Podcast Show Notes

Charlton Heston fought long for freedom. Without his work at the NRA, we wouldn’t have justices Alito and Roberts. Today victory was won.

Plus the post-partisan candidate plans a partisan coup, while offering Americans a plan to make fossil fuels more expensive. (Hat Tip: The Campaign Spot.)

John McCain departs from the Kerry playbook and endorses the California marriage amendment.

Why can’t Johnny do math? Maybe, the teachers don’t know how to teach it. (Hat Tip: Right Mind.)

Canadian Private Schools produce better results than public schools.

The latest victim of political correctness: Father’s Day cards. (Hat Tip: Where Is Jodi?)

Click here to download, click here to add this podcast to your Itunes.

IMPORTANT: Please take our listener survey.

Try GotoMyPC free for 30 days! For this special offer, visit www.gotomypc.com/podcast.

The would-be First Lady of the 2004 election cycle was often the target of criticism for her off-the-cuff remarks on the campaign trail, and for her support of left wing advocacy groups. So much so, in fact, that The H.J. Heinz Co. sent out 50 letters to news organizations to “squash rumors circulating on the Internet and radio talk shows that it is involved with Mr. Kerry’s campaign.” [link]

In 2004, she changed her name from Teresa Heinz to Teresa Heinz Kerry during the campaign. After Kerry’s defeat, she changed her name back to Teresa Heinz, and has quietly faded back into affluent obscurity

The video below is currently being aired overseas. Is this agenda-driven advocacy or is it just clever marketing?

That it is not being run in the U.S. suggests the former. Of course, in this election cycle, I can’t imagine the DNC would knowingly allow the carefully manicured image of their candidate to be pulled into the culture wars with such a provocative commercial sponsored, at least indirectly, by the spouse of their former standard-bearer.

Despite the recent ruling by the California Supreme Court, and the resulting flood of homosexual marriages, the Religious Right has been largely silent in this election cycle. I suspect the Dems would just as soon leave a sleeping giant alone.

VIDEO LINK

If you haven’t already, like Paul tells us in Ephesians 6:11, “Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes. ” (NIV) Some crazy news from our friends at CitizenLink.org and Jennifer Mesko just fired me up.

Elaine Huguenin, a Christian photographer is getting her First Amendment rights tossed over the garden wall. This is a “heads up”.

Same-Sex ‘Marriages’ Erode Religious Freedoms

‘California’s judicially imposed social experiment has hastened the demise of religious freedom across the U.S.’

As same-sex couples line up to get “married” in California today, religious groups across the nation are preparing for more of their rights to be trampled.

“What most trusting Americans fail to grasp is the correlation between the advancement of the homosexual agenda and the gradual erosion of our religious liberty,” said Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst for Focus on the Family Action.

“California’s judicially imposed social experiment in marriage has hastened the demise of religious freedom across the U.S.”

Elaine Huguenin, a Christian photographer in New Mexico, has already seen her First Amendment rights set aside, in favor of gay “rights.”

Earlier this year, the New Mexico Human Rights Commission found Huguenin guilty of discrimination and fined her company more than $6,600 after she refused to photograph a same-sex “commitment ceremony.”

Jordan Lorence, senior counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, is representing Huguenin and her husband, Jon. He said businesses and charities should not be forced to endorse something they don’t believe.

“It’s compelled speech,” Lorence told NPR. “You’re using the arm of the government (to) punish people for disagreeing with you.”

Marc Stern, general counsel for the American Jewish Congress, told NPR the outlook is grim for religious groups.

“What if a church offers marriage counseling? Will they be able to say ‘No, we’re not going to help gay couples get along because it violates our religious principles to do so’? What about summer camps? Will they be able to insist that gay couples not serve as staff because they’re a bad example?” Stern asked.

After Massachusetts legalized gay “marriage,” a Boston Catholic charity dropped its adoption services, rather than violate its beliefs by placing children with same-sex couples.

In New Jersey, the arrival of civil unions led almost immediately to a church losing part of its tax-exempt status for refusing to allow a lesbian “commitment ceremony” to take place on church property.

“If the ultimate result of gay ‘marriage’ and other items on the homosexual agenda is that pastors and believers can be prosecuted and silenced,” Hausknecht said, “then we have truly lost the religious freedoms that this country was founded upon.”

FOR MORE INFORMATION
California voters will have the chance to define marriage in November, when they vote on a constitutional amendment that would restore marriage to mean one man and one woman. Visit the Protect Marriage Web site.

I just can’t help but think how better off we’d be if we didn’t have our churches being squelched for fear of losing tax exemption status. Can anyone shed some light here? Please, comments are always welcomed.

by Devon Williams, associate editor

‘Marriage is not a legal vehicle for the purpose of equality; it’s a social institution with children at its heart.’

New York Gov. David Paterson has sided with gay activists by deciding to change up to 1,300 state policies and regulations to include same-sex couples who were “married” elsewhere.

Paterson’s directive to state agencies was issued May 14 and became public this week.

Same-sex “marriage” is illegal within New York state borders, but the Court of Appeals, the highest court in New York, decided this month to let stand a ruling that required the state to recognize same-sex “marriages” performed legally elsewhere. Paterson’s directive affirms the ruling.

In 2006, the same court ruled that only the union of a man and a woman is a legal marriage, and that the definition is constitutional.

Jenny Tyree, associate marriage analyst at Focus on the Family Action, said the court and Paterson are ignoring the 20 million New Yorkers who have defined traditional marriage via state statutes.

“Our children and grandchildren will pay a very high price if we allow marriage to be changed to suit another purpose entirely,” she said. “Marriage is not a legal vehicle for the purpose of equality; it’s a social institution with children at its heart.”

Paterson’s directive follows the recent 4-3 decision by the California Supreme Court to legalize same-sex “marriage.”

Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst for Focus on the Family Action, said these actions highlight the need for marriage protection at the federal level.

“A governor’s constitutional duty is to enforce the laws of his state, not make them,” he said. “The legal quagmire created by these authoritarian decrees reinforces the need for a federal marriage amendment to be added to the U.S. Constitution.”

TAKE ACTION
Please ask your U.S. representative to co-sponsor the Marriage Protection Amendment.

Fred Thompson in his latest blog gets it right in his childing of arrogant judges in California, but then goes awry with his criticism of a marriage Amendment, writing:

Nationally, as a result of this case, there will undoubtedly be renewed calls for a federal constitutional amendment outlawing same-sex marriage. Conservatives should resist the temptation to support such a remedy. States must solve this problem for themselves. They cannot and should not be saved from themselves or absolved of the responsibility that they have, a responsibility protected against federal intrusion by the Tenth Amendment.

In the first place, playing the game of judicial activists, and leaping to the federal-constitutional-amendment remedy every time judges misread the constitution and change the law, is a fool’s errand. Passing two-thirds of both houses of Congress and three-quarters of the state legislatures has proven to be an impossible hurdle for the marriage amendment and many other proposed constitutional amendments, even when Republicans controlled Congress.

Thompson gets it right on the practicality. Wrong on principle. A marriage Amendment is hard to pass, that’s true. However, what those proposing a marriage are suggesting is not on the scale of judicial activism, because what’s being proposed is not riding roughshod over existing processes for changing the Constitution, but following them. While you may not agree with the FMA tact, to equate it with judicial activism is to equate legitimate actions to amend the constitution with illegitimate actions to undermine it.

More fundamentally, the issue presented is not whether conservatives will get their way on the issue of same-sex marriage. The issue is, in our system of government, determining the appropriate place for this issue to be decided. For over 200 years marriage and related issues have been the province of state, not federal law.

Here again is the problem with Fred Thomspon on the social issues of our time. It was the weakness Alan Keyes pointed to quite rightly in his Reno speech when he compared Thompson’s position on abortion to that of Stephen Douglas on slavery. Douglas famously cared that he cared not whether slavery was legal or illegal, as long as states decided it. Thompson’s position here is that he cares not whether gay marriage is legal or illegal as long as the states decide it.

According to Thompson, as long as its the legislature that takes a sledgehammer to the foundation of Western Civilization, it’s okay.

Now, I know many folks who are pro-life and pro-family who feel these issues should be decided at the state level. But Thompson doesn’t come off as against gay marriage, but indifferent to it in his federalism. This is part of what gave Thompson problems with religious conservatives in 2008 and should be a lesson to federalists. If Religious Conservatives feel you’re indifferent to their cause, you will not gain their support.

Podcast Show Notes

Joined for most of the show by Hatton Humphrey.

Barack Obama wins the Guam Caucus by 7 votes. We discuss how the politicians spent millions and promised millions more from taxpayers to the non-taxpayers of Guam.

Plus Barack Obama’s policies similar to Hugo Chavez?

Also how Obama and the media use class warfare to divide rich from poor and end up hurting everyone.

Americans don’t buy Obama’s “outrage” over Jeremiah Wright.

The undemocratic working of the Democratic Congress.

The Republicans can’t get over their love affair with earmarks.

Government gets tough on illegal immigration, but don’t worry, it’s not our government. (Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin.)

Oklahoma does get tough on illegal immigration and their unemployment rate drops. (Hat Tip: Right Mind.)

Stories of victory in Iraq and Afghanistant you wouldn’t hear from the MSM.

How Air Marshalls landed on the “do not fly list” and why it took years to get them. (Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin.)

A conservative blogger is the scourage of Al Franken. (Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin.)

The answer to the transsexual same sex marriage issue.

How well food sin taxes work out.

A Washington legislative leader sues her own citizens to increase taxes.

Canada improves health care speed. Now 42% of Canadians can get an MRI done in 3 1/2 months.

More disturbing Fascistic Statements from the Canadian Human Rights Commission. (Hat Tip: Stop the ACLU.)

Sarah Palin’s pro-life convictions show forth with true depth.

Music: The Soldier’s Song by Lance Larsen via the Podsafe music network.

Click here to download, click here to add this podcast to your Itunes.

Originally posted here and here.

For the last month and a half, Governor Mike Huckabee spent no time with his boots on the ground in Pennsylvania. In fact, I don’t think he campaigned there period. His voice was not heard on radio ads. His visage was not seen in TV spots. The Hucka-bus did not traverse the turnpike. Calls were not made to prospective voters on his behalf. Any grassroots efforts were independent, few, and far between. No debates were held to match the Democrats.

Anyone up on their politics knows that the reason for this inactivity is the fact that Huckabee dropped out of the race after “Super Tuesday 2″ on March 4th, when it became unmistakably clear that he would not prevent John McCain from reaching the required 1191 delegates. According to his word, Huckabee threw his support behind the Arizona Senator.

Yet, over 91,000 residents of the Keystone State still pulled the lever, if you will, for the former Arkansas governor yesterday. While the mainstream media—and, by the trickledown effect, the rest of us—are enamored by the fracas on the Democratic side, this is a stat that will, in all likelihood, go largely unnoticed. But it should not.

Some may say that this was merely a collection of protest votes. If that is the case, it’s still a big deal. Combined with Ron Paul’s votes, over a quarter of Republican voters said “no”—or at least “not yet”—to McCain. This is a stern warning to the presumptive Republican nominee: He does not have the conservative base locked up; he should not get too cute with his VP pick.

But what if the eleven percent Huckabee garnered is more than a display in Republican “civil disobedience”? After all, Ron Paul reportedly ran radio ads in Pennsylvania, and his supporters are still battling hard with their “Operation Chaos.” Paul actually received almost 128,000 votes, or 16 percent. If people wanted to simply register their disdain for McCain, they’d either write in their favorite candidate or vote for a candidate still in the race (albeit feebly), who hasn’t endorsed McCain, wouldn’t they? (Unless, of course, there’s that much antipathy towards Ron Paul and his non-interventionism.)

Perhaps the people of Pennsylvania were sending a clear message: We like Huckabee. The Keystone State is critical in November, and McCain’s not going to pick Paul (Would Paul even accept the invitation?). So, obviously, that leads us to Huckabee.

Huckabee is the kind of fella who can connect with those “bitter,” “frustrated,” “clingy” small-town Pennsylvanians whom Barack Obama apparently has no qualms about insulting. For those who “cling to religion,” Huckabee is very outspoken and articulate about his faith. He’s a full-blown supporter of the Second Amendment, for those who “cling to guns.” He rejects gay marriage and amnesty, for those with “antipathy” towards those different from them. He even supports a policy of fair trade, as opposed to our broken free trade system, for those who have “anti-trade sentiment.”

Huckabee knows how to reach out to the little guy. He is one himself! People don’t see a lifelong politician, a business mogul, or a big-city elitist when they look at him, because that’s not who he is. Who is he? The type of guy who could help McCain in Pennsylvania this November.

Now, I don’t mean to start a big brouhaha of all the reasons why Huckabee would be a terrible choice. I’ve heard them. I’ve also heard legitimate arguments as to why a Huckabee supporter shouldn’t want McCain to select him. But two points of this post are clear: McCain has a lot of work to do, and he could use someone like Huckabee to help. Pennsylvanians proved that.

Originally posted here and here.

More than enough pundits and writers with larger audiences than mine have already pointed out that Barack Obama’s “bitter” comments about small-town Pennsylvanians seem tinged with elitism, incomprehension of sincerely religious people, and the idea that something must be “wrong” with those people who refuse to support liberal candidates. But, although those three promulgations are important, I feel that there are other insinuations in his comments that may be the most egregious of all.

Obama later clarified the statements he made at a private San Francisco fundraiser, saying that when politicians don’t do small-town citizens any economic favors, the latter turn to “what they can count on.” Since they haven’t been able to count on the government to handle the economy well recently, they turn to what’s left: their faith. The inference here is that, if Democrats can just use the government to fulfill people’s desires, belief in God will become unnecessary—or, at least, that festering fervent faith in Him, which dictates the way one votes, will.

This sounds like something straight out of a secular humanist strategy book: the deification of government. When government cares for all our needs like a loving, “heavenly” father (or mother—let’s be politically correct), God can be relegated to a small, comfortable, controllable “box.”

But another intimation underlies Obama’s words. His statements suggest that money drives the most fundamental aspects of our lives. After all, if the government’s bumbling with the economy is what causes us to “cling” to God (or “religion,” as he puts it), then prosperity would naturally trigger a drift away from God, or at least cause us to relax our grip, right? Now, that right there is a biblical concept. Of course, prosperity spawns temptations and lures us into trusting in ourselves and our wealth rather than God; material things can make us lose perspective, and they can grow into our god. On the other hand, we cry out to the Lord in trials and tribulations, and in such situations we often come to the realization of that which is most important. Somehow, though, I just don’t think that’s the point Obama was trying to make.

His reference to guns, hinting at his anti-gun sentiments, carries similar connotations (obviously, as it came in the same sentence). Never mind the foundational principles of self-defense and constitutional rights. According to Obama’s rationale, you have to pry the firearms out of gunners’ cold dead hands—not because they feel so passionately about the right to keep and bear arms—but because they’ve died from economic hardship.

Obama’s policy seems quite straightforward. Pad their wallets, and maybe they won’t notice if you empty their holsters.

Many secularists and anti-gun activists would like a world where faith and firearms are accents, not cornerstones, of our lives. Although I can’t nail down Obama’s position officially on the faith issue, he does seem to be in the same ballpark, which seems odd, considering that he openly calls himself a Christian. I’m not going to presume to know exactly what’s in the deep recesses of his heart, but we must not forget Obama’s political positions on abortion and homosexuality, along with other issues important to Christians. The more people who “cling” to their faith—specifically, Bible-believing, Christ-centered, all-encompassing faith—the worse it is for Obama’s political ambitions. Like an atheist says in Ben Stein’s new documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, religion will ideally become something that people “do on the weekends” for fun as a social event—something that doesn’t really affect the rest of their lives. Obama’s translation? Something that doesn’t really affect their votes.

Originally posted here and here.

Right now, I’m imagining a church sanctuary, divided right down the middle by a solitary aisle. On the left side sit all the churchgoers who may read the Bible, and even believe the parts that they like–in other words, nominal, moderate, and liberal Christians. On the right side sit all the churchgoers who believe that the Bible is God’s Word and not something to be twisted, taken out of context, or brushed aside–a.k.a., conservative evangelicals.

In my imaginary edifice, which happens to resemble the ecclesiastical incarnation of Congress, I’m trying to figure out, “What side would John McCain sit on?”

I’m starting to think that he would sit in the aisle. On the one hand, he wants the fellowship and support of the “right side” of this church. He desires that identity. But, deep down in his heart, he seems to belong right in the middle, or even on the left side.

I believe this is the case for a few reasons:

First, he called Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson “agents of intolerance.” Now, there are many ways that you could describe these two Christian leaders, including “insensitive” or “lacking discretion” for their post-9/11 sentiments. But McCain utilized terminology that is usually reserved for the “anything goes” liberal left. McCain reportedly reconciled with Falwell, but one has to wonder whether his original statements were sincere, and his latter statements were for political expediency.

Then, McCain said that he doesn’t think homosexuality is a sin, a view that goes right along with his opposition to a federal marriage amendment (although he doesn’t support gay marriage).

Moreover, WORLD Magazine, in the article “Divided We Stand,” described what happened when McCain was asked about his faith at a gathering of the CNP:

McCain launched into the story he has told often about a prison guard in North Vietnam who showed him compassion and once, in the prison yard, drew the sign of the cross in the dirt at McCain’s feet, then quickly brushed it away. The story received polite applause. Later Family Research Council head Tony Perkins told WORLD, “He had a golden opportunity to talk about his faith.Instead, he talked about the faith of his guard. It was a great story, but not what we were looking for.” Bill Owens, founder and president of the Coalition of African-American Pastors, was more direct: “It was a disaster. It just proves he has no clue what we’re about.”

McCain is pro-life but he has supported embryonic stem-cell research, causing one to question his convictions on the issue and whether he fully grasps the issue at hand. As James Dobson has said, “You can’t truly be pro-life” if you advocate the killing of babies—even those least developed as embryos. These concerns are further legitimized by the fact that he thinks rape and incest exceptions are appropriate. Apparently, he feels that one sin (rape or incest) justifies another (killing a baby). Beyond that, he would give the “benefit of the doubt” to any abortion seeker alleging rape. In other words, abortion rates might not decline all that much, while “rape rates” would rise, unless some sort of restrictions were put on claiming rape. Not to mention, he would also give the benefit of the doubt to any state which decided to keep abortion legal. He supports the overturning of Roe v. Wade (although he hasn’t always supported such a judicial move), but he does not support a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution.

On a personal level, John McCain’s infidelity may also end up being an issue with conservative Christian voters. Like it or not, McCain needs to address and fully disclose that issue. Can he admit that he sinned, failed, yielded to temptation?
He needs to say more than that he is a “believer in redemption.” He needs to say, “I really need to be redeemed.”

As of now, McCain just doesn’t seem to understand what makes conservative Christians’ clock tick, and time is running short for him to figure that out.

I honestly don’t think McCain can, with much credibility, synchronize his watch to that clock by November. In my opinion, the best way for him to get the gears turning in his favor is the selection of a true conservative Christian as a running mate, someone who can walk the walk and talk the talk, two things seemingly beyond McCain’s capacity.

And why not former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee? Does he have his political downsides? Well, yes. By little fault of his own, he may turn off the Mormon community, along with the “Mitt Romney community” in general. But the substantial and enthusiastic evangelical constituency which he represents may outweigh any negatives that he brings to the table. In any case, McCain must recognize that the evangelical voting bloc is not something to be taken for granted, and that we will not easily be fooled by a little election-year pandering.

To read the background news that led to this debate, check out the discussion on F3 forums.

The embattled Rep. Kern was invited to a local Oklahoma debate show called Flashpoint to debate against an openly gay pastor, Rev. Scott Jones of the Cathedral of Hope in Oklahoma City.

Here are the youtube clips of the debate. I personally thought Rep. Kern did alright, but she could’ve been more tactful in communicating her view. Comparing the homosexual agenda with islamofascism is really a huge stretch and its not an effective point.

Part 1

Part 2