Skip to main content
Home2012 Articles2011 Articles2010 Articles2009 Articles2008 Articles2007 Articles
 2009 Articles 
Saturday, October 31 2009

Back in February, Eric Holder - the country's first black Attorney General - announced that we were a nation of cowards because, "we, as average Americans, simply do not talk enough to each other about race."  Holder is right.


That there are still organizations operating in this country that demonize, target, and victimize innocent people simply because of the color of their skin is unconscionable.  That there are still hate groups in our midst whose very foundation is rooted in a malevolent contempt for minorities is disgusting.   That, while we stand quietly, there are those working daily inside this country to commit genocide against blacks is an abomination.  And worse, still others go beyond complicit silence and actually attempt to give legitimacy and offer defense for such institutions perpetrating these atrocities. 


These devastating realities only prove Holder's assertion to be accurate.  It is long as Planned Parenthood continues to operate in this country, we are a nation of cowards.


In her book, "The Pivot of Civilization," Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger wrote that unless something was done to stop them, those living in the slums (blacks, Hispanics, and Jews) would eventually leave the boundaries of their neighborhoods and mix with the better parts of society (whites).  Their inferior genes, she argued, would then infect the rest of us.  Therefore, she suggested we cease all charitable giving to the inner city poor, segregate these "morons, misfits, and maladjusted," sterilize these "genetically inferior races," and begin a process of eliminating such "human weeds."


And her organization, Planned Parenthood, has done just that.  In the 1980s, the organization began intentionally targeting black inner-city neighborhoods for their clinics.  Author George Grant pointed out that, "of the more than 100 school-based clinics that have opened nationwide in the [1980s].all have been at black, minority, or ethnic schools."  By 1991, Planned Parenthood was reporting that 43% of all its abortions were performed on minorities - a time when the minorities accounted for only 19% of the total population.  And in a comparative analysis between the 2000 U.S. Census data and the location of Planned Parenthood clinics, Cybercast News Service concluded, "The results appear to bolster the charge that the organization targets black communities."


Consider also a recent sting operation conducted by The Advocate, a student magazine at UCLA.  In the sting, an actor posed as a potential donor to Planned Parenthood wanting to contribute his money to help "lower the number of black people."  In the seven states where the sting took place, each clinic agreed to take the racially earmarked contribution, with none of them expressing concern over the motivation.  In one exchange, the actor said, "the less black kids out there, the better."  The Planned Parenthood Director responded by saying such sentiments were "understandable."


Combine those grim realities and you begin to see that Planned Parenthood is doing its part to carry on the eugenic and racist policies of its founder.  But don't take my word for it.  Alan Guttmacher, who led Planned Parenthood for 12 years, stated, "We are merely walking down the path that Ms. Sanger has carved out for us."  And recent Planned Parenthood President Faye Wattleton stated she was "proud" to be "walking in the footsteps" of Sanger.  When you consider that Wattleton is black, it is difficult to know whether to be outraged or just cry at such a statement.


As a leftist himself - whose boss got elected to the White House thanks in no small part to contributions from Planned Parenthood and its allies - I recognize that Eric Holder certainly wasn't calling for an open discussion about the abortion mills' racial genocide.  This only proves that while preaching against racial cowardice, Holder is ignoring his own.  You simply can't be taken seriously when discussing America's racism problems if you are willing to ignore the greatest perpetrators of racial injustice in our midst. 


Talk to me all you want about Rush Limbaugh and his comments regarding Donovan McNabb.  If you are not simultaneously sickened by the revolting racism of Planned Parenthood...if you are not demanding that immediate action be taken against it and the evil it encourages...if you are not ashamed that such a group continues to operate with a third of its budget financed with your tax are a coward with absolutely no credibility to ever be taken seriously on this issue. 


And worse, you are a willful accomplice to the racist violence of a group who, as Dr. Alveda King (the niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.) points out, "has done what the Klan only dreamed of."

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 09:53 pm   |  Permalink   |  9 Comments  |  Email
Saturday, October 24 2009

Never underestimate the stupidity of the Republican Party leadership.  In the midst of an attempted power grab of unprecedented proportions by the current Democratic administration that is turning off millions of TEA parties and town hall protests against massive government intervention continue to large percentages of Democrats are recoiling as they find "hope and change" really meant "control and loss of freedom"...the Republican Party has been presented with the chance to saddle this momentum and ride it to power.


Americans are rediscovering the wisdom and insight of their Founding Fathers - men who embraced personal responsibility, cherished liberty, eschewed big government, and understood that the government had a role to play in promoting the moral character of its people. 


It is fair to say that under the leadership of Pelosi, Reid, and Obama, the Democratic Party will not be moving its platform in the direction of such wisdom anytime soon.  Therefore, astute and prudent Republican leaders would recognize this as an incredible opportunity to field candidates who appeal to these values, and return the Party to national prominence. 


But proving that they have no greater enemy than themselves and seemingly possess a desire to ensure a permanent minority status, the leadership of the Republican Party has decided to do the exact opposite.  The special election in New York's 23rd Congressional District is a perfect example.


In a primarily conservative district, Republican John McHugh has resigned his seat to serve as secretary of the army.  One of the candidates vying to take that position in the special election is Dede Scozzafava, a radical liberal who has won the Margaret Sanger award for her commitment to destroying life in the womb.  She favors gay marriage, supports the freedom-destroying "card check" bill that would deprive workers of the right to a secret ballot, and has a penchant for supporting big-government budgets.  She's been endorsed by ACORN, public-employee unions, Markos Moulitsas (the founder of the far-left blog, Daily Kos).and has received two other recent endorsements: the National Republican Campaign Committee and alleged conservative leader Newt Gingrich!


Sending out a plea to supporters, Gingrich wrote that Scozzafava is "our best chance to put responsible and principled leaders in Washington."  It's a dark day when supposed conservatives like Gingrich call reckless spending and evil social positions, "responsible" and "principled." 


But it actually gets worse.  There is a bona fide conservative in the race, Doug Hoffman, who despite being opposed by the Republican Party establishment has surged in the polls.  Offering common sense, traditional morality, and a return to individual responsibility, Hoffman has closed the gap on Scozzafava, which has prompted the Republican National Committee to transfer a six-figure sum into Scozzafava's campaign.  That's right, the RNC is contributing hundreds of thousands of dollars to defeat a conservative and elect a woman who might easily pull an Arlen Specter and switch to the party that more closely aligns with her leftist ideology.


Gingrich defends this unconscionable behavior by warning conservatives, "If you seek to be a perfect minority, you'll remain a minority."  Good grief.  Mr. Gingrich, we don't expect perfection, but we would like to at least be able to distinguish between our candidates and the ones we're trying to defeat.


Newt added this little jewel of idiocy at the end of his statement: "That's not how Reagan built his revolution."  Actually, Reagan spelled out how to build a successful majority in a 1975 speech when he said, "A political party cannot be all things to all people.  It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency."


Reagan understood that building a winning coalition meant influencing people with the power of your ideas.  He understood that leadership was about embracing your convictions and passionately articulating them - not compromising on them and thereby convincing the country you stand for nothing.  Newt doesn't get that.  The RNC doesn't get that.  And until they are replaced with those who do, the Republican Party will continue to flounder as merely a lukewarm version of what the Democrats offer.


So to my Republican friends, when the RNC fundraising letter comes in the mail asking you to contribute to defeat the "radical liberals in Washington," I would heartily encourage you to do the following: open it up, paste a picture of Newt and Scozzafava in the middle with a red heart drawn around them, and on the line for your contribution amount write, "Not one darn, dirty dime."  After that, promptly send a donation to Doug Hoffman's campaign.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 11:46 pm   |  Permalink   |  8 Comments  |  Email
Saturday, October 17 2009

Admittedly, my first reaction upon hearing the news of President Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize was - like many - to snicker.  While several felt outrage over giving someone who had been in office 11 days at the time of the nomination deadline an award of this caliber, I wasn't indignant or even surprised by it. 


Keep in mind this award has become cheapened to a mere political endorsement in recent years.  It has been given to a terrorist (Yasser Arafat), a bumbling weapons inspector who struggled not only to do his job but also to hide his obvious anti-Semitism (Mohammed El Baradei), and to Jimmy Carter!  But perhaps most egregiously, the Nobel committee overlooked Irena Sendler, who risked her life repeatedly to single-handedly smuggle Jewish children from the Warsaw ghetto, sparing them from Hitler's human ovens.  She saved over 2,500 children, and after being captured and sentenced to death by the Nazis, escaped only by bribing the guards.  This miraculous story of risking everything to defend the defenseless didn't seem to impress the committee, as they chose to give the award to Al Gore for his slideshow on the dubious man-made global warming theory.


Given these sad examples, my initial thoughts were simply to yawn at the reality of a group of left-wing ideologues giving to one of their own an award they have sadly stripped of its meaning.


I've changed my mind.


Not because I just want another opportunity to criticize President Obama.  Not because it is merely a chance to hop on my soapbox, though those will undoubtedly be the conclusions some will choose to draw.  I've changed my mind because the idea of "peace" should mean something to us.  If we don't object to the notion of giving the highest civilian award for fostering peace on earth to a man who has no regard for the intrinsic worth of humanity, we are complicit in removing any fundamental meaning to the word.


President Obama's radical stance on the issue of abortion categorically disqualifies him from any consideration for this award.  Not only does he hold to the slave-owners ideology that some humans should be given the "choice" to deprive other humans of their inalienable rights, but he has enacted policies to use tax dollars to fund such an abominable belief.  Further, when questioned on the critical issue of when humans are to be protected and given human rights, this supposed "man of peace" takes a pass - not because he doesn't know the answer, but because the answer exposes the grotesque evil behind his position.


But don't take my word for it.  While accepting the 1979 Nobel Peace Prize, Mother Teresa powerfully stated:


"We are talking of peace...the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a direct war, a direct killing - direct murder by the mother herself. And we read in the Scripture, for God says very clearly: Even if a mother could forget her child - I will not forget you - I have carved you in the palm of my hand. We are carved in the palm of His hand, so close to Him that unborn child has been carved in the hand of God. And that is what strikes me most, the beginning of that sentence, that even if a mother could forget something impossible - but even if she could forget - I will not forget you. And today the greatest means - the greatest destroyer of peace is abortion.


Many people are very, very concerned with the children in India, with the children in Africa where quite a number die, maybe of malnutrition, of hunger and so on, but millions are dying deliberately by the will of the mother. And this is what is the greatest destroyer of peace today. Because if a mother can kill her own child - what is left for me to kill you and you kill me - there is nothing between."


President Obama's defenders may point to his opposition to "unjust war" and the new tone he is extending to a world that they perceive as tired of American imperialism.  Longing to end conflict and wars - something I believe our President truly desires - is a noble calling, and one worthy of admiration.


But peace is about far more than being willing to sit down at a conference table, trying to work out differences with men who want to kill you.  It's about how you view humanity itself.  It's about doing everything within your power to protect the powerless and defend the defenseless.  If President Obama wants to be considered a man of peace, he must begin by reversing policies that facilitate the slaughter of the innocent - not in Afghanistan or Iraq, but in the womb.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 04:00 pm   |  Permalink   |  9 Comments  |  Email
Sunday, October 11 2009

On July 6, 2009, CNN commentator Jack Cafferty summarized the conclusion of the mainstream media by stating that former Governor Sarah Palin, "won't have the same impact if she doesn't carry the mantle of governor of Alaska...she becomes...a thumbsucker."


In a related story, on September 30, 2009, Sarah Palin's memoir "Going Rogue" shattered records by hitting number one at Amazon and Barnes & Noble...48 days before the book even hits shelves.  Not bad for a thumbsucker.  To put it in perspective, at the time Sarah's book catapulted to the top of the bestseller list, it didn't even have a cover and hadn't even been edited yet.


One might begin to wonder how Cafferty can be so clueless and still keep his job - even if it is on a network that just became a laughingstock by fact-checking a Saturday Night Live skit in defense of their beloved Obama.  But the truth is that Cafferty is merely mimicking the uncontrolled Palin-derangement that plagues the entire left-wing old media. 


Since the moment she burst onto the national scene, there has been an unparalleled effort amongst the so-called sophisticated elites to destroy Sarah Palin.  Unparalleled, but not unprecedented.


In the 1970s, the dominant left feared the rise of another radical right-wing governor of a western state named Ronald Reagan, and they utilized a full arsenal of tactics to try to slow his meteoric rise.  Comparing their words and actions then to their current anti-Palin crusade now is stunning.


First, the media attempted to downplay Reagan's intellect.  They called him a buffoon, an empty suit, dim.  They said this despite Reagan's articulate approach to issues and his effective leadership of the country's most populous state.  Surely no one needs to be reminded of the Tina Fey parodies, the New York Times references to "Caribou Barbie," or Newsweek's declaration that Palin was an "ill-informed, inarticulate, shopaholic" to see how little has changed in the left's playbook.  They said all this of Palin despite her breadth of knowledge on key domestic issues like energy and her effective leadership of the country's largest state.


The old media also denounced Reagan as unqualified.  He was just a "B-movie actor" who spent more time focusing on campus athletics at his second rate college than he did academics.  That sounds startlingly similar to CNN's Fareed Zakaria who wrote, "Sarah Palin is utterly unqualified to be vice president," and other left-wing media sources that scoffed at her degree from the "substandard" University of Idaho.


The parallels don't end there: 


Reagan was the target of ageism (New York Times Magazine in 1976 proclaimed Reagan "too old to run"), while Palin is the target of sexism (the Today Show, Washington Post, and PBS all suggested Palin should be staying home with her kids). 


Reagan was proclaimed politically dead after his term as governor ended (Newsweek in a 1971 piece called "Ronald Reagan's Slow Fade" said that Sacramento would "mark the end of Ronald Reagan's political road"), while Palin has been labeled finished after resigning the governorship of Alaska (David Shuster on MSNBC prophesied, "I've said it before, I'll say it again, Sarah Palin will never recover from this...she has no future"). 


Reagan was termed a radical (columnist John Coyne wrote, "Reagan seems somewhat out of step with the new political stirrings"), while Palin is called a right-wing nut (columnist Jonathan Alter lamented, "She is a far-right conservative who...thinks global warming is a hoax and backs the teaching of creationism in schools").


Reagan used TV and radio appearances to address fundamental issues of the day without having to worry about his words going through the filter of the liberal media.  Palin is accomplishing the same thing through her utilization of Facebook, Twitter, and the new media.


Is it possible these are nothing but coincidences?  Sure.  But perhaps they're not.


Try as they might, the left ended up completely impotent in their efforts to dampen the American public's fascination and admiration of Reagan.  As Palin chooses which of her over 1100 speaking offers to accept, packs venues and sells out banquets, watches her book soar to unmatched sales numbers, curries political favors from Republican Party officials for lending her star power to their events, and uses her charisma - unrivaled on the right - to build momentum towards 2012, perhaps the mainstream media helplessly sees the writing on the wall.


After all, everyone knows how the Reagan story ended: the annihilation of a bumbling predecessor, a clear conservative agenda that revitalized the American economy and ended the Cold War, a landslide re-election of embarrassing proportions, and a legacy as one of America's greatest Chief Executives.  Considering then the striking parallels between the "Gipper" and the "Pitbull with lipstick," maybe the left's deranged animosity towards her is simply born out of a fear of the inevitable. 

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 02:47 pm   |  Permalink   |  79 Comments  |  Email
Saturday, October 03 2009

Wouldn't it be nice if we had a president who was willing to go before a watching world and defend the honor of his own country and countrymen?  Of all the disagreements and disputes I have with the current administration, this is perhaps the greatest.


Just a week ago, the President of the United States had an incredible opportunity to say a few things that need sayin' when he stood before the utterly corrupt United Nations.  And for a brief, fleeting moment, I thought he was about to do it.  After a dramatic pause, President Obama began his sentence by cautioning, "For those who question the character and cause of my nation..."  I moved to the edge of my seat awaiting that "hero moment" when the leader of the free world would scold the dictators, tyrants, and crooked regimes that have built their pathetic thugocracies on the shallow rhetoric of anti-American posturing.


Time stood still for a brief second, suspended in mid-air as I envisioned the words that Americans past and present desperately desire and definitely deserve to hear their leader speak to the world.  Here's what I imagined:


"For those who question the character and cause of my nation, perhaps you should take a moment and consider where the world would be - where you would be - without the leadership, goodness, and benevolence of the American people.


To our friends from Africa, my nation has poured its treasure into combating the rampant spread of the debilitating AIDS virus throughout your entire continent.  You are aware that had it not been for the long hours of our scientists, the ingenuity of our technology, the perseverance of our medical personnel, and the sacrifice of our life-saving envoys to your people, the death tolls would have been unimaginable.


To the good people of East Asia, you too have seen the heart of my nation.  It was less than a decade ago when your shores were ravaged by the waters of an unrelenting tsunami that killed untold thousands and devastated your economies.  The outpouring of aid you received not just from the American government, but far more significantly from private American citizens and institutions, speaks volumes about our character.


Consider that American Christian churches give $8.8 billion in aid to developing nations throughout the world.  That alone is over $1.5 billion more than the private donations of all the other 30 most industrialized nations combined.


To our European brothers and sisters, may I remind you that your beaches are still stained with the blood of many American GIs who paid the ultimate price for your liberation from the Nazis and communists.  And as if that weren't enough, when your war-torn countries saw famine and depression following the World Wars you initiated, the United States was there to pour $13 billion into the Marshall Plan, which literally saved your continent from ruin.


Much has been said in these halls about America's go-it-alone philosophy and our imperialistic attitude.  Let it be remembered that never before has a nation on this earth possessed the power that we have held in our hands for nearly a century.  Consider our military prowess, our nuclear arsenal, and then consider the manner in which we have used them - not to subjugate, annihilate, or pillage, but liberate and protect.


Before condemning the imposing hand of the American empire, consult the texts of history and recognize that never before has a people been so strong...and simultaneously so restrained by their own sense of virtue.


Without the United States, the world would be a darker place...a much darker place.  We do not suggest that we are perfect.  Indeed, more than any other country, we put our faults and failures on full display, holding them up to the light of day in order that we might correct them in our ongoing pursuit of creating a more perfect union.  Some of you take advantage of that reality to mock and belittle us.  But perhaps you would do your citizens a greater favor by modeling our openness and imitating our willingness to correct our mistakes.


My fellow citizens of the world, I don't come here today to ask for your respect.  Rather, I come here to remind you that generations of Americans have already earned it.  Thank you."


But our president didn't say that.  Instead he implicitly agreed that all the vitriol, animosity, and anti-American hatred so prevalent amongst these corrupt regimes was justified and well-grounded.  But, he assured them, now that he had ascended to power there was reason for hope.


Wouldn't it be nice if we had a president more interested in defending the honor of his country than in polishing his own global celebrity?

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 06:05 pm   |  Permalink   |  54 Comments  |  Email
    common sense makes a comeback
    site designed by Keith Parker   --  sign up for Peter Heck Mailing List here