the worst perpetrators of this Reverend Wright blackout was CNN. Anderson Cooper, in particular, fell all over himself in embarrassing fashion, discounting it as an issue something like 12 times in one segment. How ironic then (and hypocritical), that it seems it will be CNN leading the charge to investigate Mitt Romney’s Mormonism, and how that will affect his chances to win the presidency.

They’ve already kicked it off, as this interview with CBN reporter David Brody will demonstrate. For now, it is masked in the cloak of inquisitive analysis: “How much do you think Romney’s faith will affect his chances?” Simply ask yourself how many times CNN posed the question in 2008, “How much do you think Obama’s support of and apparent belief in the radical Black Liberation Theology of Jeremiah Wright will affect his chances?” It was never asked.

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 06:09 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, April 10 2012

The political left is making a big deal in Indiana about recent polling that reveals a “high unfavorability rating” for the Tea Party. This is the latest round of discussion about the alleged death of the movement. I think that is the 17th or 18th time we’ve heard this in the last few years.

What is not reported in this poll, of course, is the favorability/unfavorability rating of the ideas espoused by the Tea Party. Fiscal responsibility, paying down the debt, government living within its means, opposition to oppressive government bureaucracy – all tea party positions – poll very well. In other words, what is really polling low is the media-driven narrative of who the “tea party” is. And if I believed everything the media suggested about the group, I’d have an unfavorable view of them too.

But I don’t. I know who and what the tea party movement is about, and I know the ideas they embrace are the ideas that will save the Republic. That’s why I am proud to associate with them, and I’m thrilled to have the opportunity to speak to the Kokomo Area Tea Party again this Thursday at the Howard County Courthouse rally at 6:00.

On today’s show, I invited event organizer Kenlyn Watson on to talk about the rally.

Hear our conversation here.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 06:08 pm   |  Permalink   |  1 Comment  |  Email
Tuesday, April 10 2012

Listen

So this may be it. That’s the smart money. Actually it’s been the smart money for quite some time that Mitt Romney will be the Republican nominee for President in 2012. And there are going to be a lot of responses to that reality. There are going to be the anti-Mitt types who will now consolidate around Newt Gingrich. Others will light up the airwaves and blogosphere pushing for a brokered convention.

But before any of that happens, I think it’s completely appropriate to take a little time to praise the efforts of one who might be the biggest surprise of the entire election season: Rick Santorum. I’ve made no secret of my support of Santorum for some time. I think he’s stood alone, at times, in this race and prior in pointing courageously to the breakdown of the American family and the decay of our nation’s moral fiber as the root of all of our problems.

Libertarians have wrongly accused him of wanting to govern people’s bedrooms. Liberals have attacked him in some of the most disgusting and depraved ways imaginable. They have attacked him personally by making up slang definitions for his name. They have attacked his family, laughing at he and his wife for the way they dealt with the tragic death of their infant child. They have knocked his priorities as he dealt with the concerns of a special needs child while on the campaign trail. And through it all, Santorum has fought valiantly for the cause of truth. In many ways, Republican primary voters – led by a strong conservative contingent – rewarded him for it.

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 06:07 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, April 10 2012

Other "don't miss" segments from the radio show today:

  • Newt Gingrich signals over the weekend that he is "all in" to defeat Obama and will work his tail off to help Mitt Romney should he be the nominee.  Seems the hand-wringing among some Republicans about the bitter primary was misplaced. (listen)
  • After yet another terror attack by a radical Islamist, the media runs with the meme that Muslims are the real victims, fearing a loss of a tolerant, diverse society due to anti-Islam backlashes.  If Muslims really fear that, they should be leading the charge against the real enemies of tolerance & diversity: radical Islamists. (listen)
Posted by: Peter Heck AT 06:06 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Monday, April 09 2012

Listen

Here’s a question for all of the arbiters of intellectualism on the left: why does Obama get a pass when he speaks to his belief in the miraculous work of Christ, but conservative Christians do not? Don’t get me wrong. I’m heartened to hear expressions of faith from President Obama like the one he shared just days before the Easter weekend:

"The struggle to fathom that unfathomable sacrifice makes Easter all the more meaningful to all of us," President Obama said at a White House Easter event to several religious leaders. “We all have experiences that shake our faith. There are times where we have questions for God’s plan relative to us, but that’s precisely when we should remember Christ’s own doubts and eventually his own triumph."

"Jesus told as as much in the Book of John when he said, 'In this world, you will have trouble," Obama said.

"I heard an amen," Obama said to laughter.

"Let me repeat, 'In this world, you will have trouble,'" he said a second time to emphasize the importance of the quote to him.

“‘But take heart!’ Obama said. "'I have overcome the world.’ We are here today to celebrate that glorious overcoming, the sacrifice of a risen savior who died so that we might live. And I hope that our time together this morning will strengthen us individually, as believers and as a nation."

It’s a great message. It’s heartening to hear from the President. But I do want to know why it’s acceptable, why it doesn’t engender the kind of acrimony, criticism and mockery from leftist quarters when Obama says these things than when someone like Santorum or even former President George Bush says them?

I’m serious. Is it because the left assumes Obama doesn’t mean them? Is it because they think he’s just saying these things to pacify and win over all the ignorant boobs out there that really believe this stuff? Why is it? Why is it okay for Obama to talk about Christ resurrected from the dead and liberating mankind to the possibility of eternal life, but that’s a sign of the lack of scientific responsibility on the right? I’d like to know the answer.

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 06:08 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Monday, April 09 2012

Listen

Well, well, well, guess who’s back in the picture? Barack Obama’s spiritual mentor – from whom he “distanced himself” when it became politically expedient – Jeremiah Wright, apparently delivered one whale of an Easter message for the masses during a week long revival series he preached in West Virginia last week. Full of Jesus’ conquering of Satan, sin and death, you ask? No, no. Full of race-baiting hatred. You know, classic Easter fare.

Here’s the story:

Last week, Wright spoke at Metropolitan Baptist Church in Charleston, West Virginia, as part of a week-long revival event. His controversial words took aim at Thomas Jefferson, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, the media and plenty of other targets…

“I was in the military six years and neither Hannity or O’Reilly was in the military,” he proclaimed. “Let me tell you one thing they taught us in the United States Marine Corps…fighting for peace is like raping for virginity. Those are oxymorons, but that’s what we do in the name of regime change.”

The controversial preacher also showed no love for Justice Thomas, as he told his audience that, though Thomas “looks like” them, he is “worshipping some other God.” He also made an intriguing comparison about the God of the Hebrew Bible and the Lord depicted in the Quran.

“The god of racists is not the God of righteousness. The god of the greedy is not the God of grace. The god of Wall Street is not the God of Main Street,” Wright proclaimed. “Those are two different gods and I ain’t talking about Allah and Yahweh. Those are the same names for the same God.”

He continued, taking a jab at Thomas and his Christian faith.

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 06:07 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Monday, April 09 2012

Listen

A couple headlines from the week really capture exactly where we are under this administration. First up, those impassioned Obama youth at Santa Monica College in California:

Campus police pepper-sprayed as many as 30 demonstrators after Santa Monica College students angry over a plan to offer high-priced courses tried to push their way into a trustees meeting, authorities said.

Raw video posted on the Internet Tuesday evening showed students chanting "Let us in, let us in" and "No cuts, no fees, education should be free."

What a great chant. Education should be free. Well of course it should! Just like healthcare should be “free.” And everyone should be “given” a living wage. And housing should be provided because it’s a basic right. And nutritious food should be “free” as well.

What’s also telling is that the media reaction to this incident is focusing on the police using pepper spray to subdue a mob. That’s the question that is being posed: “did the police act too aggressively.” Nary a peep about the chant and the expectation of young people that things be given to them. They are the 99%, you know.

Meanwhile, as students are demanding free rides, a couple thousand employees at Yahoo! got the news that they were joining the ever-increasing ranks of the unemployed. But don’t worry – should Obama get re-elected and maintain the stellar economic growth patterns he has presided over, in a couple years they will give up on finding new work and will no longer be counted towards our unemployment rate. That way, Obama and Biden can tout their steady progress.

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 06:07 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Monday, April 09 2012

Other "don't miss" segments of the radio show today:

  • The Obama Administration is directing half a billion dollars to the goons of the IRS to go around and harass small businesses to make sure they are complying with ObamaCare. This kind of sounds like the line from the Declaration of Independence about sending "swarms of officers," doesn't it? (listen)
  • Infamous late term abortionist is caught on 911 tape laughing as one of those women he cares so much about goes into epileptic convulsions. This shouldn't be a surprise. The left fosters a disrespect for all human life. (listen)
  • For those worried about Obama secretly moving to position pieces in order to declare himself dictator, you're missing the real point. The emergency power clause has been in place for a long time - the issue is our ever-growing government. (listen)
Posted by: Peter Heck AT 06:06 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Sunday, April 08 2012

“While the women were on their way, some of the guards went into the city and reported to the chief priests everything that had happened. When the chief priests had met with the elders and devised a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money, telling them, ‘You are to say, ‘His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep.’ If this report gets to the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble.’ So the soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day.” -- Matthew 28:11-15, NIV

Since it contains Easter Sunday, the theme for the month of April is “Victory!” Ever since that first resurrection Sunday, God gives us the reason to celebrate victory. One of the Easter hymns tells us:

Up from the grave He arose,
With a mighty triumph o’er His foes;
He arose a victor from the dark domain,
And He lives forever with His saints to reign;
He arose! He arose!
Hallelujah! Christ arose! (Robert Lowry, “Christ Arose”)

Beyond any doubt, the testimony of and about Jesus Christ has had a dramatic, lasting impact on the world. Yale University historian Kenneth Scott Latourette marveled at that very observation as he wrote, “Across the centuries Christianity has been the means of reducing more languages to writing than have all other factors combined. It has created more schools, more theories of education, and more systems than has any other one force. More than any other power in history, it has impelled men to fight suffering... It has built thousands of hospitals, inspired the emergence of nursing and medical professions, and furthered movements for public health and the relief and prevention of famine... Wars have often been waged in the name of Christianity... Yet from no other source have there come as many and as strong movements to eliminate or regulate war and to ease the suffering brought by war... The list might go on indefinitely. It includes many other humanitarian projects and movements, ideals in government, the reform of prisons and the emergence of criminology, great art and architecture, and outstanding literature.” (A History of Christianity, Vol. II, 1953, pp. 1470-1471)

In spite of the grandeur of Christianity, there are those who continue to deny it by attempting to obscure its truth. Even one of Jesus’ own disciples, Thomas, responded with initial skepticism until he, too, experienced the presence of the resurrected Jesus and was issued the invitation to put his finger in the nail scars and his hand into his side. In response to Thomas’s statement of belief, Jesus said, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” (John 20:29)

Beyond Thomas’s skepticism, attempts were made to cover up the event and to confuse those who heard the testimony of victorious resurrection. The account from Matthew 28 printed above tells us this. As the final sentence states, “And this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day.” Indeed, it and others are still being widely circulated in order to create as many “doubting Thomases” as possible.

However, under the scrutiny of honest investigation, the reliability of the testimony of victorious resurrection has consistently withstood the test of time. In The Case for Christ, author Lee Strobel interviewed theologian William Lane Craig, long regarded as a leading expert on the resurrection. In response to Strobel’s question about the truth of the empty tomb, Dr. Craig summarized:

“First, the empty tomb is definitely implicit in the early tradition passed along by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15, which is a very old and reliable source of historical information about Jesus. Second, the site of Jesus’ tomb was known to Christian and Jew alike. So if it weren’t empty, it would be impossible for a movement to be founded on belief in the Resurrection to have come into existence in the same city where this man had been publicly executed and buried. Third, we can tell from the language, grammar, and style that Mark got his empty tomb story... from an earlier source. In fact, there’s evidence it was written before A.D. 37, which is much too early for legend to have seriously corrupted it... Fourth, there’s the simplicity of the empty tomb story in Mark. Fictional apocryphal accounts from the second century contain all kinds of flowery narratives, in which Jesus comes out of the tomb in glory and power, with everybody seeing him, including the priests, Jewish authorities, and Roman guards. Those are the way legends read, but these don’t come until generations after the events, which is after eyewitnesses have died off. By contrast, Mark’s account of the story of the empty tomb is stark in its simplicity and unadorned by theological reflection. Fifth, the unanimous testimony that the empty tomb was discovered by women argues for the authenticity of the story, because this would have been embarrassing for the disciples to admit and most certainly would have been covered up if this were a legend. Sixth, the earliest Jewish polemic (argument) presupposes the historicity of the empty tomb. In other words, there was nobody who was claiming that the tomb still contained Jesus’ body. The question always was, ‘What happened to the body?’ The Jews proposed the ridiculous story that the guards had fallen asleep. Obviously, they were grasping at straws. But the point is this: they started with the assumption that the tomb was vacant! Why? Because they knew it was!” (The Case for Christ, 1998, pp. 220-221)

He arose! He arose!
Hallelujah! Christ arose!

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 05:30 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Saturday, April 07 2012

TheOldSalt has done it again. I don’t know why I have not thought of this sooner. The solution to the racial tension controversy stirred up in the Martin-Zimmerman tragedy stares us in the face in plain sight. Since our uber-president and national resident legal expert has seen fit to weigh in on the matters that divide Americans (in accordance with the Big Media doctrinal template), he also holds the key to its resolution. He established the model earlier in his administration.

Convene another beer summit.

The president can call together Mr. George Zimmerman and the parents of Mr. Trayvon Martin to quaff a cold one in the White House garden. As the summation by MSNBC on the first beer summit indicates, the beer summit model demonstrates how to finally get along: “White House officials were content to let Obama's involvement in the incident end right there. Gates and Crowley said they were eager to get back to work, although both pledged future talks aimed at better understanding.” As former Democrat National Committee spokeswoman Karen Finney observed: "Politics aside, the most important thing that should come out of today is that two people sat down and talked to one another. That is how real change happens, when people are willing to challenge their own biases by talking to people who are different from themselves."

KEEP READING

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 09:25 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Saturday, April 07 2012

One of the common talking points swirling around the defense of marriage I often hear is that we need to privatize marriage and simply get the government out of it. These talking points are often a diversion from the real attacks on marriage by homosexual demands groups. For others, it is an actual game plan.

There is an outstanding article from a self-identified Libertarian that is a must read for anyone interested in this subject. It helps provide an understanding of why marriage really is an important societal issue worthy of government protection. I must warn you that this will leave you wanting more. It is only the first of a three-part article called “Privatizing Marriage is Impossible.” Take a look here: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/04/5069

Posted by: Micah Clark AT 08:02 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Saturday, April 07 2012

Representative Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.) is advocating that the president release oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserves to lower the price at the pump. He cites that both Presidents Obama and Bush took these measures in the past. Having failed to accomplish anything meaningful then, politicians like Mr. Donnelly clamor for yet another band-aid patch to cover this serious issue. Says Mr. Donnelly:

I believe it is a necessary step to see lower prices quickly. I also think we need to simultaneously crackdown on those oil speculators’ efforts to make a profit on the backs of working families.

It is bad enough that the overall citizenry of America have become so economically ill-informed; it always flirts disaster when this ignorance spills over into policy-making power brokers. Instead of demonstrating some spine and standing up to fellow politicians who consistently bring harm to America’s economic well-being, Mr. Donnelly seeks to perpetuate the game of shifting blame and responsibility. As such, Mr. Donnelly demonstrates his own lack of responsibility and maturity.

The oil futures markets are so global and so liquid that manipulation by traders, “speculators,” is virtually impossible. The bid-ask price spread of oil futures is pennies, meaning that the price at any given moment is as transparent as it can be. Yes, there are big players in the oil futures markets, but there are a lot of them, again meaning that there is always a side ready to pounce on any distortions to the market.

KEEP READING

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 07:20 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Saturday, April 07 2012

If you need more proof of the slippery slope of postmodernism (truth is relative), you need look no further than a debate that is occurring over the Miss Universe Pageant.

A Canadian contestant says that she is devastated that she cannot participate in the Miss Universe contest because she is actually a he. The contestant is now appealing to the media and Donald Trump, one of the contest organizers. Trump has said, much to the approval of GLAAD the “gay and lesbian alliance against anti-defamation,” that the 23 year-old Vancouver resident should be allowed to enter. Trump based this not upon pageant rules, but the laws of Canada recognizing the still cellular, chromosomal, biological he as a she.

He surgically disfigured himself and began taking female hormones at age 14 to appear and behave like a woman. He wants national approval for his decision by being considered a woman in one of our longest standing female-approving societal traditions. Can I be blunt? There was a time when people who wanted to cut off their sex organs would be sent to a psychiatrist for help. Today, compassion is defined as acceptance of virtually any and all ideas and behaviors. Therefore, it is controversial and deemed bigoted and hateful that the pageant has a common sense rule that contestants must be “a natural born female.”

KEEP READING

Posted by: Micah Clark AT 06:45 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Saturday, April 07 2012

In the past few years, some folks have been taken to task for calling President Barack Hussein Obama a liar. They have been whipped soundly and censured by both Big Media and the Democrat faction of Big Government. Some believe that they must cave and apologize even if they demonstrate sound reasoning based upon solid evidence. A few have been secure enough in their observations, reasoning, and position to ignore the personal assaults launched by the aforementioned groups.

But what is any rational person supposed to think of another who publicly promises one thing but then publicly carries out some far different action than what was promised? So, for this week’s lib-quote, enter once again President Barack Hussein Obama who, on January 20, 2009, affirmed on solemn oath to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

On April 2, 2012, the president made a public statement indicating that his previously declared solemn oath remains, at best, secondary to his personal designs for supremacy:

I just remind conservative commentators that for years we have heard the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint. That an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example and I am pretty confident that this Court will recognize that and not take that step.

I once again took out and read my copy of the Constitution, and I once again find that there remain three constitutionally established branches of government and that, indeed, the members of the Supreme Court have always been appointed by authority of Congress. I am also aware that throughout the history of our Constitutional Republic the Supreme Court has taken up several laws that have been “duly constituted and passed.”

KEEP READING

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 06:16 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, April 06 2012

So the soldiers took charge of Jesus. Carrying his own cross, he went out to the place of the Skull (which in Aramaic is called Golgotha). There they crucified him, and with him two others—one on each side and Jesus in the middle.

Pilate had a notice prepared and fastened to the cross. It read: JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS. Many of the Jews read this sign, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city, and the sign was written in Aramaic, Latin and Greek. The chief priests of the Jews protested to Pilate, “Do not write ‘The King of the Jews,’ but that this man claimed to be king of the Jews.”

Pilate answered, “What I have written, I have written.”

When the soldiers crucified Jesus, they took his clothes, dividing them into four shares, one for each of them, with the undergarment remaining. This garment was seamless, woven in one piece from top to bottom.

“Let’s not tear it,” they said to one another. “Let’s decide by lot who will get it.”

This happened that the scripture might be fulfilled that said,

“They divided my clothes among them
and cast lots for my garment.”

So this is what the soldiers did.

Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to her, “Woman, here is your son,” and to the disciple, “Here is your mother.” From that time on, this disciple took her into his home.

Later, knowing that everything had now been finished, and so that Scripture would be fulfilled, Jesus said, “I am thirsty.” A jar of wine vinegar was there, so they soaked a sponge in it, put the sponge on a stalk of the hyssop plant, and lifted it to Jesus’ lips. When he had received the drink, Jesus said, “It is finished.” With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

Now it was the day of Preparation, and the next day was to be a special Sabbath. Because the Jewish leaders did not want the bodies left on the crosses during the Sabbath, they asked Pilate to have the legs broken and the bodies taken down. The soldiers therefore came and broke the legs of the first man who had been crucified with Jesus, and then those of the other. But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus’ side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water. The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe. These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled: “Not one of his bones will be broken,”and, as another scripture says, “They will look on the one they have pierced.”

Later, Joseph of Arimathea asked Pilate for the body of Jesus. Now Joseph was a disciple of Jesus, but secretly because he feared the Jewish leaders. With Pilate’s permission, he came and took the body away. He was accompanied by Nicodemus, the man who earlier had visited Jesus at night. Nicodemus brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventy-five pounds. Taking Jesus’ body, the two of them wrapped it, with the spices, in strips of linen. This was in accordance with Jewish burial customs. At the place where Jesus was crucified, there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb, in which no one had ever been laid. Because it was the Jewish day of Preparation and since the tomb was nearby, they laid Jesus there.

It was Friday...but Sunday was coming...

Posted by: John the Apostle AT 07:00 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, April 05 2012

With all the hostility toward faith and Christianity, there appears to be a lot more acceptance of Easter in America today than you might expect. A recent survey by American Bible Society and the Barna Group finds that 69 percent of U.S. adults celebrate Easter as a religious holiday and not just a day for egg hunts, marshmallow chicks, stuffed bunnies and the best candy options of the year. (My candy worldview seeps through.) The survey also found:

• 31% of Americans age 18 to 27 celebrate Easter as a non-religious holiday;
• 78% of Americans age 66 and older celebrate Easter as a religious holiday versus only 56% of Americans age 18 to 27;
• 14% of Americans do not celebrate Easter.

Posted by: Micah Clark AT 10:38 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, April 05 2012

Listen

Our long international nightmare seems to be coming to a close – it appears that people born male will now be able to participate in the Miss Universe pageant. A big thanks goes out to all those brave pioneers of sex change operations, the courageous champions of estrogen enhancement, and the media for helping whittle away at the chauvinistic and antiquated social norms that have told us that dudes don’t qualify for female competitions.

We are clearly headed for a better day (please note the sarcasm).

A Canadian beauty pageant contestant who was disqualified when the Miss Universe Canada organizers discovered she was transgender said Tuesday she had been devastated by the decision and wanted a clear change in the rules.

After initially disqualifying Talackova, organizers of the Miss Universe beauty pageant reversed course late Monday, saying she can participate.

In a statement, the Miss Universe Organization said Jenna Talackova can compete provided "she meets the legal gender recognition requirements of Canada, and the standards established by other international competitions."

The statement, however, did not elaborate on what the requirements were.

Apparently being created female is not one of them. And if that isn’t a gender requirement, what other requirements could you possibly have? Isn’t that kind of the big one? This is all so incredibly silly. And sad.

The 6-foot-1-inch blond model told a news conference Tuesday of the pain the row had caused her.
"I am a woman. I was devastated and I felt that excluding me for the reason that they gave was unjust," she said.

Really? I think them saying, “this is a competition for females and you are a male redesigned artificially to look like a female” isn’t a just reason? Indulge me and tell me then, what possibly would be a just reason to exclude someone? The answer, of course, is nothing. And that’s the point. It’s what the sexual anarchist movement – of which this is one small extension – is all about...no rules, no standards, no expectations for sexual conduct.

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 06:09 pm   |  Permalink   |  1 Comment  |  Email
Thursday, April 05 2012

Listen

Conservatives, by larger numbers, are rejecting science. That’s the headline that I’ve had sent to me by about 50 people – all liberals – touting how this “proves” exactly what they’ve been saying about us radical right wing conservatives. We get stuck in our dogma to the point that we can’t even accept plain, simply, incontrovertible scientific fact. And the headline certainly leads you to think that way. Until you actually read and apply critical thinking to the “study” in question. When you do that, this whole thing ends up being quite an indictment of the left and validating exactly what we conservatives have been saying for decades.

Theodore Dawes has an excellent take on this entire episode over at the American Thinker. Here’s what he writes:

Check out the story about the study in the well-respected Scientific American. The headline reads, "Conservatives Lose Faith in Science over Last 40 Years."

The subtitle adds detail, saying "a new academic analysis finds conservatives expressing more and more distrust in science in recent decades, particularly educated conservatives."

Unfortunately for the reputation of Scientific American, the study says no such thing. In fact it reports that educated conservatives have lost faith in the "scientific community." The two -- science and the scientific community -- are without basis simply assumed to be one and the same.

Bingo. This is precisely what we conservatives have pointed out for years. The left has hijacked the name of science, using it to describe what is really their INTERPRETATION of science. When their interpretation is touted as “true science,” it means all alternative explanations and interpretations – and the people who buy into them – are unscientific or (the favored term of the left) anti-science.

KEEP READING

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

Listen

My friend, and our official polling expert here on the radio program, Joel Harris, sent me this info after subjecting himself to the psychological punishment of watching an hour of MSNBC the other night, and I thought it was too good to pass up.

It seems that MSNBC’s self-proclaimed socialist (at least he’s honest), Lawrence O’Donnell was jumping all over Mitt Romney’s case for potentially “violating campaign laws.” What was Romney’s crime? An apparent technical violation of rules when he handed out $5 subs at a sub sandwich shop. Clearly we can’t even think of electing such a man president. It’s fairly obvious that such a maneuver was unquestionably intended to upend our society’s most cherished conventions and standards. Just ask Lawrence:

Earlier today, the GOP frontrunner and Rep. Paul Ryan handed out sandwiches at a local sub shop in Waukesha, Wisconsin, urging people to get out and vote. The campaign stop at Cousins Subs was labeled as an "Election Day Lunch," but the problem is that some people are seeing the event as outright bribery.

According to the Democratic Party of Wisconsin, Romney's event is, "a clear violation of Wisconsin election law."

Interestingly, in what my friend Joel calls a real ‘speck vs. log’ problem, Lawrence didn’t bother to cover the national news story of Obama fundraiser Abake Assongba:

KEEP READING

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

Other "don't miss" segments of the radio show today:

  • A powerful story from Athens, Texas.  After threatening to sue the town for a Nativity display, an evangelistic atheist is overwhelmed with Christian love and becomes a follower of Christ.  He never stops pursuing us...ever.  (listen)
  • Went to see "The Hunger Games" with my wife last night and was uneasy through the whole thing.  You are disgusted at a culture that would offer up its children for slaughter, simply for their own indulgence and gratification.  Then you realize, that's what we do in America. (listen)
Posted by: Peter Heck AT 06:06 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, April 04 2012

Listen

Glenn Beck has done a lot of good. He’s accomplished much and has contributed to our society in important ways. But I don’t think I could put anything higher on the list of important contributions made to America by Glenn Beck than his relentless effort to expose former Obama adviser Van Jones for who and what he is. Van Jones is a dangerous guy with the kind of radical ideas that threaten the very cornerstones of our civilization.

Well, I should clarify that. His ideas don’t threaten the cornerstones. If his ideas were given life, they would threaten the cornerstones. And when Barack Obama elevated him to a position of authority within the United States executive branch, Beck took action. Once Jones was exposed, and once Americans had seen his words, understood his radically left ideas, there was enough pressure put on Obama that either he asked Jones to leave, or Jones took it upon himself to do so. Imagining what he could have accomplished if he had stayed in such an important position of influence is not a pleasant exercise.

Since that time, Jones has been floating around and having random bouts of verbal diarrhea. But each one of them allows us an opportunity to get a window into the mind of the leftist. Because here’s the scary truth: Jones is not a radical to Obama. He’s not a radical to the left. He’s a spokesman and a visionary. If you don’t believe me, and to realize how freaky of a prospect that really is, just take a look at this video provided by The Blaze.

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 06:09 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, April 04 2012

Listen

It’s hard to shame the shameless. You might remember it wasn’t that long ago that President Obama was caught on an open mic saying to Russian leader Medvedev that he needed the Sovie....er, Russians, to give him a few more months of leeway. After his election, Obama promised, he would have more “flexibility.” That would be flexibility to screw American national defense, in case you were wondering.

It was a chilling reminder to those who might have forgotten now that the president has shifted into campaign rhetoric mode that he is a far left partisan, stuck on a rigid dogma. His hesitancy in pushing that unequivocally has only been provoked by re-election concerns. Should he win a second term, Americans everywhere better batten down the hatches. If you thought the takeover of 1/6th of the country’s economy, opening the door to social sexual experimentation with the nation’s military, quadrupling the deficit, inspiring an international coup for the Muslim Brotherhood, imperiling world security by playing a dangerous game of nuclear chicken with the nuts that run Iran, and devastating the future of the American economy with foolish energy policies was something, just hang tight. You ain’t seen nothin’ yet.

After such a clear admission of the president’s intent to ramp up his left-wing aggressiveness post-election, you would think there would be demurring, backtracking and some sheepish embarrassment from this administration. Instead, in classic Obama style, he’s doubled down on it.

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 06:08 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, April 04 2012

Listen

This last weekend I spoke at an event in Fort Wayne, Indiana, and I advised the crowd not to get too caught up in the potential for the Supreme Court to overturn the ObamaCare law. First of all, as I’ve said before, if the Supreme Court can manage to issue a ruling that suggests it is a constitutional right to dismember human children in the wombs of their mother – thereby upending the Declaration of Independence, Natural Law, and the U.S. Constitution in one fell swoop – I don’t trust them to get something like ObamaCare correct.

So I advised the crowd to operate this election season as though they will need majorities of conservatives in both houses of Congress and the White House in order for our Republic to survive this mandate.

But beyond that, regardless of what the Supreme Court decision is, and regardless of what the election results are in 2012, we’d be wise to consider where we are as a civilization. If that sounds overdramatic, maybe that’s the problem. Maybe we are so used to the daily back and forth of political disagreements and debates that we fail to grasp that what is being debated in ObamaCare is not a law, but the creation of a massively large bureaucratic state from which we will never escape. And maybe we are failing to grasp the fact that we are allowing such monumental decisions to be made by nine black robed lawyers. Or as Mark Steyn recently pointed out, just one dude:

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 06:07 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, April 04 2012

Other "don't miss" segments of the radio show today:

  • Here’s a first: Debbie Wasserman Schultz is left speechless.  After Schultz listed off all the reasons Dems made LA Mayor a chairman of their upcoming convention, LA radio host laughs saying maybe that sells everywhere else, but we’ve lived his failure here in LA. (listen)
  • Instead of doing the accusing of racism, the NAACP has the racist label attached to them for their generating of the Trayvon Martin hysteria.  George Zimmerman’s family tells them they will have blood on their hands if anything happens to George. (listen)
  • Climate change skepticism is now a sickness that must be treated according to one sociology and “environmental studies” professor from Oregon. She compared not believing the man-made warming hysteria to racism. To paraphrase Barney Fife, “I think she’s a nut.” (listen)
Posted by: Peter Heck AT 06:06 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, April 03 2012

Listen (Part One...the President is Full of Crap; Part Two...Listen to the Nonsense)

President Obama shifted into his prime demagogue mode in responding to reporters’ questions about the status of his cherished healthcare takeover scheme. The questions were inevitable, given the terrible defense his administration was able to offer for the unprecedented power grab authorized by the law. The president’s words were direct and pointed – call it his old Alinsky mind tricks (he stopped short of waving his hand ever-so-slightly while looking into the camera and saying, “You will accept the ObamaCare mandate now”).

Apparently, based on his word choice, the president is convinced that he can bully the Supreme Court of the United States the same way he bullied local governments back in the days of community organizing in Chicago. Here’s what he said:

"I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress," Obama said.

Good grief, man. That’s about as inaccurate a statement as he could have possibly crafted. First, if he’s confident that they will uphold the law, he wasn’t paying any attention to the proceedings. Granted, I don’t trust the Supreme Court to get it right, and they may very well end up ignorantly upholding this law. But to say that you’re confident following the bloodbath that ensued when Team Obama presented its defense of the individual mandate is an obvious fib.

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 06:09 pm   |  Permalink   |  1 Comment  |  Email
Tuesday, April 03 2012

Listen

I certainly have no great affinity or appreciation for the work that CNN’s Piers Morgan does. We’ve called him out a number of times on the program for anti-Christian bigotry and for being a classic liberal political propagandist by misrepresentations. But what happens when one such propagandist squares off in a bitter debate against another shameless liberal propagandist from another network? Fireworks, and a great deal of entertainment.

Such happened recently when Morgan invited on the always comical “race expert” of MSNBC, Toure Neblett. Now, the game was somewhat rigged because anyone paying attention knew it was going to be a battle royal. The two had already engaged in a tit-for-tat via social network site Twitter.

By the way, yes I know he prefers to go by his first name only, but in my book, you have to attain a certain level of success (ala Madonna, Cher, Sting) before you can expect that courtesy. Making up bull crap about race on far left cable news programs doesn’t count.

Anyway, here’s how the bicker battle began:

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 06:08 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, April 03 2012
 
It’s an axiom that we talk about often: the left, unable to justify their agenda through logic or sound reasoning, resorts to emotional appeals to state their case. That doesn’t mean that conservatives never use emotion to state their case – obviously, the trauma, professional and personal, that is caused by foolish liberal policy offers a great resource to illuminate to people tempted by the false promises of liberalism. I think emotional appeals can be and are appropriate when they are used to illustrate the wisdom of choosing a particular path. But it can’t be the sole basis of your argument. There must be some logical ground upon which you construct your position. With conservatives, it’s there. With liberals, it’s not.
 

 
That goes a long way in explaining why we’re seeing what we’re seeing from Barack Obama’s condescending lecture towards the Supreme Court. Take a look at this ridiculous statement:
"I get letters every day from people who are affected by the health care law right now, even though it is not fully implemented. Young people who are 24 or 25 who say, 'You know what, I just got diagnosed with a tumor. First of all, I would not gone to get a check-up if I hadn't had health insurance. Second of all, I wouldn't been able to afford to get it treated had I not been on my parents' plan. Thank you and thank Congress for getting this done.'"
And this is the case he is making for upholding ObamaCare. He’s asked whether it’s constitutional and his response is, “I’m getting letters from 25 year olds saying they appreciate what I’ve done.” Do you see how pathetic that is?
Posted by: Peter Heck AT 06:07 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, April 03 2012

Other “don’t miss” segments of the radio show today:

  • So any guesses as to what would happen if Rush Limbaugh were to suggest that a leading black liberal was a white man’s “dog?”  Would it be the media silence that occurs when a liberal radio host says it about black conservative Clarence Thomas? Hmmm. (listen)
  • The City of Minneapolis has decided handing out Bibles is too offensive during Gay Festivals, and has therefore suspended the First Amendment and banished the Bibles from the event. No word yet on whether they’ll go ahead and burn them. (listen)
  • Van Jones suggests Obama couldn’t lose black vote for any reason (even coming out as gay).  If race is the reason, why is it acceptable to vote for someone based on race, but not against someone for the same reason? (listen)
Posted by: Peter Heck AT 06:06 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Monday, April 02 2012

Listen

It’s absolutely revolting. Barack Obama has a horrendous record on the economy, on energy, on foreign affairs, and about everything else. But this is worse. Far worse. If you hadn’t heard, President Obama is the most aggressively pro-abortion president in our nation’s history. And he recently reaffirmed his unyielding commitment to legalized child killing in a speech to the nation’s largest abortion factory, Planned Parenthood:

In an unusually candid video addressed to Planned Parenthood, President Obama assured the billion-dollar abortion organization of his continued support and touted his record blocking efforts to defund the group by pro-life “professional politicians.”

Yes, because it takes a “professional politician” to believe in the Declaration of Independence, doesn’t it, Mr. President. There are many issues that I find the president’s wisdom sorely lacking, but there aren’t any where I see a manifestly evil mentality save this one. There’s just no other word for it when you pause to consider what he is defending. These are innocent babies being mutilated. And the President of the United States champions it.

And worse than that, consider that this is a video being used to help him raise money from the abortion giant and its supporters. The President is dealing in blood money.

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 06:09 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Monday, April 02 2012

Listen

I’m just trying to imagine what the reaction would have been if, at one of the thousands of tea parties around the country during the lead-up and enactment of ObamaCare, Sarah Palin had taken to the platform and declared that if Congress did not hear the voices of the people, thereby sending the massive government over-expansion back to the bathroom stalls of Satan from whence it came, it was time for the protests to “escalate.”

If she had chosen those words, what would the constipated one, Diane Sawyer, have said? Can you imagine how pained her face would have been in recounting that story? And beyond the grimaces reminiscent of internal distress coming from Sawyer, can you imagine what her chums over at MSNBC would have done with that one?

They’d still be using that line in a promo for The Ed Show.

Yet, not surprisingly, that is the precise word that “Reverend” Al Sharpton chose to use when working to ramp up racial tensions in Florida as the Trayvon Martin shooting saga continues to unfold. While some of his fellow liberals, including President Barack Obama, who spoke to the issue without knowing all the facts, have fallen silent, Sharpton took the exact opposite path. It’s what race hustlers do:

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 06:08 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Monday, April 02 2012

Other "don't miss" segments of the radio show today:

  • Sarah Palin may just get the best of Katie Couric yet.  While Couric grabbed headlines for guest hosting ABC’s Good Morning America this week, Palin grabbed more for guest hosting Couric’s old seat on NBC’s Today Show. “Game on.” (listen)
  • Joe Scarborough redefines his own definition of RINO by accusing conservatives of wanting women “chained to the radiator.”  Nothing too shameless for ratings and profit, eh Joe? (listen)
  • CNN’s Piers Morgan invites Arlen Specter onto his show, and while blasting the extremism of the conservative tea partiers, seem to forget not to be extreme themselves. (listen)
Posted by: Peter Heck AT 06:07 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Monday, April 02 2012

The race for Indiana’s 5th District Congressional seat has become a wide open contest since long time incumbent Dan Burton opted not to seek re-election. Most eyes were on former Congressman David McIntosh as the favorite to succeed Burton until Marion Mayor Wayne Seybold entered the race just before the deadline.

On Monday, I invited Seybold onto the program to talk about the race, his candidacy, and his take on the state of the nation.

Hear the full interview here.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 06:06 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Sunday, April 01 2012

In one day, I have noticed specific attacks on sugar. I was reading through an old Parade magazine’s “Sunday Joe” (Sunday, March 11, 2012, p. 18). Mika Brzezinski of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” is quoted:

We have a huge problem in our country when it comes to processed foods, sugar, and high-fructose corn syrup. Unless they’re regulated, we’re going to continue in a downward spiral toward obesity and bad health. I think the government should step in. One way to do that is to put a tax on soda.

Later in the day, I noticed an ad for an upcoming “60 Minutes.” I do not recall or know the name of the doctor they will be interviewing, but when asked if he considered sugar toxic, he responded, “Yes.”

An undeniable characteristic of liberalism is their propensity for expanding government control. So what do you think of proposals and demands for increasing regulation by federal government to regulate the diets of Americans? You are the folks who have demanded that government get “out of our bedrooms.” So is government in our pockets and every other room of the house OK with you? We live in an era in which demands are being made to legalize pot and some other currently illegal drugs and, at the same time, to criminalize foodstuffs like sugar.

These are coming from your kind, so what say ye?

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 06:52 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Sunday, April 01 2012

For more than half a decade, citizens of the land of the brave were subject to warning after warning of the abrogation of the Constitution. Every response to the act of terrorism brought to our shores on 9/11 was met with the cry, “Unconstitutional!” in blogs, news articles, and over televised and radio airwaves. And alongside this declaration was frequently found some version of a proverb attributed to Benjamin Franklin: “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

Anyone seen that around lately? Anyone heard it repeated incessantly over the airwaves lately? Of course you haven’t, because the ideology now making every move it can to undermine and outright shred the Constitution of the United States of America for a “little temporary safety” has the heart and soul of Big News and liberal minions.

The issue of the “Affordable Care Act” before the Supreme Court has everything to do with replacing liberty with a “little temporary safety.” Writes Kate Pickert for Time.com:

KEEP READING

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 02:49 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Sunday, April 01 2012

Ahhh, the land of left-believe and this day were made for each other. Indeed, one can consider April 1st the official holiday of liberalism. Here is an item worthy of their day:

The Arkansas Supreme Court on Thursday struck down the state's law banning sexual contact between teachers and students, finding that people 18 or older have a constitutional right to engage in a consensual sexual relationship.

A “constitutional right to engage in a consensual sexual relationship.” Wow! It must be in the Arkansas state constitution because I cannot find it in the Unites States Constitution after another careful reading.

Here is just part of the difficulty: if any educational institution cannot define and even regulate the conduct of its administration and teachers, then the door has been further opened to more sexual abuse opportunity. During my tenure as an officer in the United States Navy, I both learned and taught that sexual abuse was a punishable offense. What constituted sexual abuse? Well, one of the applications is whenever anyone used his/her authority to impose or imply that sexual favors were necessary in order to receive favorable treatment. This also applies to a subordinate who seeks to seduce a senior in order to receive special considerations or treatment. Sure, those involved are “consenting adults,” but the possibility of gross impropriety is always present in such circumstances. Therefore, regulations directed us away from behavior that could easily be, or become, abusive.

KEEP READING

Posted by: TheOld Salt AT 12:44 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Sunday, April 01 2012

man·date  [man-deyt] noun, verb, -dat·ed, -dat·ing.
noun
1. a command or authorization to act in a particular way on a public issue given by the electorate to its representative: The president had a clear mandate to end the war.
2. a command from a superior court or official to a lower one.
3. an authoritative order or command: a royal mandate.

Verb (with object)
10. to authorize or decree (a particular action), as by the enactment of law.
11. to order or require; make mandatory: to mandate sweeping changes in the election process.

Article upon article covering the Affordable Care Act reforms describes the significance of the justices’ review of the “individual mandate.” One Yahoo News link reports, “Shapiro, a senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute who has filed briefs on the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate, is covering the proceedings for The Daily Caller. If the individual mandate is struck down, would the rest of the law go down with it? More than likely, Shapiro said.” (Emphasis added).

Enter the Philadelphia Enquirer editorial staff to correct such widespread error and, at the same time, provide my lib-quote of the week:

KEEP READING

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 11:36 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Sunday, April 01 2012

In 2000 Generation Y voters aged 18 to 29 voted almost evenly between President George Bush and Vice President Al Gore breaking at 46 - 48 percent. Four years later this group gave Senator John Kerry a nine-point advantage at 45-54 percent over President Bush. In 2008 this young demographic gave President Barack Obama one of his strongest voting blocks at 66 - 32 percent over Senator John McCain.

A new focus group of youth from Ohio and South Carolina from a group called Resurgent Republic finds that young Obama voters are disillusioned and discouraged. Researchers found that young voters are decidedly unhappy with the direction of the country often using words like “wrong track,” “troubled” and “on the decline” a stark contrast from where they thought the country would go compared to four years ago.

Most realize that underemployment is a serious problem among 23-30 year olds after college, and they are not happy about it. Many express concern over raising gas prices. Reactions to the terms “hope and change” were decidedly cynical. These previous Obama supporters are now troubled by the deficit and national debt and their future. The research group concludes that without tangible results, and a substantive vision presented to them, these disillusioned Obama voters may be hard to re-energize when November rolls around.

Posted by: Micah Clark AT 08:09 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Sunday, April 01 2012

This is a quote from a speaker at what has been called the largest rally of US Atheists ever, which occurred in the nation’s capital over the weekend. The “Reason Rally” drew 10,000 people. Three times the number of their last effort dubbed the “Godless March” gathered in the rain of Washington, DC to shake their collective fists at their Maker. The crowd, mostly made up of younger adults under the age of 30, also heard a lot of heated rhetoric and attacks against the “religious right.” While decrying the evil of the influence of people of faith in politics, these atheists were hardly reserved about flexing their own influence in politics, which they apparently see as perfectly proper or superior to other American’s involvement. (Incidentally, everyone has a religious worldview they promote, whether their god is the Lord or themselves. It is just that not everyone realizes it.)

It is probably good that most of the speakers were not aware of a new study of Republican primary voters. Evangelical Christians account for just over half of the primary voter turnout this year. The study finds that 4.29 million evangelical Christian voters have cast ballots so far (50.53%). This is the highest rate ever recorded and a significant increase over the 44% evangelical voting rate in 2008. Turnout among evangelicals is up across the board, not simply in the south.

This increase in voter turnout should not’t really be a surprise. After three years of relentless attacks by this administration on issues of life, marriage, faith and family, more and more Christian voters are clearly saying enough is enough. (To understand this, take a look at the article on the AFA web site making the case that Barack Obama is the most “anti-biblical” President in US history.) Still, I am sure this demographic voting data is a surprise to much of the GOP establishment, which seems to dogmatically believe that all that really matters in the life of voters are their wallets.

KEEP READING

Posted by: Micah Clark AT 06:07 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
*
*
*
click between 3-5 pm ET
*
*