|
 |
2008 Articles
|
 |
|
Monday, December 15 2008
I almost didn’t call him back. Last week, I was surprised to see a message from USA Today columnist Rick Hampson in my daily email, seeking an interview to discuss the Big Three automaker bailout bill in Washington. Hampson said he was doing a piece on Kokomo’s reaction to the proceedings and was told that I would have a ‘unique’ opinion. In other words, USA Today was looking for someone to represent the anti-bailout crowd.
It is no secret that I have been a staunch opponent of the Big Three bailout, but I was still hesitant. And no, not because I feared a backlash from an automaker town. As I eventually told Hampson, people in central Indiana don’t have the knee-jerk reactions that they tend to have along the coasts. We typically give those we disagree with the benefit of the doubt and don’t consider them monsters…at least until we’ve heard them out.
No, my hesitation came from a fear that my remarks would be, for the sake of space, edited down to a mere line or two in an attempt to portray a “conflict” in Kokomo. But considering that an opportunity to talk to USA Today doesn’t come around everyday, I did the interview despite those reservations. I spent 35 minutes talking to Mr. Hampson about the rationale behind the position that a bailout is bad for the Big Three, bad for the workers, bad for Kokomo, and certainly bad for the taxpayer. I explained to him that beyond just the reality that taxpayers shouldn’t be forced to bail out failing businesses (no matter how large), a bailout will actually hasten the demise of the automakers while bankruptcy would not. Evidently, USA Today wasn’t interested in my motivations, but rather just wanted the money statement to show a contrasting view since all they printed was, “I hate to say it, but those companies have to suffer the consequences. A market without failure is no market at all.” That’s a true statement, but it would have been nice if Hampson had included the reality that I take this position for the well being of our friends, neighbors, and community in general.
The notion that a $14 billion ‘loan’ would help what ails the Big Three is as silly as it is sad. GM alone is bleeding $2 billion a month. Even if they received the full $14 billion themselves, that would have kept their head above water for a maximum of seven months. That means seven more months of anxiety for working families, seven more months of a failed business strategy, seven more months of out of touch, incompetent executives like Ford’s Mullally telling struggling workers that he deserves $25 million a year in salary just to end up in this same place. Taking $14 billion out of taxpayers’ pockets for that is the very definition of waste.
Contrary to its stigma, bankruptcy does not mean the end of companies. Ask the airline industry, which went through multiple bankruptcies and has emerged with a better business plan, better management, and has retained the vast majority of its employees. Without Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, companies and workers are subject to many dangers and uncertainties that could be avoided. When you consider that a bailout will only prolong, not prevent, the bankruptcy proceedings of these companies, the logical question is…why wait?
The thought that any American, particularly one who lives in central Indiana, wants to see the Big Three collapse is absurd. Personally, with a father-in-law whose retirement is through Chrysler, and a dearly loved Granny relying on her retiree healthcare from GM, I have a vested interest in seeing these companies survive and remain solvent. I love my American made Jeep just as I loved my American made Chevy Cavalier before it. That is why I adamantly oppose a taxpayer bailout that is unprincipled, unethical, and unwise. Bankruptcy will save jobs…a bailout will destroy them.
Peter W. Heck
Tuesday, December 02 2008
The homosexual lobby is not peaceful; it is not amicable. This is a radical movement that seeks to force us all to accept their agenda, even if it means stripping us of our freedom of speech and religious expression. If this undeniable truth has not become painfully obvious to you over the last four weeks, allow me to be the first to welcome you to planet Earth.
Consider this hypothetical: I go into McDonalds and request a taco supreme. The clerk looks at me oddly and then informs me that McDonalds does not offer tacos on their menu. I acknowledge such, but I want one regardless. The clerk encourages me to go down the road a mile to Taco Bell (where it is offered) to satisfy my craving. Outraged, I demand to see the manager and begin threatening McDonalds to make me a taco supreme. The manager calmly tries to inform me that McDonalds does not have the ingredients or expertise in making taco supremes but they’d be happy to offer anything else on the menu. Livid, I leave McDonalds and promptly file a lawsuit against them alleging discrimination.
Consider further that the government sides with me. They inform McDonalds that they must change their entire menu around to meet the desires of any customer that comes through their door. If someone wants sushi…McDonalds must offer sushi. If someone wants cotton candy…McDonalds better whip up a batch. Seem logical?
Now recognize that this isn’t hypothetical at all. It is exactly what just happened to the online Christian-oriented dating website eHarmony.com. The site was sued by a homosexual named Eric McKinley because they wouldn’t set him up with another man, despite the fact that eHarmony was not equipped to make such matches. They didn’t refuse McKinley access to their site…they just said ‘men hooking up with men’ was not on their menu of options.
Stunningly, the Attorney General of New Jersey sided with McKinley and the Division on Civil Rights took action against eHarmony to bully them into a settlement. The site has now been forced to agree to completely alter their business model and cater to the desires of homosexuals. And now that the precedent is set, eHarmony should prepare to start offering a number of new services: married men seeking girlfriends, women seeking multiple partners, men seeking barnyard animals. Who are they to judge someone else’s sexual preferences, after all?
Sadly this is nothing new. Despite the fact that this case is generating more attention, this type of legal bullying is exactly what the homosexual movement has been engaged in for some time.
Ask New Mexico’s Elaine Huguenin how tolerant this movement is. Elaine and her husband are Christians who own a small photography business. A homosexual couple wanted to hire Elaine to photograph their “commitment ceremony.” Elaine graciously declined, stating that the message communicated in the ceremony ran contrary to her consciously held religious beliefs. The lesbian couple sued the business, and the state of New Mexico fined the business for violating “non-discriminatory” policies. In other words, at the behest of the homosexual lobby, the state said to the Christian couple: violate your convictions or be fined.
Ask the Catholic Charities of Boston who for over 100 years helped orphans find adoptive, loving homes in Massachusetts. That is until the homosexual lobby sued to force the Christian organization to violate their religious standards and place children in homes of homosexual couples. Catholic Charities shut down their adoption agency. Evidently, it was preferable to the homosexuals that orphans be left in foster care than have their agenda thwarted.
Ask doctors Christine Brody and Douglas Fenton of San Diego who were sued for not providing in-vitro fertilization to a lesbian due to their religious convictions. The doctors had referred the lesbian couple to a physician who would be willing to complete the procedure, but that wasn’t good enough. The state of California sided with the lesbians and the doctors were told to perform the procedure or face the consequences.
Gay marriage exists in two states: Vermont and Massachusetts. In both of those states, the decision to allow such came not from the people…it was forced upon the people by a handful of left-leaning radicals on the courts. When the choice has been left up to the people in 30 states, all 30 states have said no to the homosexual agenda.
The only people seeking to “cram their morality” down other people’s throats are those on the radical homosexual left who are shoving their immorality in the face of anyone who dares to stand up for traditional morality. Now is not the time to shrink back from this threat to our religious and civil liberties.
To the contrary, it is time to sound the alarm and rise up to stop these radical religious bigots from achieving their ultimate objective: the trampling of our First Amendment.
Peter W. Heck
Sunday, November 16 2008
One thing is certain following the 2008 elections: the American people voted for change. They craved change so badly that they put a foreign policy novice who has never even run a neighborhood watch, no less a country, in the White House. While I firmly disagreed with that decision, I wholeheartedly support altering the status quo.
Conservatives have historically sought to preserve and defend traditional institutions from change. We do ourselves and our country a disservice if we ignore this present climate of transformation and fail to articulate our own vision for a better country. It’s time for ideas, and conservatives need to stop conserving and start proactively leading. Here are eight changes America needs…now:
Repeal the 16th Amendment. Before Barack Obama, we had another socialist named Woodrow Wilson as our President who brought us the federal income tax. Our Founding Fathers had known that an income tax contributes to the unimpeded growth of massive government, and that it makes absolutely no economic sense to tax the wealth of a nation or its people. With its disproportional burden (a large portion of Americans pay no income tax while another portion pays massive income tax), it’s time to kick this antiquated socialist concept to the curb. Tax on consumption is much more feasible and fair.
Abolish the IRS. If we repeal the 16th Amendment, we no longer need this massive instrument of government sponsored theft known as the IRS. Think of the trickle down benefit this will have across the country. In some offices, it takes multiple full-time employees just to calculate how much to withhold from a worker’s paycheck to give to the government.
Abolish the Department of Education. Yes, I am a public high school teacher. Yes, I believe in education. Yes, I believe the Department of Education is an unacceptable federal government intrusion into the domain of local and state authority. Constitutionally, the national government has no business involving themselves in school employment or curriculum.
Establish Personhood. A complete ban on abortion should be the goal of any civilized society. Medical science now validates unquestionably that what is conceived in the womb is a human being…a person. And as the author of the infamous Roe v. Wade decision Harry Blackmun wrote, “If…personhood is established, the [case for abortion rights], of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment.” Human beings should have great freedom to act responsibly with their bodies, but they are not (and should not be) guaranteed a “right” to destroy another human being. Regardless of the circumstances surrounding conception, since it is a human being, it is guaranteed by our Declaration of Independence and Constitution the unalienable right to life…period.
Balance in the Classroom. It’s time to tell the mindless prophets of the religion of Darwin that faith cannot be taught as science any longer. Pretending like the complexity of life doesn’t point to a designer is delusional, absurd, and insults the intelligence. It is time to mandate in our local school districts that it is okay to be scientific in science class: to question consensus, to expose the assumptions behind Darwinism, and to discuss alternative theories.
Abolish the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The Bureau of Indian Affairs is a disgrace. There’s no Bureau of Irish, Jewish, or Caucasian Affairs where the government plans the lives of those individuals as though they are too ignorant to make decisions for themselves. This abominable organization is given billions of our hard-earned dollars every year to “take care of the Indians.” And what have they done? They have created the most destitute and impoverished among us. Under the direct supervision of the federal government, unemployment is near 90% on many Indian reservations. It is an incredible model for what government dependence will do to a people: demoralize, dishearten, and enslave them.
Deport Illegal Aliens. The sophistry of “there are too many illegal aliens in our country to deport them all” must be discarded. We must be a nation that respects and upholds the law. Deporting those who are siphoning jobs and resources that rightfully belong to law-abiding American citizens isn’t nativist, isn’t heartless, isn’t racist…it’s common sense. And there are no technical barriers to being able to accomplish this task; we lack only the political will. Cease providing jobs, services, and living quarters to illegals, and the problem begins solving itself.
Make English the Official Language. Whether it is Mandarin, Spanish, or Russian, in the name of multiculturalism, we obligate ourselves to spend an inordinate amount of resources on catering to the various language needs of immigrants. If one immigrates to an English-speaking country, the expectation that they possess an ability to communicate in English is not bigoted. Codifying English as our national language would save billions currently being spent on providing government services, ballots, documents, and educational opportunities in whatever language the individual requires.
These eight ideas are the beginning of ‘change we can believe in.’
Peter W. Heck
Sunday, November 02 2008
In just a matter of days we will be electing the next President of the United States. Perhaps it is time to begin thinking and acting like adults, to dismount the unicorn of “hope” bounding through the forest of “change” and return to reality. The next President will have the responsibility of protecting us and our children from a very dangerous world. And when it comes to who is best equipped to handle that solemn duty, there is simply no comparison.
Amidst the economic chaos created by the very policies Obama and the Democrats embrace, we have seemingly forgotten what’s happening across the ocean. We face a rising threat in communist China, a country working tirelessly on developing a space weapons system. Russia is resurgent. Pakistan, armed with nuclear weapons teeters on the edge of instability. The maniacal Iranian regime is hurdling towards nuclear weapons. And the war for the future of civilizations currently being waged with radical Islam rages on.
It is prudent then for Americans to thoughtfully consider the choice before them: a foreign policy novice who has never exercised executive authority over a neighborhood watch, no less a nation, or the most judicious and knowledgeable foreign policy mind in the United States Senate.
Barack Obama’s inexperience in foreign affairs is staggering. Outside of Barack’s Excellent Adventure that he took earlier this year with every major television network anchor that was much more of a campaign expedition than anything, Obama has dealt with only two foreign policy issues in his brief stint as a Senator: the Iraq surge and the Russian invasion of Georgia. His response to both was simply dreadful.
He opposed the surge, maligned it, sought to undermine it, and despite its obvious success has continued denying he was wrong about it. As Senator Lieberman pointed out, “Look, the fact is that if Barack Obama's policy on Iraq had been implemented, Barack Obama couldn't go to Iraq today, it wouldn't be safe.”
And his reaction to the Georgia invasion was stunningly incoherent. While McCain blasted Russian aggression immediately, Obama urged both sides to show restraint. He told the rapist and the victim of rape to exercise self-control. This incident proved in astonishing fashion that either Obama suffers from a moral equivalence that prevents him from differentiating between the good guys and bad guys, or his instincts are tragically flawed. Either option is disastrous for a would-be Commander-in-Chief.
Obama’s campaign rhetoric hasn’t been any more reassuring. He has promised to slow down existing weapons programs, cut “tens of billions” of dollars in wasteful defense spending, scrap missile defense entirely, and prohibit the design of new nuclear weapons.
Even more concerning, he has continued to promise face-to-face meetings with foreign dictators, tyrants, and terrorist leaders without preconditions. He cites JFK’s famous meeting with Khrushchev in Vienna as precedent. Of course, JFK later cited this meeting as an “unmitigated disaster” that resulted in the Berlin Wall, Cuban Missile Crisis, and bringing the world to the brink of nuclear war. Yet this is the recipe that Obama wants to follow.
Perhaps that is why his own Vice Presidential choice, the experienced Joe Biden, has astutely acknowledged that the election of Barack Obama would bring about a generated crisis from America’s enemies to test the foreign policy neophyte. How wise is it for Americans to invite that crisis with their votes on November 4th?
These are dangerous times, and a certain moral toughness and strength of character is needed to protect our country. John McCain’s character was forged in the Hanoi Hilton, refusing to leave his brothers when offered early release. Barack Obama’s character was forged in the living room of domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, in community lobbying with voter-fraud extraordinaire ACORN, and in the pew of anti-American racist Jeremiah Wright. Again, there is no comparison.
During the primary season, former President Bill Clinton accurately identified the candidacy of Barack Obama as the “biggest fairytale [he’s] ever seen.” It is critical for our way of life that Americans board the trolley, leave the land of make believe, and return to this reality before November 4th.
Peter W. Heck
Sunday, July 27 2008
No one likes swallowing their pride and acknowledging their own faults. Yet that is certainly the position I found myself in at the end of last week when the news broke of Barack Obama’s “published prayer” from Jerusalem.
It seems the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee scripted a brief prayer to place in the Western Wall during a recent visit to the Holy City. That prayer, intended to be a private petition to God, was confiscated by a young seminary student and leaked to an Israeli paper, which published it last Friday.
I’m not sure what motivation the paper could have had for printing such a personal item, but part of me is very glad that it did…because it taught me a lesson in humility. The simple and concise prayer asked God for protection for Obama’s family, wisdom, and that God would make Barack an instrument of His will. It was a prayer that if I would have read with the right perspective would have been encouraging and heartening. Here is a man with more attention being paid to him than a rock star, and receiving media adulations as though he were already the president. Yet when given the opportunity to communicate with God privately, he humbly thought of his family first and asked the Lord to help him fight the evil of pride. Pretty remarkable.
But in what was certainly a sad commentary on the state of my own heart, my immediate response was to begin combing through this man’s prayer looking for something to debate…something to pick apart. I started examining the order of his requests to God to look for misplaced priorities. I even felt that haughty spirit which said, “This man supported infanticide and has promised to be the greatest champion of the homosexual movement that this country’s ever seen. How can he approach God with such ungodly beliefs?”
And then in the midst of that ride on my spiritual high-horse, I stopped and asked myself another question: “What in the world is wrong with me?” There is a seemingly infinite list of potential answers to that question, but at least one was becoming quite clear. I had become so obsessed in combating the candidacy of Barack Obama because of his many anti-Biblical positions, that I’d lost sight of my first duty as a Christian: to love and pray for this man who could quite possibly be the next President of the United States. I felt an incredible burden of shame when it dawned on me that to this point, I had not yet uttered one word in prayer for Barack Obama. For a self-professing Christian, that’s disgraceful.
Let there be no mistake: people of faith have a responsibility to stand for moral truth and Godly principles. As uncomfortable as it may be for some, that means opposing Barack Obama’s candidacy until he repudiates, rejects, and turns from many of the policies he is now supporting. But people of faith also have the privilege and duty to lift Barack Obama up in prayer. He needs it…and my friends, so do we.
Peter W. Heck
Friday, February 22 2008
Facing a threat that could have resulted in the extermination of her Jewish people, Queen Esther received a challenge to stand firm from her cousin Mordecai: “who knows but that you have come to royal position for such a time as this?” Those inspiring words find new meaning today as the fate of the Indiana Marriage Amendment continues to hang in the balance and very much in the hands of Representative Ron Herrell. As yet he has been unwilling to challenge the leaders of his Democratic Party by publicly demanding they allow the Indiana Marriage Amendment to come to the floor for a vote.
What we are seeing in Indianapolis is the height of arrogance exhibited by the leadership of the Democratic Party. Despite the fact that the marriage amendment passed the previous Statehouse with over 75% approval, despite the fact that it has bipartisan support in the current Statehouse, and despite the fact that over 80% of Hoosiers are in favor of it, Democratic Rules Chairman Pelath (with the support of Democratic Speaker Pat Bauer) has refused to allow it to come to a vote. Why? The answer is too simple to need explanation: because it would pass…overwhelmingly.
In other words, one or two Democrat lawmakers are single-handedly thwarting the will of the people of Indiana and refusing them the opportunity to amend their Constitution. What arrogance. After all, it is not the Indiana Democratic Party’s Constitution. It is not Representative Pelath’s Constitution. It’s the people’s Constitution, and if they wish to amend it, they should have that right—whether Pelath or Bauer like it or not.
When I challenged Representative Herrell to publicly call for an end to that arrogance, Herrell amazingly came to the defense of both Bauer and Pelath stating, “I do not feel they are being arrogant, they just have a different opinion than I do.” No one is demanding they not have an opinion, Mr. Herrell. It is more than appropriate for them to share their opinion by voting “No” on the amendment while you vote “Yes.” What is not appropriate is for them to prevent a vote altogether.
That this reality escapes Herrell is maddening since one of his major campaign issues was how the Republican Party prevented the people from getting a voice in the Daylight Savings Time decision. Herrell was indignant that the people had not been allowed to vote and sought to reopen the issue to allow a public referendum. And yet now, he seems all to willing to allow the people’s voice to be silenced by power hungry politicians paying off political favors to the homosexual lobby. Is this passivity indicative of a man who truly supports traditional marriage?
Herrell has boasted that he signed the House petition that supported the amendment. But ultimately he knows that petition is meaningless if his leaders don’t call for a vote. The truth is that Herrell bears more responsibility for the outcome of this amendment than he may be willing to acknowledge. Had Herrell lost to Representative John Smith in 2006, the Republican Party would have controlled the legislature and the Indiana Marriage Amendment would not have been obstructed as it is now. It would have passed by a wide margin and the people of Indiana would be voting on it this November. Instead, Ron Herrell won and consequently we get the arrogance and foolishness of Pat Bauer and his anti-traditional marriage cronies.
If Ron Herrell does not count himself among their number, he has no choice: he must publicly call for an end to the political games being employed by Democrats and demand his Party leadership allow a vote. If he fails to publicly make such a demand he has proven one of two things. One, he never truly supported the amendment despite his assurances to the contrary. Or two, he is a political coward unable to stand up to his Party leaders for the convictions he claims to hold. Either of those conclusions speaks poorly of his leadership, and citizens of Howard County would do well to remember it come November.
After Mordecai’s words, Queen Esther chose to risk her own life by standing for truth and right. Here’s hoping Ron Herrell will have the courage of Queen Esther, even if it means risking his political position for what he too knows to be right. Who knows, Mr. Herrell, but that you have come to this position for such a time as this?
Peter W. Heck
Sunday, February 03 2008
Ron Herrell considers himself a man of conviction. At least that's what he told me in an interview back in the fall of 2006 when we discussed the Indiana Marriage Amendment. At the time, he was campaigning against Republican John Smith who had voted for the amendment when the Republicans introduced it. Given the requirement that the IMA would have to pass through the legislature one more time before the people would be allowed to vote on it, Herrell sought to eliminate this topic as an election issue between he and Smith promising that he had strong Christian convictions that marriage was to be protected in Indiana as between a man and a woman.
What Herrell didn't seem to want to discuss was that the leader of his Democratic Party in the Statehouse, then minority leader Pat Bauer, was openly hostile to the amendment and had killed it in previous sessions. A vote for Herrell was a default vote for Bauer to be given power over the IMA, a seemingly foolish decision for anyone believing in the sanctity of marriage.
But Herrell assured voters that Bauer had made a campaign promise that he would allow the marriage amendment a floor vote at the Statehouse and not stand in the way of its passage. Simply put: the Bauer led Democratic Party of Indiana lied to Hoosiers. It has become quite apparent that the Bauer pledge, repeated throughout Indiana by numerous Democratic hopefuls like Herrell, was simply a ploy to get elected. Last year, after Herrell’s election gave the Democrats a razor thin one seat majority, Bauer used his power and lobbied to prevent the amendment from clearing committee and making it to the floor. Democrats on the committee who had voted for it previously voted against exactly identical language once Bauer had the reins.
Following this disgusting deceit, Representative Ron Herrell said and did nothing. He made no public statement of displeasure with Speaker Bauer for lying to the people of Indiana. He made no protests or threats to his Party that if they were unwilling to respect the citizens of Indiana he would consider leaving their ranks (thereby collapsing their majority). His silence concerned me and in a follow up interview, I posed a question to him: "If the Republicans had controlled the legislature, would the amendment have passed?" Herrell's response: "Yes, I suppose it would have." Incredulous, I pointed out this was the very concern so many of us felt when he was running for office and he reassuringly pointed out that there was one more year left to get it passed and that his convictions would lead him to do all he could to see it through.
For those who haven't been following, the Democrats have issued a statement (undoubtedly with marching orders from Mr. Bauer) that the amendment will not be introduced into committee, thereby killing it permanently. Who needs honesty when you've got power, right?
So now it becomes a test of character for Representative Ron Herrell. He has spoken of his Christian convictions and has promised voters where he stands on this critical issue. His action or inaction will prove whether he is a man of his word, or whether he is a man driven by political ambition.
Bucking your Party leadership, particularly a man known for vindictiveness like Pat Bauer, is not easy. But standing up in this world and fighting for your beliefs usually isn't...particularly in politics. The truth is that Herrell should be ashamed of Bauer's deception and should convene the press to announce that lying to the public is not the type of behavior he believes should characterize the Indiana Democratic Party. And he should put Mr. Bauer on notice that if the amendment does not come up for a vote, he will lead a movement of fellow Democrats to restore honor and integrity to the Party, or abandon it permanently.
With a month left, time is short Mr. Herrell. If you choose allegiance to your political party over those Christian convictions you spoke of so boldly, and remain silent and unwilling to challenge your Party leadership forcefully and publicly, the people of Kokomo will know exactly what kind of representative they have chosen: one who values power more than principle.
I challenge Mr. Herrell to be the man of integrity so many of us believe him to be.
Peter W. Heck
|
| |
