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.

Saturday, June 30 2012

One of the the most dangerous places to stand in Indiana within hours of President Obama’s evolution statement on marriage was between a reporter’s microphone and Congressman Joe Donnelly. He was all over the news distancing himself from the President’s belated public honesty about his support of homosexual marriage.

Donnelly seemed to know that Indiana generally supports preserving marriage for the next generation by a 60/40 margin. Yet, if most Hoosiers do not want to see marriage unraveled to the point that gender (moms and dad, husband and wife) or any other boundary no longer matters, one would guess that by even more overwhelming numbers, perhaps a 90/10 split, Hoosiers don’t like political doublespeak from their candidates.

KEEP READING

Posted by: Micah Clark AT 06:35 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Saturday, June 30 2012
Well, well, well. The Obamadoesntcare healthcare diktat passed muster with the Supreme Court. I'm a bit surprised by that.



I'm not surprised with the response. Responsible Americans are not liking this. Rightfully so. They see what is coming: increasingly higher taxes to pay for the healthcare of the irresponsible.

Don't think responsible, hard-working, normal Americans don't know this? Try this Market Talk response following the announcement of the Supreme Court decision:

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 06:17 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Saturday, June 30 2012

Even with Thursday’s court ruling, Obama’s law is by no means the last word on health care. Experts expect costs to keep rising, meaning that lawmakers will have to revisit the thorny issue perhaps as early as next year, when federal budget woes will force them to confront painful options for Medicare and Medicaid, the federal programs that cover seniors, the disabled and low-income people. Even some supporters of the law acknowledge that it’s only a first installment: get most people covered, and then deal with the problem of costs. (Carson Gerber, “Supreme Court upholds health reform,” Kokomo Tribune, 6/29/2012, p. A11, Kokomo Tribune reporters Ken de le Bastide and Scott Smith, and the Associated Press, contributed to this report)

The above excerpt came at the end of a longer article that included side panels highlighting many of the anticipated positives of this expanding federal government program. Those who followed the article to its end finally get to the “aha” moment of reality.

 

“Get most people covered, and then deal with the problem of costs.” Entrapment, coercion, exploitation, extortion - the liberal way. Once more and more citizens are entrapped into more government dependency, then impose the draconian taxes on responsible Americans to cover the skyrocketing costs.

KEEP READING

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 05:05 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, June 29 2012

Listen

Okay, maybe it’s wrong to use the word funny in the context of an absolutely demoralizing ruling that illustrates the thin strand by which our great American experiment is hanging. Indeed there is nothing funny about the erosion of individual liberty at the hands of an ever-growing federal monster. But there is something comical about what happened yesterday, and that is the high-fiving, hand-slapping, football-spiking celebration of liberals who don’t even realize what ignoramuses that are making of themselves in the process.

No, I’m not talking about the DNC spokesman who came out on Twitter in a profanity laced taunt. I’m not talking about the Democrats who fail to realize that the Court just gave a political gift to Mitt Romney’s 2012 campaign. I’m not talking about the hilarious double standard that emerged from liberals who, thinking the law would be struck down explained how “just because the Court says it doesn’t make it so,” but then quickly turned around and said, “because the Court says it makes it so.” I’m not talking about the bipolar liberal media who, thinking Roberts would side with the conservatives were busy talking about how ideologically driven he was, but then quickly elevated him to the status of a Greek god.

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:08 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, June 29 2012

Listen

After the Supreme Court’s decision yesterday I sent out one tweet. I wanted to say more – a lot more. But I had limited time before I was off to Indianapolis, and so I had time for one. I had even decided to wait until I was back and had more time to process everything. But before I walked out the door I watched Mitt Romney’s response to the ruling and that's all it took. Set aside all the legal wrangling. Set aside all the Roberts confusion. Set aside all the talking heads and their discussion of Obama’s vindication. Here was the bottom line: Mitt Romney just became far more attractive to freedom loving Americans.

A majority of people, as unbelievable as it is in this country, do not care about what happens in politics and government until it affects them personally. As such, elections are decided – primarily – by those who do care. And the energy that tossed Democrats out on their fanny in historic numbers in 2010 was just reignited by the Supreme Court a mere four months before the antagonist of freedom is up for re-election.

Romney could not have asked for a better script.

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:07 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, June 29 2012

Don't miss these stories from the radio show today:

  • Watching the liberal media coverage of the ObamaCare ruling was half-hilarious, half-sickening.  Within moments, they went from "just because the Court rules something, doesn't mean they're right" to "when the Court says something, they are right - that's the way our system works."  And they went from "John Roberts is a radical ideologue" to "John Roberts is a giant, a titan, a genius!"  They're pathetic. (listen)
  • So what got into John Roberts?  It's really not that tough to figure out.  The man has always been more concerned with the legacy and reputation of the US Supreme Court than he has been with upholding the Constitution.  That explains perfectly why he would engage in such a brazen act of judicial activism to the point of re-writing a law from the bench just for better PR.  Know who you are dealing with. (listen)
  • Congressional candidate Jackie Walorski joined me to talk about how the SCOTUS decision just made the November elections so incredibly critical - and not just the presidential race. (listen)
Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:06 pm   |  Permalink   |  2 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, June 28 2012

Some stories are so odd that you might think them not that newsworthy. I found myself beginning to wonder what I had signed up for on Monday during a hearing before the state Alcohol Beverage Commission as I listened to testimony over a strip club owner’s alcohol permit.

The judge was hearing an appeal of a decision in Kokomo of the local alcohol board to deny a new permit to the owner of multiple strip clubs. The owner had, by my count in reviewing the transcripts, 55 violations last year in his clubs for various health and service standards. Some were serious. Many were not, but all were still health department citations. That was probably the reason for the denial of an alcohol permit for a 7am-3am restaurant right next door to the owner’s largest strip club.

KEEP READING

Posted by: Micah Clark AT 05:08 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, June 28 2012

Many Americans anxiously awaited the ruling from the US Supreme Court on the Constitutionality of the Health Care Reform Act known better as Obamacare to most folks.

Interestingly, 50 years ago (two days ago), June 25th 1962, another ruling shook the nation and many believe contributed greatly to our rapid cultural decay.

The case of Engel v. Vitale stopped the practice of school children reciting a 22 word prayer at the start of each day usually along with the Pledge of Allegiance. Many know of the ban on prayer in school today, but very few know what was deemed so awful. What was this egregious prayer? Here it is:

“Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country.”

Any objective observation would conclude that our national problems and social ills have escalated dramatically since 1963 (perhaps even more so in the last 20 years, as various groups and ideologies seem to rise up to shake their fists at God.) In light of this, I wonder how many people would still believe that a simple daily recognition of a higher authority, respect for parents, teachers and our country among millions of American children was such a bad thing.

Posted by: Micah Clark AT 05:06 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, June 27 2012

Listen

Have you heard about what’s happening in Erie, IL? If not, you need to. It proves exactly what I’ve always said about the Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network (GLSEN) and their efforts to pervert kids, bully anyone who disagrees with homosexuality, and compel everyone (even elementary aged kids) to accept and condone the lifestyle.

I’ve said before that GLSEN, while based out of New York, is trying to pry its way into every school in every community across America to bring it’s “Christianity is wrong, homosexuality is right” doctrine into classrooms K-12. Sadly, they are often successful in doing so thanks in no small part to unyielding media support and a grave misunderstanding about what their objectives truly are (they market themselves as an anti-bullying, pro-respect organization...even though they bully and disrespect the traditional morality taught by Christianity and other religions).

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:08 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, June 27 2012

Listen

Liberals everywhere are readying themselves one way or another to cry foul should the Supreme Court of the United States strike down the unconstitutional ObamaCare law tomorrow. And while I agree with Rush Limbaugh that the major narrative of the left – the one that will be most often circulated, and the one the administration will settle on using in the campaign – will be that four white guys and a black “Uncle Tom” took away the healthcare of millions of Americans, that won’t be the only idiotic complaint the left makes.

In fact, many are already testing out their best objections. One I found particularly idiotic came from the left’s boy wonder, Ezra Klein at the Washington Post. Again demonstrating how little brain power one must muster in order to be considered a genius to, by, and for the left in this country, Klein broke out his thesaurus in an effort to make a really dumb position sound uber-intellectual.

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:07 pm   |  Permalink   |  2 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, June 27 2012

Don't miss these stories from the radio show today:

  • Joe Biden is out on the stump blaming Mitt Romney for "outsourcing" and "offshoring" (when did that become a word?) jobs during his time at Bain.  Left unmentioned by the VP: Barack Obama using taxpayer funds to bail out companies that "outsourced" and "offshored" so many jobs (GM) that liberal writers were livid enough to call for the company to go under.  Their record is killing them. (listen)
  • NPR has gone biblical - not in a pro-Jesus kind of way, of course.  No, they've gone biblical in their praise for Barack Obama, actually airing comments that just the simple sound of Obama's voice clears up the weather as well as the economy. In 2008, Obama started believing this nonsense about himself. Will it happen again? (listen)
  • The New York Times has long since lost its credibility as a trustworthy news source.  But they seem to be embracing that label as they shamelessly shill for anyone they perceive as a "rising liberal star." Their most recent embarrassment was the effusive praise they heaped on the boring Chris Hayes (of "fallen military members aren't heroes" fame).  Before you call someone a rising force, you better check their ratings. (listen)
  • Remember how Chris Matthews went loco in heaping blame for the Gabrielle Giffords shooting on conservatives like Sarah Palin, suggesting how her "violent rhetoric" and imagery was responsible?  Remember how he clammored on about not using violent terminology in our politics?  He just called on Obama to "put the knife" in Romney with a statements that are "real killers." (listen)
Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:06 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, June 26 2012

Listen

We’ve certainly taken up the topic on the radio show why an increasing number of young people are leaving the church. And so I have absolutely no problem with the fact that CNN took up a similar topic on their network. It’s just a foregone conclusion why they are doing so – the radical leftists that run the network and host their programming are interested in telling everyone how more and more Americans are starting to realize how silly Christian belief is.

As if there was any question whether I’m being fair to CNN or not, check out who host Don Lemon brought on to discuss this topic:

Don Lemon had two atheists on his show recently to debate why, statistically, more people under thirty allegedly doubt the existence of God than they did in 2007.

According to the Pew Research Center, the number dropped from 83% who “never doubted” God’s existence in 2007, to 68% in 2012.

How classic is that? In order to evaluate why this particular research center shows dropping percentages of Americans who have never questioned the existence of God, CNN thinks two atheists who have doubted the existence of God for a long time have the best angle on explaining this. No minister, no theologian, no Bible college professor – two atheists. Of course – what else would we expect from Ted Turner’s network?

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:08 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, June 26 2012

Listen

Just a quick question: who cares more about the impoverished? The person who advocates policies that would allow the impoverished to climb out of their poverty if they make the effort, or the person who advocates policies that ensures their poverty remains, but tries to make it more comfortable?

One of the most common liberal lines of argument is that conservatives just don’t care for the less fortunate because they don’t favor big-government spending programs and plans aimed at reducing poverty. It’s an easy argument to make, and rhetorically, it’s pure gold. After all, if you have a government program called the “Reduce Poverty Act” and someone votes against it, it’s pretty simple to paint them as an uncaring, insensitive to the plight of the poor, creep. And that’s exactly what liberal Democrats have taken to the bank every election cycle for generations.

KEEP READING

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

Don't miss these stories from the radio show today:

  • Barack Obama's attempt at obstructing justice may end about as well as Richard Nixon's did a few years back.  That's because Darrell Issa has called Obama out...big time.  The Congressman's letter points out that Obama's claim of Executive Privilege either means 1. the President is far more involved in Fast & Furious and the cover-up than he has let on, or 2. he is absuing executive privilege in dramatic ways.  Issa's right, and Obama's got some 'splainin to do. (listen)
  • Is it true that the gift that keeps on giving for Republicans - DNC Chairwoman, Debbie Wasserman Schultz - is being ousted by her party?  One former DNC chair has pointed out that her bizarre and extraordinarily partisan comments are not helpful and have destroyed her credibility as chair.  What a loss this will be for the right. (listen)
  • Obama's foreign leadership is again demonstrating why a new president is so necessary.  As he heaped praise upon the Egyptian uprising that ousted Mubarak, and then watched passively as the Muslim Brotherhood ascended to lead the country, we now see Egypt's new president promising to rekindle their past romance with Iran.  Yes, that's sure to bring stability to the region and world, isn't it? No wonder many are hoping Romney makes Condi Rice his VP. (listen)
  • The WashPo's Dana Milbank actually said that the media 'would love to have an Obama scandal to cover."  No joke.  Not only does this assume that the media would EVER willingly cover an Obama scandal, but it also suggests that there aren't any out there.  Fast and Furious, Solyndra, Secret Service... (listen)
Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:06 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Monday, June 25 2012

Listen

One of the common themes of television and media coverage today when it comes to homosexual behavior is that those who practice the behavior are victims, and those who have moral objections to the behavior are oppressors. It’s interesting that the same is not portrayed for other sexual behaviors...at least with the same intensity. For instance, there is no media and entertainment commitment to portraying adulterers as victims and those evil Christians who preach against adultery as oppressors who are simply trying to deny people the right to be with the people that they love.

I’m not saying that isn’t coming one day – given the addled state of the liberal mind, it probably is – but for some reason right now there are just a few sexual behaviors like homosexuality, bisexuality and transgenderism that get the protection of Hollywood and the media.

KEEP READING

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

Listen

When I got to Tennessee on Friday night, I had just finished listening to two audiobooks and had been away from the news that day. One of the first questions I was asked was this: “Did you see the Obama campaign now has an event registry program set up?” I have to be honest in saying I didn’t even understand what that meant. At first I thought maybe it meant that people were expected to bring gifts whenever they visited the White House. That would fit with the president’s narcissism problem, after all.

When I got a better explanation of what it really was, I couldn’t believe it. Maybe I shouldn’t be surprised anymore, but the arrogance of this administration continues to amaze me. If you haven’t heard, the president’s campaign has set up a campaign registry so that if you’re getting married or having an anniversary, people can give a donation to Obama instead of giving you a gift. I don’t even know what to say. I don’t know how the president’s most ardent supporters can possibly defend the pathetic nature of this appeal. I don’t know how the president can continue to rail against the exorbitant amount of money in politics, all while trying to suck up every penny not nailed down.

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:07 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Monday, June 25 2012

Don't miss these stories from the radio show today:

  • You know how MSNBC loved making fun of the birthers?  Well get this: a man so loony that he doesn't believe that a plane really hit the Pentagon on 9/11 has just debuted on the network as co-host of his own show.  (listen)
  • Rachel Maddow had a very embarrassing and awkward moment on Bill Maher's HBO program, with even the host incredulous at her non-response to such a simple question.  The moment was uncomfortable for anyone and everyone watching as she was asked if she supported RomneyCare.  It was hilarious despite the awkwardness.  (listen)
  • The Supreme Court upholds a part or two of the Arizona immigration law, but strikes down the rest as unconstitutional.  Don't miss how depressing that really is: they hold as unconstitutional an exact mirror of the federal immigration law Obama isn't enforcing.  How screwed up are these people?  (listen)
  • No surprise that NBC - the network that has become famous for editing and splicing video on behalf of liberal causes - put their "chief political correspondent" Chuck Todd in front of the cameras to tell everyone how bad the immigration ruling was for Mitt Romney. (listen)
Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:06 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Sunday, June 24 2012

The runaway government of liberals continues to trample American liberties as the food wars continue. (For instance, “Cambridge mulling soda ban;” “Preschooler’s Homemade Lunch Replaced;” “Davis High fined for soda sales violation.” Notice that the last article states, “Davis High School has been fined $15,000 after they were caught selling soda pop during lunch hour, which is a violation of federal law.” Let that sink in… selling soda in a public school during the lunch hour is a VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW! And note the typical bureaucratic stupidity of the law as noted by principal Dee Burton.)

Of course, there are many who side with these government actions and tell us that they are only doing what is “good for us.” Hey, I agree that sodas and snacks have become much more than the occasional treat they were decades ago as they began to first hit the market. I agree that there negative health issues arise from overuse. But the danger to Americans is not poor nutrition, in spite of how important that issue is; the danger is the creation of a government that gains greater and greater control over our everyday lives. Regardless of how tyrannical a government becomes, it will always be dictating what is “good for us.”

KEEP READING

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 06:52 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Sunday, June 24 2012

There is a new poll out that ought to be a call to action for every pastor and patriotic American. (That may irk some, but many of our founders would say the same thing. Consider what John Adams said about our Constitution’s need for a people of faith and a whale through a net.)

The Pew Research Center has found a dramatic shift among people under 30 in their view of God. Just five years ago only 17% of young people said that they doubt the existence of God. Today, that number has jumped fifteen points to 32%. More young people are expressing doubts about God now than at any time since Pew started asking the question. No other generational demographic in the survey changed more than 2% since 2007.

Though America is still a highly religious nation, Pew notes, “The Millennial generation is far less religious than were other preceding generations when they were the same age years ago.”

By the way, everyone believes in something, be it the God, a god or themselves. One report on the finding notes that an Atheist group called the Secular Student Alliance has gone from 81 affiliates on US college campuses in 2007 to 357 campus groups today.

Posted by: Micah Clark AT 06:36 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Saturday, June 23 2012

There is an interesting new study that finds some racial stereotypes are accurate when it comes to the 18.2 million Americans of Asian origin. The study of 3,511 Asians in America from the Pew Research Center finds that more than 60% of recent Asian immigrants have at least a college degree. Many work in high-paying fields such as science, engineering, medicine and finance. Pew observes, "Recent Asian arrivals are the most highly educated immigrants in U.S. history."

Interestingly, Asians have a stronger view of family than most of their peers in America. More than half say a successful marriage is one of the most important things in life vs. 34% of all Americans; two-thirds say being a good parent is a priority, too, compared to just 50% for the rest of the country.

The survey finds that Asian Americans are more satisfied with their lives, personal finances and the general direction of the country than Americans as a whole. They also have a median household income of $66,000. The US Median household income is $49,800.

Part of this success is linked to the finding that Asians are more likely to be married and to live in a multigenerational household. They are less likely to be born to an unwed mother. Such items concerning marriage and childbirth have long been recognized as major keys to avoiding welfare and poverty in America for people of any national origin.

Posted by: Micah Clark AT 06:34 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Saturday, June 23 2012

As the good ol’ campaign season shifts into high gear, it is increasingly simple to comprehend one of the Democrat tactics. They are going to beat their falsehood drum about TEA (TAXED ENOUGH ALREADY) party participants in order to attempt to peel “moderates” and “independents” away from the Republican party. For some reason that remains odd to me, Democrats believe that those claiming membership in the apathetic party remain “moderate” and “independent” when they subscribe to radical liberalism, but they are no longer “moderate” or “independent” if they align themselves with a party that espouses at least some conservative ideology.

Anyway, back on message...

Willingly aided by Big Media minions, remarks targeting TEA party participants are popping up frequently. Here are a couple from one of my local newspapers:

KEEP READING

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 05:48 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, June 22 2012

The wisest man ever to have lived, King Solomon, once observed “what has been done, will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.” Such is the case for some liberal political arguments. Regardless of past failed attempts, some myths seem to appear, float around unsuccessfully, only to reappear a decade later. (It is kind of like the notion that although socialism has failed on every continent in which it is tried, it will somehow work here because we Americans can do it better.)

The Indianapolis City-County Council has received an invitation to attend a July 25th briefing co-hosted by Planned Parenthood, The Peace Learning Center, Citizens Energy, Indiana Internal Medicine Consultants, and Lilly. The purpose of the briefing is to promote the passage of Proposed Ordinance #213. This ordinance creates a new taxpayer funded entitlement, ignores a $47 million budget shortfall, and takes a swipe at our marriage laws by giving marital benefits to homosexual partners of city employees.

KEEP READING

Posted by: Micah Clark AT 05:08 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, June 22 2012

I have a good deal of respect for Senator Richard Lugar in spite of some policy disagreements and nomination confirmation votes over the years. I have met and spoken to him several times, but I have no presumption whatsoever of speaking for him, or reading his mind in any way. However, I have to believe that he is not comfortable with the actions of President Obama even if he might agree with the ultimate policy outcomes.

Senator Lugar has co-authored an immigration proposal called the Dream Act. Congress is deeply divided on the issue with some seeing it as a charitable opportunity for children of illegal immigrants, and others seeing it as amnesty or rewarding the breaking of our laws.

With the issue stalled in Congress, the President has decided to legislate from the Executive Branch with a political directive via the Homeland Security Agency that implements the Dream Act and provides work permits to around 800,000 illegal immigrants.

This blatant end run around Congress, which could also be unconstitutional, may prove to be more controversial than the Dream Act itself. I am guessing that such a move, even on behalf of his own legislation, is not popular with our senior Senator who has respected and operated honorably within the rules of legislative process for nearly four decades.

Posted by: Micah Clark AT 05:06 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, June 22 2012

Is economics too complicated for a five year old to understand?

Hudson Hinckley doesn’t think so. Try it out.

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 05:05 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, June 21 2012

Listen

The petals are off the rose, and there’s nothing the teleprompter can do about it. Seriously. If President Obama’s recent speech in Cleveland wasn’t enough to convince you that this guy is spent – that he’s out of words to try to defend his destructive policies – you might want to have your blood checked, as you may have officially become an ObamaZombie.

The President, in the midst of the economic misery he has perpetuated through foolish policies, recycled his now oddly dissonant and disconnected-from-reality speeches from the 08 campaign. It had even loyal supporters heading for the exits because it’s just so bizarrely out of touch.

And there’s no one who does a better job of pointing that out than the Great One, Mark Steyn:

KEEP READING

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

Listen

Obviously we’ve talked a lot about the President simply ignoring the laws of Congress whenever he disagrees with the laws of Congress this week. How could we not? Given that such action is the very definition of dictatorial behavior – and given that the left was mired in the phony outrage of how George Bush was trying to become dictator with the Patriot Act for 7 years – it’s certainly a pressing issue. And that’s not to mention the dire economic consequences the ObamAmnesty edict will have for the already sagging Obamaconomy.

But several folks have been telling me in emails that regardless of the inappropriateness of his actions, the President is doing it for a reason – he’s going to benefit politically. I can only assume that the people who are emailing this idea are doing so because they have been watching a bit too much CNN or MSNBC, whose anchors are doing all they can to spin this move and discuss anything other than how unconstitutional and dictatorial it is.

KEEP READING

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

Don't miss these stories from the radio show today:

  • Far left comedian Jon Stewart has been ripping Mitt Romney for his wealth as part of the attack strategy the Obama campaign has coordinated with their media allies.  But it seems Mr. Stewart makes 300 times the median American salary, has a net worth of $80 million, owns three opulent mansions, and is on track to have more money than Romney when he is Mitt's age.  What a fraud. (listen)
  • The same Henry Waxman who scolded the right to tone down the violent rhetoric a couple years ago just called Republicans "murderers" because of their record on the environment.  Two questions: 1. Does he even know what murder is? 2. Does it even dawn on him that he supports the physical killing of children in their mother's womb? (listen)
  • A local letter to the editor stirred up some angst amongst listeners, but should be seen for what it is: the logical outworking of the shackled mind of a captive.  The letter suggested that since we "ignore" parts of the Bible about shellfish and slavery, why shouldn't we ignore it when it comes to homosexuality?  Our Biblical illiteracy in this country is alarming, but the letter deserves a response. (listen)
  • Rush Limbaugh calls out the "ignorant" Sam Donaldson for throwing the race card to defend Obama.  This is the model all of us should follow.  If liberals want to be idiotic, we should call them out as such. (listen)
Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:06 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, June 20 2012

Listen

I was honored to be joined on the air today by the state of Indiana’s soon-to-be senior Senator, Dan Coats. With the contempt vote taking place on Eric Holder today, the looming ObamaCare decision coming from the Supreme Court, and the President’s ObAmnesty dictate fresh in everyone’s mind, there was plenty to talk about.

Here are some of the questions I asked the Senator:

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:08 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, June 20 2012

Listen

So what happens when a liberal gets caught in the very rules of political correctness that liberals have set up for everyone else to have to follow? They can count on their fellow liberals to pop up to defend them and explain that it’s really still the conservatives who are racists. It’s half funny, half revolting what liberals have done to the word racism in America. They’ve completely neutered it. It has no meaning anymore. Seriously.

It’s been so overused and misused by liberals who want to attack conservatives, but can’t do so substantively, that it is a meaningless pejorative in our modern lexicon. That doesn’t mean people like to be labeled racist. It simply means that it doesn’t pack nearly the punch that it did – or should. And I’m going to guess that by the time the 2012 election is over, the left will have overused it so much (the “vote for Obama or you’re a racist” slogan is about all they are going to have to try to scrounge up votes for this failed presidency) that it will be comical.

KEEP READING

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

Don't miss these stories from the radio show today:

  • NBC is becoming notorious for deceptive video edits.  First it was Ed Schultz doctoring a Rick Perry video to make it look like he was a racist, then came the George Zimmerman video where NBC spliced it to make Zimmerman look racist, and now the network has been caught selectively editing a Mitt Romney video to make it appear he's out of touch with ordinary Americans.  It really is a new day, as once again the new media exposes the deception of the lamestreamers. (listen)
  • Demonstrating again the strong devotion liberals have towards cleaning up the political discourse of the nation, MSNBC anchor Lawrence O'Donnell mocks Ann Romney using horses as a therapeutic treatment for her MS. It's only June...can you imagine how low these creeps are going to go by November? (listen)
  • In 2007 Barack Obama blasted George Bush's administration for trying to "hide behind executive privilege" while protecting its officials.  Today, Obama hides behind executive privilege while trying to protect his Attorney General Eric Holder.  Obama's toughest opponent these days is the pre-president Obama. (listen)
  • Continuing to prevent Dr. King's dream of a colorblind society from becoming a reality, liberal professor and commentator Melissa Harris-Perry took to the stage with some freaking bizarre comments about 9/11 offering white America a new "racial enemy."  What idiocy. (listen)
Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:06 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, June 19 2012
Listen

So we were riding a tram around Tomorrowland in Disney World’s Magic Kingdom Park the night of the recall vote in Wisconsin a couple weeks ago.  It also happened to be the night of one of the Miami Heat – Boston Celtic NBA playoff games.  The folks in the car in front of us were checking their iPhones regularly, and at one point I saw a disgusted look on one of their faces as they announced, “Well the forces of evil just won.”  Assuming they were talking about the NBA game, I leaned forward and said, “Did LeBron and the Heat win or something?”  The guy said, “Oh no, I was talking about the recall vote in Wisconsin.  That **** Governor Walker won.”



You’d be proud of me.  Well, Jen was, at least.  I held my tongue (I was on vacation, after all) and just said, “Oh, do you know about the game?”  He didn’t, and that ended our conversation.  But the more I thought about it, the more ridiculous the comment became to me.  “Forces of evil?”  Really?  Is that what we’ve come to?  Now don’t get me wrong, I do think that there is evil in our culture.  And I think we come across it in the political realm.  I think the abortion lobby is evil – they advocate the killing of kids, after all. 

But Scott Walker?  Think about what this man did to generate such scorn.  He decided to take on the public sector unions – folks whose luxury pensions and benefits packages were being paid for by the taxpayers.  The same union leaders that decry corporate executives making out like bandits at the expense of the diligent workers were defending their members making out like bandits at the expense of the diligent taxpayers.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:08 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, June 19 2012
Listen

Remember when liberals told us in the 90s that Bill Clinton’s perjury wasn’t impeachable because it wasn’t about anything serious – just sex?  They said things like, “Now if this was about willingly and knowingly trampling the Constitution, then we’d be willing to talk impeachment.”  Really?  How about now, then?



There are so many things wrong with the President’s recent decision to issue de-facto amnesty to a group of illegal immigrants, it’s tough to start addressing them.  But we have to.  There are many people who will only know what they’re told on CNN if you and I don’t point out some of these fairly obvious, startling, and outrageous realities of his actions.  So let’s start with the most alarming: the president has willingly trampled the Constitution with his action...again.

Victor Davis Hanson puts it this way:

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

Don't miss these stories from the radio show today:

  • Barack Obama declares to a group of wealthy celebrities that they are the "ultimate arbiters" of which direction our nation goes.  If you trust Drew Barrymore and Susan Sarandon to define our culture's moral compass, Obama's your guy.  If you don't...he's not. (listen)
  • Kim Kardashian actually compares herself to the Virgin Mary in an interview.  This, shortly before declaring she had her first sexual encounters around 15.  Yet another one of Obama's "ultimate arbiters" no doubt. (listen)
  • Time's liberal editor Fareed Zakaria even gets it: public employee union pension promises are the biggest financial threat this nation faces.  What Scott Walker is doing should be replicated around the country if we want to survive.  (listen)
  • Evangelistic atheists win in California by getting another Nativity Scene banned from public property.  What miserable little lives these folks must lead. (listen)
Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:06 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Monday, June 18 2012

Listen

All I really want to know is how many of you laughed at me when I said the day before I left on a Disney vacation with a two and half and 10 month old that I was “looking forward to some relaxation time?” Having been to Disney a number of times and always observing with a sympathetic eye those poor schmoes battling the elements, fighting their strollers every bit as much as the heat, shelling out hundreds of dollars to try to make hot and cranky kids happy, you would think I would have known better.

But I didn’t. For some reason, I had really built this trip up in my mind into being one that would wipe away my tiredness and rejuvenate me at the onset of summer. Ha. But despite finding my feet throbbing every night and my body about to expire from heat exhaustion on a daily basis, these last two weeks have been two of the best of my life. Here’s the top five reasons why:

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:08 pm   |  Permalink   |  2 Comments  |  Email
Monday, June 18 2012

Listen

I’m gone for two weeks, and when I come back, I find that we are picking up exactly where we left off. When we left off, the Obama campaign was so desperate, they were frantically trying to cut and paste radical demographics together to establish a winning coalition – Hollywood activists, gay activists, feminists...you know, the heartbeat of America.

And now, it appears we’ve moved on to illegal immigrants. And in his desperation to hold onto an office that is slowly slipping from his grasp, Obama seems content to trample what even he knows (and has said) is constitutional. Once again, what’s interesting is that this scene once again pits Barack Obama against Barack Obama. Here he is in 2011 on the very question of him arbitrarily granting de-facto amnesty to illegals without Congressional action:

KEEP READING

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:07 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Monday, June 18 2012

Don't miss these stories from the radio show today:

  • There's still no one on the right that does it better than Sarah Palin. Her speech at RightOnline recently (an event I sadly had an opportunity to attend, but had to miss) was Palin at her best. From Obama's dog eating to the truth about how Drudge and the blogs have dismantled the left's Democrat Media Complex, she nailed it. (listen)
  • Rick Santorum said what needed sayin' on CNN with Candy Crowley. Crowley trotted out the "loss of Republican moderates" nonsense again, and Santorum thoughtfully exposed the truth: the Democrat media only cares about reaching across the aisle when it's Repubs voting with Dems. "Moderate" to them means voting with liberals. (listen)
  • Ruth Ginsburg predicts the Supreme Court will be "sharply divided" on upcoming rulings like ObamaCare. Gee, thanks for that brilliant deduction, Ruth. No one could see that coming with 4 hard-core, anti-Constitution justices on the bench. (listen)
  • My friend Craig Jackson joined me to talk about Obama's decision to ignore another law he doesn't like. They call this dictatorial in other places, you know. (listen)
Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:06 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Sunday, June 17 2012

This may surprise a lot of our readers in newsrooms and government office cubicles, but according to Gallup Polling, 43.6% of Hoosiers describe themselves as politically conservative. Only 16.5% of Hoosiers describe themselves as politically liberal. Those who don’t know, or who are inconsistent philosophically and therefore call themselves moderate, make up 36.2%. This may explain why Republicans generally hold a five-point advantage over Democrats according to that same Gallup Poll.

Indiana’s conservative leanings generally explain why we tend to pick Republican statewide candidates. However, there are exceptions, but those almost always occur with Democrats who can also talk like Republicans, initially at least. Almost all of our recent, successful, top tier Democrat politicians such as Evan Bayh, Frank O’Bannon, Joe Donnelly, and Baron Hill were generally perceived, or described as moderates, blue dogs or sometimes even conservatives.

This reality would appear to make former Indiana Speaker of the House, John Gregg, highly formidable and seem to have all the things needed to win the governorship. He is very likeable, folksy and far from aloof. He is articulate, smart and has a good sense of humor. He also has shielded himself from the liberal lunacies of the Nancy Pelosi, Al Franken chunk of his party. Gregg had credibility when he spoke of his pro-life, pro-second amendment stands and his fiscal conservatism. Such assets, when properly marketed, can be politically deadly to even the most experienced of Republicans (just ask former Hoosier Congressmen John Hostettler, Mike Sodrel or Chris Chocola.)

Aliens from Berkley, California, must have abducted this John Gregg version 1.0 about three weeks ago. The John Gregg version 2.0 they left behind has shelved all those assets so quickly that even some reporters are wondering what has happened.

Just when John Gregg had the opportunity to work on his biggest political weakness, being essentially unknown outside of Southwest Indiana, he inexplicably has decided to present a new liberal version of himself that Hoosier voters generally don’t select in statewide candidates. This new John Gregg first picked Vi Simpson of Bloomington, who is essentially the Nancy Pelosi of the Indiana Senate. Simpson is ardently pro-abortion, pro-gay and one of only 5 Senators to oppose the “Castle Doctrine” this year (SB 1) recognizing the right to self defense in one’s home from outside intruders.

Gregg then threw away his pro-life advantage by trying to call himself a pro-life Planned Parenthood supporter and hosting a series of news conferences at the state’s largest abortion provider’s clinics. At those events he blasted Mike Pence for his opposition to taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood.

If you happened to look at the list of Indy Pride participants at the gay pride parade on Saturday, you would have seen “Gregg for Governor” listed right after the float for the “Great Lakes Leather Society” a sexual bondage group that always appears at this sad festival of hedonism. John Gregg’s involvement with Indy Pride shoots holes in his claim to support traditional marriage and his attempt to distance himself from President Obama’s “evolution” on the issue. As you recall this was when the President finally admitted that he sees two men as the moral and legal equivalent of a married mom and dad.

There are those who are saying that this run of the mill liberal Democrat is the real John Gregg after all. They say that it is the one required by those who pull the strings at the Democratic National Committee and the Democratic Governor’s Association. I, for one, miss the old John Gregg and the days when it was still possible and allowable to be a true moderate in the party of Jefferson and Jackson.

Posted by: Micah Clark AT 06:49 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Saturday, June 16 2012

I almost never go to the theater to see a movie. When I do, it is usually a children’s movie. I love movies, but older, pre-1970 ones make up the vast majority of my viewing. However, I went to see the new film “For Greater Glory” late last night.

The movie is based upon true events from the 1920’s in Mexico in which the country’s president systematically squelched religious freedom and began to persecute devout Catholics who refuse to go along with the government’s laws, particularly those prohibiting public expressions of faith. (Can you see why this film caught my attention and interest?)

For Greater Glory is a remarkable movie. It is entertaining, inspiring, emotional and timely too. I expect many movie critics to ignore or hate it for a variety of reasons including even its morality and values that defy its R rating.

I wonder if that restricted rating was given by the MPAA to deter some of this film’s most likely supporters. I did not hear a single profanity and there are no sex scenes. I suspect the rating came solely from two difficult scenes involving an effort to get a character to renounce his faith. I cannot say more than this without spoiling some things for those who may yet see the film. I will spoil the title, however. In one powerful scene, which probably drove some Hollywood movie and art critic types crazy, Peter O’Toole, plays an elderly priest who learns that government troops are coming to punish him for holding public mass outdoors and wearing his clerical clothing in public. (Taking one’s Christian faith outside the four walls of the church has never been all that popular.) O’Toole’s character is tearfully urged to hide as he sits in one of his church pews. He responds, “There is no greater glory than to die for Christ” a thought which carries throughout the rest of the film.

This is one secular movie worthy of seeing and supporting. In one sense it is reminiscent of films in the Golden Age of Hollywood when respectful portrayals of faith were common on the silver screen. It is also very good entertainment with high quality production values.

You can view the trailer and see more about the movie here: http://www.forgreaterglory.com/

Posted by: Micah Clark AT 08:16 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Saturday, June 16 2012

Speaking of the disappearing Democratic moderate, the state’s largest homosexual demands group, Indiana Equality, is gleefully reporting news given them by Gregg running mate Vi Simpson. Apparently, the Indiana Democrats have adopted a first of its kind party platform plank for their state convention that officially opposes protecting marriage. This places the platform at odds with many Democrat voters, candidates and office holders.

At various times, as many as two-dozen Democrats in the Indiana General Assembly have voted to protect our marriage laws or to allow Hoosiers to decide this issue rather than leaving it in the hands of unelected judges. According to a recent national Gallup poll, 34% of Democrats support the protection of marriage. In Indiana, those numbers may be even higher. In any event, this is a significant portion of voters to write off and offend, particularly when the candidates at the top of the ticket for US Senate and Governor claim to support traditional marriage and our marriage statutes. (Only 22% of Republicans support the unraveling of marriage through support of homosexual marriage.)

The Indiana Marriage Protection Amendment, whose language is identical to wording adopted several years ago by Kentucky and Wisconsin, was co-authored by House Democrat Dave Cheatham last year. It received 70% support in the House, and 80% in the Indiana Senate. It will appear in the next General Assembly. (Ironically, Vi Simpson’s likely replacement, popular State Rep. Peggy Welch, will be among its strongest Democrat supporters.) If passed, the amendment will go to the ballot for Hoosier voters to approve or reject in November 2014.

Posted by: Micah Clark AT 06:55 am   |  Permalink   |  1 Comment  |  Email
Saturday, June 16 2012

Sir Winston Churchill remarked in 1939, “I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma.” This seems to be an appropriate description of cultural liberalism as well.

According to popular notion, liberals are all about expanding freedom. Anything that threatens their concept of personal freedom is met with combative opposition. Abortion, same sex marriage, legalization of marijuana and perhaps other “recreational” drugs, public use of profanity. These are but a few of the pet freedoms and rights championed and perpetuated by contemporary liberalism.

So when a real threat to liberty arises, we would expect the left to marshal their forces against it. However, riddles wrapped in mysteries inside enigmas cannot be expected to respond to issues with lucid logic and comprehension.

KEEP READING

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 06:36 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, June 15 2012

Editor's Note: Peter Heck returns to the studio and to the Liberty Tree on June 18.

Much has been made of, and indeed Peter has talked plenty about, the decision of President Obama to come out in support of gay marriage in the United States. But besides the theological ramifications (which come first), and the celebrations amongst Hollywood elites, how does the decision affect the 2012 electoral map?

When former Bush strategist Mark McKinnon was on Face the Nation on CBS a while back, he thought that from an electoral standpoint the decision might be viewed as courageous, but nevertheless foolish.

Offering an overview of some of the most competitive battlegrounds in Democrat Obama’s re-election bid, McKinnon said, “You net look at those states and think about where’s that going to help him, probably just one -- Colorado. And maybe New Hampshire.”

In other swing states -- including Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Iowa, Arizona, Missouri and North Carolina -- “arguably, it’s a net loser,” McKinnon said of Obama publicly expressing support for same-sex marriage in an interview May 9 with ABC News.

One of the other dynamics that McKinnon did not bring up was the effect this issue will have on social conservatives. Many of them were not (and are not) pleased with the ascension of Romney to the top of the Republican ticket. The question that was debated prior to Obama’s announcement was whether or not opposition to Obama’s radical agenda would be enough to motivate these socons to get out and vote for Romney. Some suggested a socon Veep pick could help.

At least at this point, neither one of those seems overly necessary to bring in the socons. Not after Obama made this move. Obama made the calculation that the money was worth it – that there wasn’t a bad time to do the wrong thing if it gained you some funds. He may have chosen poorly.

Posted by: Anna Anderson AT 05:00 pm   |  Permalink   |  2 Comments  |  Email
Friday, June 15 2012

It is a rather sad commentary on the death of common sense when it takes research to prove that men and women are actually different and that both mothers and father’s matter in the lives of children.

Two more studies, one of which, a massive, peer-reviewed survey, confirm that both moms and dads matter. Intentionally denying a child of either has risks and consequences. Both studies appear in Social Science Research. The first one, conducted by a University of Texas sociology professor, is significant for its “gold standard” of research methodology. This large scientific study of 2,998 adults found that those who were raised by homosexual parents (intentionally denied an opposite gender parent), were at significantly higher risks and rates of harm. Those harms include: higher levels of poverty, sexual abuse, gender confusion, homosexual behaviors, sexually transmitted diseases and mental health problems.

The report concludes, "children appear most apt to succeed well as adults when they spend their entire childhood with their married mother and father, and especially when the parents remain married to the present day."

The other study takes aim at efforts by the American Psychological Association to put a good face on homosexual parenting through a more rigorous analysis of the studies the APA uses to claim that children raised by homosexual parents do as well or better than those from married heterosexual parents.

Homosexuals are free to live as they choose, but when they intentionally deny a child an opposite gender parent due to their own self-interests or sexual choices, some skepticism is appropriate. We shouldn’t be surprised to learn that children raised in those settings suffer. Whatever else two men living together may be, they are not a mom. It is rather amazing that we need research to prove moms and dads are both important, but we live in an age when all truth is relative and such confusion is the result.

Posted by: Micah Clark AT 09:45 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, June 14 2012

Editor's Note: Peter Heck returns to the studio and to the Liberty Tree on June 18.

This isn’t really happening in America, is it? You remember not long ago there was quite a bit of talk about the Obama food police going through the lunch box of a young student to make sure the meal her mom packed met with the government standards. There was some controversy surrounding that incident and whether it was simply miscommunication (as the school suggested) or the Jello Gestapo (as the parents suggested).

Well, it’s kind of difficult to excuse or explain away this one:

One can find more evidence of the erosion of true federalism in the state of Utah. In a report proffered by Jonathon M. Seidl for The Blaze this past Thursday, a Salt Lake City-area high school is forced to pay a $15,000 fine for operating a soda machine during school hours. The administrators for Davis High School must now find alternative means to fund fine arts programs or cut the programs accordingly. The report by Mr. Seidl indicates that the operation of the vending machine during school hours was "accidental," as it occurred during lunch hour. As stated in the report:

Federal law requires the school to turn off its soda machines during the lunch period, which is 47 minutes a day. And Davis High school did turn off the machines in the lunch room. However, the school didn't realize that there was another machine in the school bookstore that wasn't being turned off. And when the food police realized it, the school was hit with a $0.75 fine per student for the duration of the offense.

The most appalling thing about this whole story isn’t the fact that the feds are taking $15,000 from a school for such a silly reason. The most appalling part is the fact that there is actually a federal law regulating when a coke machine can be turned on. How is that possibly – in any Gumby view of the Constitution – the purview of the federal government?

I don’t care how large you view the commerce clause to be or how wide your view of the necessary and proper clause is, that is such a blatant overreach of federal law into the autonomy and power of a state it isn’t even close.

Furthermore, exactly who is going around policing these kinds of things anyway? And how much are they being paid? And who is paying them? I’ll give you one guess on the latter question – you and I are.

Just remember this story the next time you hear liberals complain about how much money Republicans are “draining” from public schools in support of alternative education models.

Posted by: Anna Anderson AT 05:00 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, June 14 2012

Many readers would think that if a leader today said a section of the US Economy is “doing just fine,” it must be a reference to the government sector after billions of dollar in spending has caused it to grow beyond belief. Yet, President Obama was actually talking about the private sector when he made this comment last Friday. The President told a group of reporters, “The truth of that matter is that... the private sector is doing just fine."

Sadly, such is not the case. Here are some reality checks for those in Washington, DC, looking out and thinking things are just fine:

  • According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 23 million people are now either out of work, underemployed, or have given up looking for work altogether;
  • The unemployment rate has remained at or above 8% for 40 months in a row;
  • Since President Obama took office, the average duration of unemployment has doubled from 19.8 weeks to 39.7 weeks;
  • According to the Department of Agriculture, since President Obama took office, the number of Americans receiving food stamps has increased by 45% from 31.9 million to a record 46.4 million;
  • Half (49.1%) of the population are living in a home in which at least one member is receiving some type of government assistance;
  • The median household income has dropped by more than $4,000;
  • According to Lender Processing Services last month 5.6 million home mortgages were either 30 days delinquent or in foreclosure;
  • The real estate web site service Zillow reports that nearly one-third of all home mortgages (31.4%) today are upside down (owners owing more than their home is actually worth);
  • In the last three years, the national average for gas prices have climbed from $1.84 to $3.61.

The White House and many in the media quickly covered for the President. They said that his comments were taken out of context. He knows that the economy isn’t doing fine and that was why he had the press conference in the first place.

It will be interesting to see if this was just a fleeting gaffe or something that haunts the President’s re-election campaign for a while. We have a new poll question on this subject at our web site here: www.afain.net

Posted by: Micah Clark AT 08:39 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, June 13 2012

Should the state (government) be concerned with the institution of marriage? This question is currently generating a lot of heat, but very little light. To answer this question with any certainty, we must first understand the purpose of government. It would seem that governments exist to preserve and protect. Who or what is preserved and protected depends upon the form of government and the ideal upon which it is founded. The state of a monarchy, founded upon the principle of the "divine right of kings", exists to preserve the lineage of the monarchy and protect the interests of the royal family. The state of a dictatorship, based upon the concept of "might makes right", is interested in preserving order and protecting the dictator and his colleagues. A communist state, which is founded upon the principle of "from each according to his ability; to each according to his need" [Karl Marx] tends, in practice, to reward the party faithful (the needy) and take from the general population (the able).

The American system of government, a democratic republic, is founded upon the principle of protecting the "unalienable rights" that have been endowed upon the people "by their Creator", "that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Another concept that guides the government is the principle of protecting the interest of "the least of these." These are Christian principles. Thus, America is a Christian nation, not by religion, or the practice of religion, but by the underlying principles of Christianity that guided the founding fathers in their establishment of government.

There is significant historic evidence that the government has passed laws to protect the poor, the weak, and the disenfranchised. There are laws to protect certain minorities, women, and children. One example is E.E.O.C., which protects the employment interests of minorities and women. Many laws are passed to protect the interest of children, such as the child labor laws.

KEEP READING

Posted by: Keith E. Ewing AT 05:00 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, June 12 2012

Editor's Note: Peter Heck returns to the studio and to the Liberty Tree on June 18.

There’s no question that everybody at Attaboy Productions, Inc. is a big fan of Ronaldus Maximus. In fact, I think he makes Peter’s top four presidents of all time. Nonetheless, there is a line that need not be crossed. This is that line:

The bids are lofty for a vial that once held Ronald Reagan’s blood, now up for grabs at an online British auction house. At the moment, the leading bid is $5,081 for a 5-inch glass vial with “dried blood residue from President Reagan,” drawn from him at George Washington University Hospital after a 1981 assassination attempt by John Hinckley Jr.

Who has an idea like this? And in case you’re wondering who possibly got their hands on this vial to begin with, oh it was just a weirdo relative of one of the lab techs who was actually there at the hospital that fateful day. And he held onto it for just a moment like this. You’ll just love the explanation they gave for why they’re selling it:

The slender glass tube with green stopper once belonged to a relative of a Maryland-based laboratory technician who actually analyzed the contents more than three decades ago. The mysterious keeper-of-the-vial held onto it, and eventually informed officials at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library of its whereabouts.

After some back and forth, the vial keeper got the green light to sell it, assuring the auctioneer that “everything was OK, National Archives was not interested in what I had, nor was the Secret Service, the FBI and other agencies ... it was simply something that was of no importance at this time, and that I was free to do with whatever I wanted with it.”

The vial keeper added, “I was a real fan of Reaganomics and felt that President Reagan himself would rather see me sell it, rather than donating it.”

I don’t claim to speak for Mr. Reagan, but I tend to think that if Reagan himself were still here, he would say something like, “Dude...that’s dried blood. It’s gross. Just throw the bottle away.” But then again, who am I to criticize someone engaging the free market when the opportunity presents itself.

And maybe my question shouldn’t be, “Who would sell something like this?” Maybe it should be, “Who would BUY something like this?” Time will tell.

Posted by: Anna Anderson AT 05:00 pm   |  Permalink   |  2 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, June 12 2012

AFA of Indiana’s hat goes off to Elwood Mayor Ron Arnold and the city council for their work to protect and improve the character of their town. On Monday, they responded to an effort by a bar located right in the center of town wanting to convert their facility to a strip club.

The city had a problem many towns face when circumstances like this arise. Their zoning ordinance was out of date with what is legally allowable for cities to do to curb the documented harmful effects of sexually oriented businesses (increased crime, lower property values, urban blight).

Mayor Arnold called and asked us to review their ordinance. We sent it to the best adult business attorney in the nation. He updated it and sent it to the council. However, during that time both sides mobilized. On the night of the vote, rumors said that the council might table the whole thing, allowing the bar to precede.

Thankfully, pastors, business owners, and citizens spoke out and showed up in droves for a standing room only capacity crowd. It was a loud and raucous meeting, but in the end the council heard loudly and clearly that this was not what most people wanted in their town. The ordinance was passed on a unanimous 7-0 vote.

I had been asked to be ready to testify if necessary. (I doubt I could have been any more effective than the local outcry.) I say this only to make the point that, in my preparation, I came across a remarkable recent survey from Fort Worth, Texas. The study by Duncan and Associates extensively surveyed a large group of real estate appraisers and realtors. Not surprisingly, they almost universally (97%) said that sexually oriented businesses harm nearby residential and business property values. More surprisingly, was when asked to determine the diminishing effect of this harm, at what distance does this depreciation stop? The negative impact on property values was felt 2800 feet from an adult business. That means if one lives within 9 football fields of a strip club, bookstore or adult novelty store, your home or business value suffers and you pay for it!

Posted by: Micah Clark AT 09:13 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Monday, June 11 2012

Editor's Note: Peter Heck returns to the studio and to the Liberty Tree on June 18.

For those anxiously awaiting to hear the final news (and I know that you were), but managed to miss the hard-hitting headline a couple weeks ago, it seems that the first ever transgendered beauty pageant, going by the name of Jenna Talackova, did not win the crown. Many tears were shed:

The first-ever transgender contestant to compete in the Miss Universe Canada pageant has lost her bid to win the title.

Jenna Talackova, 23, competed with 61 contestants Saturday night. She was among the final 12 contestants.

Talackova, who was born a male, underwent a sex change four years ago. The Vancouver, British Columbia, native was initially denied entry to Canada's pageant because she was not a natural-born female. Donald Trump, who runs the Miss Universe Organization, subsequently overruled that decision.

The 6-foot-1 (1.8-meter-1 centimeter) blond beauty strutted the runway and competed in the bikini and formal wear contests.

So at least there are moral victories. This individual who was born a man was still able to strut the runway and parade around in a bikini. Isn’t it amazing how back and forth the left goes on these kinds of things? In one breath, beauty pageants are demeaning to women, demonstrating the leftovers of a bygone era of chauvinistic paternalism where men objectified women and treated them only as objects of meat to be used for their pleasure.

But just wait long enough and in the next breath, those same pageants will be regarded as the height of femininity – a rite of passage that every man wanting to shed their parts and become a woman should have the right to engage.

Undoubtedly the post-pageant commentary from lefties will include all the typical nonsense about shattering glass ceilings and being a pioneer. It will include comments about how Jenna is a Jackie Robinson of his/her day and that one day she will be enshrined in the Smithsonian. Blah, blah, blah.

If you’re really looking for a silver lining, consider the one that Peter talked about on the radio back during the original controversy: maybe this will at least give married men who want to ogle after women who aren’t their wives pause, lest they tune in and actually be ogling a man. Yikes.

Posted by: Anna Anderson AT 05:00 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Monday, June 11 2012

Liberals on the Indianapolis City-County Council have dusted off a 2002 proposed ordinance and reintroduced it now that the Democrats hold a 16-13 majority.  The proposal went nowhere when former Councilor Karen Horseman attempted it during Republican control. Councilor Angela Mansfield may have a much better chance this time of forcing taxpayers to fund marital style benefits for homosexual partners of city employees.  (Ordinance # 213 also includes unmarried heterosexuals.)

Proponents claim that this is not an attack upon marriage or an undermining of our marriage law; rather it is simply an extension of employee benefits.  However, if that were true, it would have been written very differently. There wouldn't be a goofy and fraud inviting “Domestic Partner Registry” in which people attest that they are “sharing each others lives in an intimate and committed relationship.”  (What does that mean? My dog probably has this view of his relationship with us.) 

In other words, if you work for the city and care for your live-in 80 yr old grandmother, too bad.  However, if your sleeping with some woman you met at a bar, sign her up for free taxpayer funded health insurance.  (By the way, widely respected research expert Larry Bumpass, writing in Demography magazine, reports that while sixty percent of couples marrying for the first time today will remain together for life; only ten percent of domestic partnerships last even five years.)

Most importantly, the city of Indianapolis is facing some dire financial challenges.  WRTV 6 recently quoted the city controller as saying that Indianapolis will likely end up with a $50 million budget shortfall by year's end.   Public safety, undoubtedly a top priority, is not exempt.  The same report states the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department currently has a $15 million deficit, which has impacted new recruitments of police officers, vehicle replacement and perhaps most frightening, the purchasing of body armor for patrol officers.

Is this really the time to create new taxpayer-funded city entitlements?    In response to this question, the supporters (and even some weak-kneed Republicans afraid of the homosexual demands groups) have said that this is a “miniscule” annual cost of only $200,000 to $400,000 dollars.  Yet, that amount would replace a lot of body armor and several police cars.

That mentality is how we got into this fiscal mess as a nation. It reminds me of what one congressman once said, “A few million here, a few million there and pretty soon you’re talking about real money.”
 
It seems that Ordinance #213 may well pass.  However, Mayor Gregg Ballard, who has made a point of making “public safety priority one” and fiscal discipline with cuts to all sorts of other agencies, could successfully veto it.   Your contacting him is important, particularly about the cost and fraud concerns (unless the government is in the bedroom, how do you know who is a domestic partner and who just signed up for free health insurance?).

You can ask the Mayor to hold the line on spending and new entitlement programs (which always exceed budget predictions) with a phone call and email using this contact page:

http://www.indy.gov/eGov/Mayor/getintouch/Pages/ContactUs.aspx

Posted by: Micah Clark AT 01:09 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Sunday, June 10 2012

Editor's Note: Peter Heck returns to the studio and to the Liberty Tree on June 18.

It’s pretty incredible to watch the same Democrats who have favored the stunningly high corporate tax rate, personal tax rate and regulatory nightmares for businesses like Obamacare react in disgust when the wealthy businesspeople make the logical decision to bug out of the United States to somewhere else.

Their reaction is entirely predictable (indeed it’s been predicted by conservatives for a long time), and one of the tragic pitfalls of socialist thought – you eventually run out of other people’s money (because they either are drained of their money or get the heck out of Dodge).

Take, for example, Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer’s reaction when Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin made the decision to renounce his citizenship just in time to save the 15% capital gains tax he would have incurred once Facebook went public:

He fumed "Mr. Saverin says he's a global citizen, but it just so happens that the country where he has chosen to reside has no capital gain tax. This tax avoidance scheme is outrageous."

...

Sen. Schumer said something similar to the Socialist Unit Party's propaganda sheet. "Saverin has turned his back on the country that welcomed and kept him safe, educated him and helped him become a billionaire. This is a great American success story gone horribly wrong."

Over at American Thinker, Christopher S. Brownwell found this statement of Schumer eerily similar to another government that didn’t take kindly to perceived disloyalty. Namely, communist East Germany, who built a wall to keep its citizens in. Perhaps that is the next step on Schumer’s mind:

How should one evaluate those who leave the German Democratic Republic?

There can be only one answer. - Both from the moral standpoint as well as in terms of the interests of the whole German nation, leaving the GDR is an act of political and moral backwardness and depravity...

Is it not an act of political depravity when citizens, whether young people, workers, or members of the intelligentsia, leave and betray what our people have created through common labor in our republic to offer themselves to the American or British secret services or work for the West German factory owners, Junkers, or militarists? Does not leaving the land of progress for the morass of an historically outdated social order demonstrate political backwardness and blindness?

When propaganda did not work, the GDR built the Berlin Wall.

With their punishment of success and stifling of entrepreneurship and risk-taking, there’s where the Democrats have us heading: mirroring a civilization that had to build walls to keep its people in rather than one that everyone was dying to get in. Lovely.

Posted by: Anna Anderson AT 05:00 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Saturday, June 09 2012

Editor's Note: Peter Heck returns to the studio and to the Liberty Tree on June 18.

There’s a that will blow your mind available over at MoneyNews.com. In the video, the experts lay out how misconstrued, distorted and manipulated our so-called “unemployment rate” has become through the years. That isn’t the case just during the Obama years. It has been for a long time.

This “official unemployment rate” has been manipulated throughout the years. The current version does not include discouraged workers (those who stop looking for work, or no longer can qualify for unemployment benefits) and the underemployed (those who take part-time jobs just to get by).

Rep. Duncan D. Hunter, R-Calif., stated in The Washington Times, “The official unemployment rate treats this subset of Americans, totaling as many as 88 million people, as if they just vanished . . . call it what it is, an accounting gimmick.”

So if that’s the case, what’s the real number? As we head towards the November elections, what is the real number of Americans that would like to find good, steady work, but simply cannot in the Obamaconomy? You’ll be stunned:

The real unemployment rate is an eye-opening 22.3%, according to John Williams with Shadow Government Statistics . . . nearly triple the “official unemployment rate.”

Over one in five Americans…almost one in four Americans...that are effectively “unemployed” in America right now. Imagine that being reported on the news. Imagine what it would do to the public perception of the wisdom of Obama’s policies? Imagine what it would convince those on the fence about the promise of a second Obama term?

Now, here’s the scary part. When you watch the video you will see many experts who suggest that things may be about to get much, much worse than that if we don’t have a dramatic change in economic policy soon.

Posted by: Anna Anderson AT 05:00 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, June 08 2012

Editor's Note: Peter Heck returns to the studio and to the Liberty Tree on June 18.

One of the thing that frustrates me beyond words is when the abortion broads on the left constantly talk about wanting to keep the government out of the private medical decisions of a woman and her doctor. Why? Because time and again, they prove with their allegiance to left wing policies that if there’s one thing they don’t mind, it’s the government intervening in private medical decisions.

Take Planned Parenthood’s chief, Cecile Richards, and her recent op-ed on the subject of why Mitt Romney is going to kill every woman in sight:

His promise to strike down the Affordable Care Act and its requirement that health plans cover birth control without co-pays, along with his pledge to end the nation's family planning program -- which provides preventive care to nearly 5 million women -- and his vow to "get rid" of Planned Parenthood would have real and serious consequences for millions of women nationwide.

Unlike Mitt Romney, we won't let politics interfere with the health care that one in five women in America have relied on at some point in their lives.

So, we don’t want government telling a woman what she can or can’t do with her body, but we can’t accept a guy like Romney who wants to keep the government from telling a woman (or man) what she (or he) can or can’t do with her (or his) body? Yeah, Cecile, makes total sense…as always.

Kate Pavlich at Townhall commented on this very truth:

Predictibly, Richards is using the "women's health" argument in defense of ObamaCare, saying Mitt Romney is "no friend to women's health." Ironic considering Mitt Romney is married to a woman who had five children, beat breast cancer and lives with MS.

Let me say without equivocation: Cecile Richards and her child-killing gang do not come close to speaking for all (or even a majority of) American women.

Posted by: Anna Anderson AT 05:00 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, June 07 2012

Editor's Note: Peter Heck returns to the studio and to the Liberty Tree on June 18.

Well if this isn’t a sign of the times, I don’t know what would be. You may have heard about one of the most recent battles over the Ten Commandments being displayed on public property – this time in the Giles County (VA) School District. As expected, the school wants to keep them there as a tribute to influential historical law codes, and the anti-religious freedom zealots on the left want them removed. What you may not have heard about is the proposed “compromise” being offered by one of the federal judges.

Eighteen months ago, a parent objected to the Ten Commandments being posted in a district high school as part of a huge collage of documents linked to America’s political and legal heritage. Several other documents in the school display reference God, including the Magna Carta and Declaration of Independence, but no one is asking that those be taken down or edited.

The school district does not want them removed and the case remains in U.S. District Court.

Now federal Judge Michael Urbanski has offered a compromise. He suggested scrapping the first four commandments and leaving just the final six. Urbanski suggested that could resolve the dispute since the first four commandments directly refer to mankind’s relationship to God and the final six concern mankind’s relationship to creation, other people, and things.

“You can’t have a display or discussion of American history and law without reading about, or mentioning God,” Mathew Staver of Liberty Counsel told WND. “It’s just part of who we are, it’s what shaped our Western Civilization.”

Liberty Counsel, which is representing the school district in court, rejects the judge’s proposal and so does the parent, who is allied with the American Civil Liberties Union and the Freedom from Religion Foundation.

When you hear folks on the left like “Silent Joe” Donnelly complain about conservatives not wanting to compromise (like Richard Mourdock), this is a prime example of why. Compromise with idiocy only ensures that you will end up with a greater degree of idiocy than you had to begin with. Standing on principle (and sanity) is the much wiser course of action.

Posted by: Anna Anderson AT 05:00 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, June 06 2012

Editor's Note: Peter Heck returns to the studio and to the Liberty Tree on June 18.

This is going back a few days, but words can’t express how irked I get watching programs like The View. I know they are geared towards women, but sometimes I sit and ask myself, “What women actually would enjoy this stupidity?” Nevertheless, I happened to catch a few of the early moments of Barack Obama’s recent appearance on that program.

In case you didn’t hear about it, the President made a very bizarre statement that to this point no one has really been able to figure out. He said that any election is going to be tough when you’re named Barack Obama. What does he mean? That the great unwashed masses are so racist and bigoted that they can’t possibly accept someone named Obama to be their president? Uh, didn’t that ship already sail past the dock in 2008? Or is Obama concerned that a bunch of non-racist and non-bigoted people that overwhelmingly elected him in 2008 have suddenly turned bigoted and racist in the last 4?

How desperate can you be to avoid making the obvious recognition that people’s discontent is fueled by how poorly you’ve done your job, man?

For what it’s worth, I’m glad I’m not the only one scratching my head over Obama’s mindless remarks – which by the way, managed to secure wild applause from the dingbats in the crowd. I say that with all the love and respect that they would extend to me. Here was NRO’s Jonah Goldberg trying to make sense of it as well:

Watching the video from The View, it is hard to know what Obama meant by the line. Noah’s right that it didn’t sound like he was claiming the forces of bigotry are always going to make things difficult for a guy named “Barack Obama,” though that’s how it reads on paper. If that is what he meant, it’s an awfully uncharitable description of the country he is supposed to be representing and leading. The forces of bigotry could only make the election tight if they exist in sufficient numbers to constrain the share of votes available to a black president with a “foreign” sounding name. Is that really something the man who gave that One America speech in 2004 wants to be saying? It’s also pretty ludicrous given that he had the biggest margin of victory for a Democrat in nearly a half century.

Joy Behar clearly thought that’s what he meant — why else throw in the bit about his middle name? Behar’s attitude is precisely that sort of smug self-righteousness that will hurt Obama in this election. Recycling the tired narrative that voting for Obama is a way to prove you’re not a bigot won’t work the way it did in 2008 because Obama actually has a record now. His presidency isn’t an abstraction, it’s something people have lived with.

I hope that Goldberg is right – that line about how Obama’s smug self-righteousness will hurt him this time around. We always hear about how Obama is the smartest president we’ve ever had. That obviously has been proven false. In its place, perhaps its time we recognize he is the most narcissistic president we’ve ever had.

Oh, and if you have any insight into what the president meant, please let me know.

Posted by: Anna Anderson AT 05:00 pm   |  Permalink   |  1 Comment  |  Email
Tuesday, June 05 2012

Editor's Note: Peter Heck returns to the studio and to the Liberty Tree on June 18.

Yet another indication of the mounting desperation by Team Obama – or maybe it’s yet another indication of the severe narcissism that dominates this White House – or perhaps it’s both: apparently the president has decided it would be a good idea to list himself amongst the White House website’s online tribute to previous presidents. Potential foreshadowing aside, there is some pretty naked, gratuitous self-promotion at play when you script together an online comparison of yourself to other “great” presidents.

Granted, it wasn’t that long ago that Obama suggested that he was one of the great presidents of all time, but apparently he decided to codify that conclusion on the White House website for anyone who might have missed it.

Check out what Investors Business Daily had to say about the move:

...faced with the apparently frightening possibility of losing his reelection bid, Barack Obama has inserted himself into the online White House bios of almost every president in the last nine decades. To somehow share and compare their achievements. At one point Obama even draws his wife into the biographical additions.

Imagine the emotional insecurities of a grown man who would have henchman find and gratuitously insert even the faintest link between this 44th president and almost every president back to Calvin Coolidge --"On Feb. 22, 1924 Calvin Coolidge became the first president to make a public radio address to the American people.....President Obama became the first president to hold virtual gatherings and town halls."

Wow. I’m no liberal and don’t pretend to be. But it’s surely got to be getting harder and harder to publicly state your support of this crew.

Posted by: Anna Anderson AT 05:00 pm   |  Permalink   |  1 Comment  |  Email
Tuesday, June 05 2012

The Parents Television Council has a new study of broadcast television looking at the major networks. Their findings comparing a five year period finds that, across all networks, use of profanity on prime-time broadcast entertainment programming increased 69.3% from 2005 to 2010.

Making this news even worse, the largest increases were found in the use of the harshest profanities, and in explicit references to genitalia and bodily functions. The largest increase occurred in the 8:00 p.m - 9:00 p.m. time slot once called the “Family Hour.”

WARNING: EXPLICIT DESCRIPTIONS; SKIP IF YOU’VE ALREADY READ ENOUGH

Across all networks and prime time hours, use of the bleeped or muted f-word increased from 11 instances total in 2005 to 276 instances in 2010 – an increase of 2,409%.

Across all networks, use of the bleeped f-word in the Family Hour increased from 10 instances in 2005 to 111 instances in 2010 – an increase of 1,010%.

Across all networks and prime time hours, use of the bleeped or muted s-word increased from 11 instances in 2005 to 95 instances in 2010 – an increase of 763%. (This does not include CBS using a bleeped s-word in the title of its sitcom $#*! My Dad Says – or NBC’s use of a scripted, unbleeped s-word on the September 23rd episode of 30 Rock.)

The Fox broadcast network showed the greatest per-hour increase in use of profanity from 2005 to 2010, with an increase in all profanity across all prime-time hours of 269%.

Posted by: Micah Clark AT 09:49 am   |  Permalink   |  3 Comments  |  Email
Monday, June 04 2012

Editor's Note: Peter Heck returns to the studio and to the Liberty Tree on June 18.

According to a shocking decision from the New York Court of Appeals, child pornography is no longer necessarily illegal. This outrageous ruling of the black robed lawyers represents the most recent confusion our leaders have in distinguishing between liberty and licentiousness (abuse of liberty):

The New York Court of Appeals ruled unanimously last week that viewing child porn online is not necessarily a crime. Morality in Media (MIM) president Pat Truman tells OneNewsNow the decision came in a case where authorities found more than 100 illegal images stored in the browser cache of a former Marist College professor's work computer.

In 2007, college technicians were examining the malfunctioning hard drive when they encountered the porn, much of which was downloaded and stored. This ruling does not change James Kent's 141 convictions in connection to downloading child pornography, but it does reverse the two convictions dealing with porn discovered in the cache.

"What they said is as long as you don't download the material or take possession of it in some way, then you're free to do that," explains Trueman. "Well, of course this is a pedophile's dream, and you're going to have more child pornography produced and distributed because people in New York are free to view it now."

It’s not difficult to see where this will lead. As Trueman points out:

"This means that an individual can go online, look at child pornography, look at streaming video of children being raped, and that's not a crime in New York," the MIM president laments. "It is a crime in, I think, virtually every other state. It's certainly a crime under federal law."

He adds that the court "seemed to have bent over backwards to protect those who are looking at child pornography in New York."

Now, the good news is that New York state lawmakers took swift action to craft legislation to fix this problem. But as our society moves consistently in the direction of sexual anarchy at the behest of the left, it won’t be long until it’s not just appeals court judges who fail to see sexual immorality for what it is.

This is what happens, slowly but surely, when your culture abandons moral absolutes. What is viewed as liberty and freedom quickly becomes the death of the freedom, liberty and dignity of others.

Posted by: Anna Anderson AT 05:00 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Monday, June 04 2012

This week the Marriage Maryland Alliance turned in 115,000 petition signatures to put a repeal of the state’s homosexual marriage law narrowly passed by the state legislature on the ballot this November. That’s twice the number of signatures needed for the referendum. The voters will decide this issue, and in spite of Maryland being a “blue” (Democrat) state, no one should dismiss this effort, which is being driven in many ways by a large contingent of African-American church leaders. Even in the most liberal county in the state, 15,000 Marylanders signed the petition to repeal the legislature’s effort to undefine marriage.

Minnesota is also going to have a marriage referendum this November that could make it the next state with a constitutional amendment protecting their marriage statutes.

Incidentally, those who think that devaluing marriage is inevitable and that same-sex marriage will occur due to the views of those under 30, may have a much longer wait than they think according to new polling and analysis of recent votes in North Carolina and California. I will share that data next month in an AFA weekly email.

Posted by: Micah Clark AT 09:47 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Sunday, June 03 2012

Editor's Note: Peter Heck returns to the studio and to the Liberty Tree on June 18.

As this school year draws to a close around the country, educators are preparing for the introduction of a new set of nationalized educational standards known as “common core.” These standards, generally speaking, are intended to be less specific about actual instruction and more broad, capable of uniting various disciplines of study.

But common core means that the basic values and principles established by the standards are universally enforced in multiple student courses. That is cause for extreme concern if those values and principles are in line with much of the liberal orthodoxy behind curriculum and textbooks embraced by the world of academia.

Take, for instance, the concern many conservatives are expressing for what will happen with the already controversial subject of science:

Rachel Sheffield of The Heritage Foundation says these common standards are troubling.

"The introduction of national common core science standards ... should be a cause for concern, similarly as the English and the math standards should be a cause for concern -- just encroachment on states' authority to set their own academic standards," she warns.

Though she admits there is a definite need to improve student achievement in science, Sheffield maintains that centralized standards are not the answer.

"Centralizing education is not the way to go about doing it. What we need to do is to put more [power] into the [hands] of parents -- those closest to the child who can make decisions for students through policies such as school choice that give parents the opportunity to choose the school that best meets their child's needs," the researcher contends.

Local control. That’s the message conservatives have been preaching for decades. What works in Tuscaloosa may not work in Sacramento. And the values of the heartland may not be expressed in the standards established and promoted by the experts on the coasts. That’s the problem with common core. The core of various parts of America is anything but common.

Posted by: Anna Anderson AT 05:00 pm   |  Permalink   |  1 Comment  |  Email
Sunday, June 03 2012

If I absconded with the funds of the American Family Association of Indiana, or concocted an exorbitant contract with AFA leading to its financial demise, I’d bet that such news would make headlines in the liberal media loaded with ugly details, glee and scorn.

Yet, when such is the storyline for a far left organization, it apparently doesn’t merit much coverage at all. You probably are not aware that Indiana’s largest homosexual demands organization has filed for bankruptcy. According to a homosexual blogger, Indiana Equality “has been plagued for years with a poor reputation for financial mismanagement and inefficiency. Last year, it was also discovered that longtime treasurer Dan Funk had stolen funds from the organization.”

The blogger continued, “Controversy has always swirled around the organization's poor decisions - including hiring Mark St. John, a lobbyist with a checkered past, to perform day-to-day organizational management for an exorbitant salary. Most of the money raised by the group has gone directly into St. John's pockets over the past several years and many insiders blame the former hired gun for the organization's woes. St. John has reportedly threatened to take the group to court to force the cash strapped organization to pay out the rest of his contract.”

Indiana Equality writing off its creditors doesn’t mean that they are in any way backing off on their radical agenda. In fact, you can bet that they have been working to pass a new ordinance in Indianapolis, which will appear this coming Monday. If passed, it will force taxpayers to pay spousal benefits for the homosexual partners of city employees.

Given his unsolicited, and unnecessary opposition to the Marriage Protection Amendment in the Indiana legislature last year, don’t hold your breath expecting Mayor Greg Ballard to defend marriage simply because he is a Republican. Some predict that in spite of its price tag and the city's budget deficits ($15 million in IMPD and public safety alone) a veto of a homosexual partners benefits package passed by the new Democrat majority is still unlikely.

You may want to contact your City-County Councilor with your view of this domestic partner registry and benefits ordinance from Councilor Angela Mansfield (D).

Posted by: Micah Clark AT 09:45 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Saturday, June 02 2012

Editor's Note: Peter Heck returns to the studio and to the Liberty Tree on June 18.

As Planned Parenthood continues to market themselves as a healthcare organization, they continue engaging in behavior that sickens any virtuous, feeling human being to their stomach. Here’s the latest from the child-killing factory:

Rumors began to spread around the Ft. Worth area when a former Planned Parenthood executive converted to Christianity in Denison and told her pastor that Planned Parenthood was planning something horrible in Ft. Worth. Pastors, like the rest of us, talk. Her pastor told another pastor, Dr. Michael Dean of Travis Avenue Baptist Church, in the fall of 2011.

Not yet knowing what Planned Parenthood had up their sleeve, or where their big idea might land, Dean contacted The Edna Gladney Center, and together they formed the Life Advisory Team to explore the sinister possibility of Planned Parenthood making inroads in southwest Ft. Worth. Unfortunately, Planned Parenthood was too secretive. Before any action was taken, ground was broken.

Ground broken on what, you ask? A giant late-term abortion clinic positioned right next to an adoption agency. There’s the class of Planned Parenthood. That is what liberal Democrats defend. That’s what Susan G. Komen gives thousands of dollars of donations to. That’s what Barack and Michelle Obama call a healthcare organization.

In case you live under a rock and don’t know, “late term abortion” is the official terminology used for what is known as “partial birth abortion.” It’s where a human child is half-delivered, keeping the face of the half-born infant in the birth canal so as to muffle her screams. The abortionist then inserts scissors into the back of the neck, opens them up and sucks out the living child’s brains.

To the left, that is a “legitimate medical procedure” (those are the actual words from an Obama fundraising letter).

With as horrific as it is to have a facility like this open up right next to an adoption clinic, perhaps there’s no greater contrast between the way the left and the right views human life and how we solve difficult social considerations of “unwanted children.” That’s not to say I applaud the murder facility’s opening. But it is to say that it should open our eyes.

Posted by: Anna Anderson AT 05:00 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Saturday, June 02 2012

A May 26th story in the Wall Street Journal confirms what many of us have heard – half of all Americans are now on some form of government assistance. According to new data from the US Census Bureau, 49.1% of Americans live in a household that receives at least one government benefit. There are many households that receive more than one form of taxpayer funded aid. That is up from 30% in the last large recession of the early 1980’s in which unemployment, inflation and interest rates were at much higher rates.

There are a lot of things that could be said of these numbers. l have some questions too. What aid is effective and the most helpful? Are there fewer stigmas to government aid than there were in the past? Does this widespread government assistance mean that voters will, or will not “bite the hand that feeds them” if a candidate supports cuts in aid or government spending? Is this massive dependency an intentional part of a bigger plan by some political elites, as first suggested by Columbia University scholars Cloward & Piven? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloward–Piven_strategy)

There is one answer we do know; this condition is inconsistent with the history of the free-enterprise system and it is not what our nation’s founders envisioned for us.

Posted by: Micah Clark AT 09:41 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, June 01 2012

Editor's Note: Peter Heck returns to the studio and to the Liberty Tree on June 18.

Historically, Republicans have benefitted from the public perception that Democrats were weak on national defense and largely unsupportive of military funding in Congress. That manifests itself every four years when there is talk amongst politicos about the “absentee vote” coming in from overseas military personnel helping the Republicans.

Barack Obama seems to have a desire to reverse that trend, as he is making strong appeals to military families:

Obama lost veterans nationally in 2008, but he won those under age 60, besting Vietnam veteran Sen. John Kerry’s performance in 2004. The president is making a big push for the military vote in battleground states with large military installations including North Carolina, Colorado and Virginia, the Post reported. He is also pushing such actions as increased funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs, launching jobs programs for vets and winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

No one knows for sure how this will end up, but the President’s decision to “spike the football” in relation to the killing of Osama bin Laden (what Peter calls the “Obama as Rambo Routine”) has definitely provoked the ire of some veterans groups.  And current polls show Romney with a massive lead among vets.

Perhaps the most concerning to Obama is the “Veterans for a Strong America” group that some have suggested could be the 2012 version of the 2004 Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. It was the Swift Boat Vets who did untold damage to Democrat nominee John Kerry by outing his true record from Vietnam in a series of devastating ads.

Posted by: Anna Anderson AT 05:00 pm   |  Permalink   |  1 Comment  |  Email
Friday, June 01 2012

This may be the reaction of most Hoosiers to the news last week that Congressman Mike Pence had selected first-term State Representative Sue Ellsperman to be his running-mate for Lieutenant Governor. Before his opponents could try the common “one-heartbeat away” tactic to draw into question the qualifications of a little known legislator, Democratic candidate John Gregg shocked everyone with his announcement that he had chosen 28 year veteran and Minority Leader State Senator Vi Simpson of Bloomington.

Most observers had expected Gregg to pick Fort Wayne Mayor Tom Henry for his local government experience and geographic balance. (All four of these executive branch candidates come from south of Indianapolis.) The shock came in the form of ideological balance, rather than geography or experience. Senator Simpson is among the most liberal members of the State Senate. Unlike John Gregg who casts himself as a moderate blue dog Southern Democrat, Simpson is an avowed advocate for abortion, Planned Parenthood funding, same-sex marriage and pretty much the entire liberal left-wing playbook.

This ideological divide has raised some questions about how the two Democrats will reconcile their philosophies, or which view on certain issues is to be the prevailing view of their administration. Over the next few months, as the campaign unfolds, voters will have a chance to see if these running-mate selections were a wise choice that proves to help or hinder each candidate’s campaign. It may also test the old adage that people mostly vote for the person at the top of the ticket.

Posted by: Micah Clark AT 09:39 am   |  Permalink   |  1 Comment  |  Email
*
*
*
click between 3-5 pm ET
*
*