President of the Texas Public Policy Foundation Brooke Rollins.

Texas Gov Rick Perry.

Wall Street Journal economic writer Stephen Moore.

May 9, 2012
Eric Hansen

Before last week, most Americans had never heard the name Chen Guangcheng.   With high unemployment and rising prices on gas and just about everything else, who could be bothered to give a wit about a blind civil rights lawyer in China?   If you believe in freedom, if you believe in basic human rights, if you believe in life, that you have to care about the cause of  Chen Guangcheng.  

Washington Post Foreign correspondent Phillip P. Pan brought Chen's story to American readers back in 2005 when he wrote about the activist's plan to sue local officials in his home province of Shandong for using compulsory sterilization and abortions to enforce the one-child policy.    He believed that the local authorities were breaking the law, and the suit would bring them back in line.  He had only an inkling then of the trouble he was stirring up.

In the 1970's, the average Chinese woman of child bearing age could expect to give birth six times, according to the New England Journal of Medicine.  Amid such explosive population growth, the nation's Communist leadership embarked on a effort to curtail their nation's birthrate. What began as a series of incentives for families having only one offspring,  was codified by 1979 as the One-Child Policy, and has remained in effect ever since. In a nation of 1.3 billion people, according to the US State department, these efforts have significantly controlled the growth of the citizenry.  The China Daily claims the one-child policy has prevented approximately 400 million births.  According to Guangcheng, the success has come at a price.  The incentive approach evolved into an inflexible set of restrictions, including quotas capping births in local regions. (Read this fine overview by Maria Trimarchi to learn more about China's one-child policy.)

The government imposes punishing penalties for those that don't comply with the policy, ranging from fines to loss of wages to confiscation of property and worse.  An ABC World News report from November 5, 2011 tells the story of Ji Yeqing, a Chinese mother whose second child was aborted when she was restrained and sedated by local officials.  Ji testified before Congress that the abortion was performed while she was unconscious.  Since the mid-1990's Guangcheng has crusaded against the harshest methods employed by local officials to meet its quotas.  His lawsuit sparked an investigation but also subjected him to the government campaign to keep him quiet, which has led to his current predicament.

Chen Guangcheng's fight to stop these abuses and champion the cause of life should be important to every American who supports the rights of the unborn.  His conviction are ours on this vital issue, and the right to life is just as important in Hebei or Shandong as it is in New York or Texas.  Even for those who favor legalized abortion in the name of choice, surely can see how the one-child policy does not allow any "choice" or control over reproduction.  It's hard to imagine any American anywhere who wouldn't support Chen's cause.

The US continues to negotiate on Chen's behalf to allow him to leave China and study in the US.  Even if the communist government there grants him safe passage, it's unclear whether the human rights movement in China will advance, or come under greater pressure at home, as a result of the Chen affair.  One thing is certain; we cannot forget Chen Guangcheng's fight. After all, it asks only for life and liberty, and we should be familiar with those ideals.

             

How Can You Ever Trust News Media Again?

 

This week, the Media Research Center uncovered a stunning ethical breach in NBC News' coverage of the Trayvon Martin shooting.  The often-played 9-1-1 call placed by George Zimmerman, the now-infamous neighborhood watch captain in his Sanford, FL community, was edited to fit the story that has framed this case. 

 

This is the edited call that aired on The Today Show.  You hear that, and George Zimmerman might just be the racist so many want you to believe he is.   However, when you hear what was actually said, you realize that he was merely answering a question put to him by the police officer on the other end of the line.  One quick edit, a few seconds, but so much of what's been presumed about Zimmerman turns on those expurgated words. 

 

To be generous, you might think it was an honest mistake, but this is Journalism 101: don't change the facts to suit your needs.  The facts will tell their own story.  Apparently, someone at NBC preferred a different narrative.

 

Perhaps this "breach of the public trust", as MRC president Brent Bozell put it, would be viewed differently if it sprang out of some an agenda-driven website.  But this was The Today Show. If we can't rely upon NBC and The Today Show to report this difficult and sensitive story honestly, no matter what the editorial opinion may be, how could any of their reporting ever be trusted again. 

 

Bozell called this incident "journalistic malpractice", and said that "until (NBC) makes amends it has forfeited its status as a 'news' operation".  Bozell appeared on The Mike Gallagher Show this week, and told us that NBC would investigate the incident, which was "like Nixon investigating Watergate".  The internet age has given us the watchdogs like MRC, and talk radio, to call out the mainstream media when it tries to hoodwink the public.  We may have been fooled before, but let's be sure we don’t get fooled again.

 

***NOTE - NBC News rep Lauren Kapp said in a statement yesterday in response to a query by Reuters, that "during (NBC's)investigation it became evident that there was an error made in the production process that we deeply regret.  We will be taking the necessary steps to prevent this from happening in the future and apologize to our viewers."

Personal message from Mike about the passing of Rick Buckley:

All of us at The Mike Gallagher Show and parent company Salem Communications are saddened and shocked by the sudden passing of Rick Buckley, Chairman and President of Buckley Broadcasting, owner of our radio affiliate in New York City, WOR. Rick was a broadcasting icon, a recipient of numerous awards and accolades during his storied career, and an executive who had a deep dedication his employees. He loved radio and always insisted that "the listener comes first." I had a warm visit with Rick in New York just a few days ago and will be paying tribute to this radio industry giant on my radio show Monday. We extend our deepest condolences to his wife Connie, his daughter Jen, and his extended family of colleagues, employees, and admirers. This feisty, energetic, creative visionary will be sorely missed.

Mike

Everyone likes to talk about "the latest buzz" at an event like this week's GOP Convention here in St. Paul. Obviously, the buzz has been over the revelation that Sarah Palin's 17 year old daughter is pregnant.

Dear Keith Olbermann:

I am feeling very smug today.   It turns out that I may be one of the brilliant manipulators of Democrats on the airwaves today.

Rush Limbaugh, one of my heroes, started a movement called, "Operation Chaos."   The concept is to encourage Republicans to vote for Hillary in the primaries in order to keep the Democrats in total tatters and chaos as they fail to settle on one candidate or the other.

Yesterday, Hillary clobbered Obama in the Keystone State.   Operation Chaos is working like a finely-tuned machine.

And as a proud foot soldier in the Operation Chaos movement, I played a significant role yesterday.

You may recall that I predicted an Obama victory yesterday in Pennsylvania.  Naturally, I didn't believe he would win.  But I wanted to trick Democrats in Pennsylvania into thinking that I did.  I wanted to send them into the voting booths and vote for Hillary just to prove me wrong.

In proving me wrong, I was right.  It worked.  Now, Hillary stays in the fight, maybe long enough to make it all the way to the convention and possibly twist the arms of super-delegates into picking her over Obama.  If that happens, you'll see the Democrat Party go up in smoke like a giant mushroom cloud.

I'm proud of the role I played in Operation Chaos. 

Thanks, Rush.

Ok, I've got a pretty decenty track record in predicting primary victories.   While many were expecting Sen. Barack Obama to beat Sen. Clinton in Texas, I boldly (well, maybe not boldly) predicted Clinton would win, largely due to the "chaos" factor (Republicans crossing over and voting for Hillary in order to keep the Democrat Party in "chaos".   

I was right.

And so with that cocky attitude, I will now predict that Obama is going to surprise everyone and win in Pennsylvania today.

Even though the polls are predicting a fairly close Hillary victory, Keystone State voters are a peculiar bunch.  Obama is riding an unbelievable tidal wave of momentum and I just do not believe Hillary can stop him.  Many pundits/pollsters are now pretty openly referring to her in the political past tense.   A popular YouTube video is making the rounds affirming that it is mathematically impossible for Hillary to obtain enough delegates to get the nomination.  And Democrats are realizing that if they are to have any chance of winning the White House, the "chaos" has to stop.

Make a note.  Primary Day in Pennsylvania, April 22, 2008.   7:15 in the morning.    Gallagher predicts an Obama victory.

As always, if I'm right, feel free to congratulate me tomorrow.

If I'm wrong, we will never talk about this again.

Dear Sen. Obama,

I thought it was pretty fascinating how you threw radio host Don Imus under the wheels of the bus by promising never to re-appear on his radio show after his "nappy-headed ho's" comment got him fired from his radio gig.

Now that liberal radio host Randi Rhodes has been suspended for her filthy tirade against Sen. Hillary Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro, will you make the same pledge about HER radio show?

Has anyone asked you yet? 

Randi Rhodes is one of the true "stars" of Air America.  While others have come and gone, she has been a mainstay of the so-called liberal talk radio network.   When she appeared before a gathering in San Francisco, she let loose with quite the little tirade about Hillary.   Your supporter, Sen. Obama, called Hillary "a f***ing whore" --- repeatedly -- and said the same about Hillary supporter Geraldine Ferraro.

I'm curious, Sen. Obama:  is "f***ing whore" as bad as "nappy headed ho's?"  When one of your filthy sycophants like her says stuff like this, will you be sure to promise to never appear on her radio show again?    

Or will that get you in trouble with your rabid base?

MG 

To all my fellow conservatives, I have a six-word warning before you get too excited or satisfied over Eliot Spitzer's downfall:  Mark-Foley-Larry-Craig-David-Vitter.

There's actually nothing political about a man's decision to ruin his life, destroy his family, and obliterate his reputation the way Spitzer has done.  And while he had very few fans -- I'm one of many who despised the way he attacked corporate executives for their compensation and couldn't believe his attempts to give driver's licenses to illegals, among other things -- the anguished look on his wife's face should be a reminder that there are some very real victims in this tale.

It has been remarkable to hear some like-minded callers to my radio show today try and justify the various trysts committed by Republicans while justifiably condemning Spitzer's alliance with prostitutes.   Callers have said things like, "Well, Mark Foley didn't get arrested for anything" (as if writing dirty emails to young boys is okay); "David Vitter didn't get arrested for being on the D.C. Madame's phone list" (the statute of limitations had run out); "Larry Craig didn't actually have sex with anyone in the restroom" (I'm actually speechless over that one).

Let's just let Spitzer get what's coming to him.  He'll fade away, as he should, and we'll move on.  But we'd better be careful over too much gloating.   Inappropriate sexual trysts aren't limited to Democrats.

As I brilliantly predicted, Hillary took Texas -- and Ohioans decided to go for her as well.   Throw in Rhode Island and you have a big night for Madame Hillary.

We should know better than to ever count out a Clinton in a campaign.

The lesson learned from her big night is that going negative, sadly, works.   Pundits say she really "found her sea legs" and her campaign "really hit its stride" the past few weeks.   Translation:  she decided to start playing hardball.   NAFTA, the empty Obama bromides, it was all on the table for her -- and it paid off handsomely.

Let's face it, watching the Democrats in total turmoil is fun for a righty like me.  Hopefully, Republicans who continue to whine and pout and fret about McCain's candidacy will be drowned out by common-sense Republicans who realize that while Sen. McCain might not have been our first choice, now he's the only choice.  No Republican worth his or her salt really wants to turn over the keys to the White House to a radical leftist.

So the wild ride continues.

I'm really a lousy prognosticator.  In fact, my track record suggests that I should really just keep my mouth shut, analyze election results and be satisfied to leave it at that.

I'm still in shock that my Dallas Cowboys didn't even make it to the Super Bowl, especially after my confident prediction that they would beat the Patriots in Arizona.  And then, while nursing my wounds, I declared, without hesitation, that New England would stomp the New York Giants.

Yeah, I'm not much of a fortune teller.  In sports OR politics.

But I just have this strong, strong hunch about the Texas primary.  And so I'm going to break my self-imposed (meaningless) rule and make a prediction:  Hillary Clinton will win the Texas primary by a whisker.

If I'm correct, I will frequently remind you of my political prowess and election-time genius.  If I'm wrong, I'll simply forget to mention it ever again.  As I said, my error-prone predictions would fill a sizable book.

But allow me to state my reasons:  first, a phenomenon known as crossover voting is happening in the Lone Star State.  When I went to early voting in a Tarrant County, Texas polling place last week, one of the poll workers told me that the Democrats were out-voting Republicans "better than two to one."  And he said that a whole bunch of Republicans were admitting to voting for Hillary in order to try and keep her in the race.

Secondly, there is great discontent in the Hispanic community with Sen. Obama.  As one Dallas-area Latina activist clumsily put it the other day, "Barack Obama has a problem of being Black."  She went on to explain that many Hispanic voters feel that black politicians have turned their back on the Hispanic community in years past.  And they are not forgetting it.

Combine these two conditions with the fairly rocky weekend that Obama had regarding his adviser's alleged comments to a Canadian official over  NAFTA and you might just have the formula for an upset victory (and let's face it, at this point in the Obama-mania hysteria, a Clinton win WOULD be an upset, right?).

Take it to the bank, it's Hillary by a Texas nose.  Feel free to congratulate me on Wednesday if I turn out to be right.

If I'm wrong, leave me alone.  We Republicans have enough headaches right now.

One of my guilty pleasures is enjoying the Oscars.  I wouldn't agree with 99% of the artists on display there, but as a pretty typical movie buff, I always get a kick out of the annual love-fest in Hollywood.

This year, not one single American actor won any of the acting awards.  I might be overreaching here, but does it make sense that there wasn't a single American actor in 2007 worthy of an Academy Award?

We frequently talk about our vanishing culture.   The English language, the customs, the American traditions, all slowly evaporating.

It seems to me that realizing that every single acting award at the Oscars went to foreign actors is a pretty compelling sign of the times...

So 6 big mortgage lenders -- Bank of America, Citigroup, Countrywide, JPMorgan Chase, Washington Mutual and Wells Fargo -- have announced efforts to help borrowers of all loans receive a "mortgage time-out."

These mortgage "pauses" should give every single hard-working, bill-paying American pause.  How did we come to this?   At what point did this proud and resilient country decide it was in our best interests to reward people who find themselves struggling with their bills?

I don't want to sound elitist.  God's been good to me, I make a decent living.  That wasn't always the case.  It seems like only yesterday when I was a kid just starting out in broadcasting making 10-12 thousand dollars a year so I could fulfill my dream to become a radio talk show host.  I was late on car payments, I was late in paying the rent.  At my lowest point, I was so late on my car payment that the guy from the finance company was threatening to come get the car and I borrowed a friend's car while he "hid" mine in his garage.  All these years later, I still get embarrassed just thinking about it.

So where was my "car payment time-out?"    I'm a nice guy, a good person.  Like many, I was driving a car that was over my means.  Instead of a beat-up junker, like I should have been driving, I wanted to have a nicer car and couldn't keep up with the payments on my 10 thousand dollar a year full-time salary.

I'll bet a lot of people would love to be rewarded by some kind of "pause" or "time-out" offering on just about anything.   How about a gas station time-out?  Or a utility pause?

All this talk about the mortgage companies being directed by the Bush Adminstration to try and bail out homeowners reminds me of one giant welfare nanny state.

It's total insanity.

So riddle me this, Batman:   how does MSNBC justify suspending that loose cannon of a political reporter, David Shuster, for asking if Chelsea Clinton is being "pimped out" by the Clinton campaign while completely ignorning the exact same phrase that slimeball Keith Olberman used in describing Gen. David Petraeus

Double standard, anyone?

When Petraeus was addressing Congress last year, the star of MSNBC, Olberman, had this to say about our military commander in Iraq:  "And in pimping General David Petraeus and in the violation of everything this country has been...against for 220 years....."

If "pimping" is such a horrific, suspendable term for the delicate flowers over at MSNBC, when does Olberman's suspension begin? 

And naturally, Hillary revels in playing the victim.   She fired off a letter to the president of NBC News, a sob story if there ever was one ("I became Chelsea's mother long before I ran for any office").

I'm not one of those who ever mocked Chelsea's appearance or took any cheap shots when she was a litltle girl in the White House, like some of my talk radio colleagues did.   But these days, Chelsea is an adult and by representing her mother's campaign, she's playing in the big leagues.

"Pimped out" is hardly a problem.

Gov. Mike Huckabee's folks tell us that the withdrawal of Mitt Romney is a "blessing" for them and that they are "in it for the long haul", which will make the next few weeks quite interesting,  eh?

I can't say that I blame them.  Frankly, I appreciate reading the tea leaves and realizing that getting a ton of delegates is an almost-impossible task - but if I spent millions of my own dollars, as Gov. Romney has done, and invested a non-stop, round-the-clock effort for months and months to campaign for president, I really think I'd have to stay in it until the bitter end. 

Many will say that Gov. Romney did a noble thing in falling on the sword and doing what he feels is best for the Republican Party.  However, you didn't find much of that appreciation at the CPAC convention when he bowed out.   Shock, disappointment, sadness and even anger were the moods expressed by these terrific conservative Republicans.

I'm sure the odds are terrifically against Mike Huckabee getting the nomination -- but kudos to him for staying in the race.  No sense in packing your tent until you actually have to!

So now the new tactic from the McCain haters is to bash his actions as a prisoner of war.

Wow.  I'm starting to get overwhelmed by this anger and contempt towards the likely Republican nominee for president.  Some of the haters are sounding more and more like rabid liberal democrats every day.

A week or so ago, I embarked on a new course:  let's stop beating up any Republican and set our sights on beating Hillary or Obama.  To me, it just doesn't seem very sincere to beat the tar out of one of them -- McCain -- and then pretend that all is forgiven and support him in the general election (something just about every one of the McCain-bashing hosts and pundits will be doing, mark my words).

I'm not backing or supporting McCain, I'm backing my country.  I shouldn't have to explain to anyone what will happen to this wartime country if a Democrat wins.  Democrats are getting a great jump in the process by recording and writing down every word my fellow conservatives are using to hammer John McCain with.  And they will shove those words down our throats when we get closer to November.

I expected to get a lot of angry emails.  I guess I didn't anticipate the dozens of messages from people attacking the fact that McCain was a POW in Vietnam.  Evidently, there are people who believe that he didn't really do anything special, he just "got shot down" and survived the Hanoi Hilton by "using questionable methods."

How ugly.    I never thought any Republican would give Michael Moore or Rosie O'Donnell a run for their money.

Here's a crazy idea:  I believe that any of our men and women who survive the enemy while fighting for our country are heroes.

Sen. McCain might be wrong on a variety of issues.  But let's not make a difficult situation worse by attacking his distinguished military career.

As he said yesterday:  let's just calm down.

Boy, have I been getting walloped these days.  The McCain haters are angry that the "maverick" senator from Arizona is about to become the GOP nominee.

And I can't blame them.

John McCain has created all kinds of heartburn for those of us who have been appalled at his "gang of 14", his past unwillingness to want to seal the border and crack down on illegal immigration, as well as a host of other issues that don't sit well with "movement conservatives."

But last week, I came to the conclusion that it is positively pointless to attempt to sacrifice America and hand any votes over to Democrats because we don't think John McCain is conservative enough to be the next President of the United States.

A lot of my friends and colleagues are in a foul mood over John McCain's Super Tuesday success.  But what should REALLY fire them up is the possibility of a Democrat in the White House in 2009.  And I would respectfully suggest to the "I'll-never-vote-for-McCain" crowd that you are threatening to hand the November election over to the Democrats on a big, fat silver platter.

There are lots of reasons to complain about John McCain's record.   Trouble is, there's no shortage of flaws in Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee's track record, either.  If Gov. Romney is such a conservative, why did Human Events' editors name him one of the 10 biggest RINO's (Republican-in-name-only) in America just two years ago?  They say it was because of his once-stated belief that abortion should be safe and legal to every woman who wants one.  Go to their site, you can check it out yourself.

Wanna talk flaws?  How about Gov. Huckabee and illegal immigration?   Would you consider a man who once compared illegals to slaves brought here in chains from Africa a solid reflection of core conservatism?

We can play this game all day long.  We simply don't have another Ronald Reagan in the hunt.  But we DO have Republicans running for president, every one of whom is a pro-life, pro-family, pro-military individual. 

To say that John McCain is indistinguishable from Hillary or Obama is silly.  And untrue.

To promise to vote for a Democrat, or not vote at all, if we don't get the candidate we want is music to the Democrats' ears.  

And to threaten to "punish" America for nominating a GOP candidate like McCain by hoping that America elects a Democrat for president so that Democrats can take the blame is about as sophomoric as anything I've ever heard.   

If you want to throw a temper tantrum, yell at your dog or something.  Don't help Democrats try and destroy this country.

A successful war is being fought in Iraq.  Roe v. Wade is still the law of the land but the tide is turning.  Thanks to President Bush, the Supreme Court is starting to act like the majority of Americans.  Even smash Hollywood hits like "Juno" are offering a decidedly pro-life message.

While McCain/Feingold is important, isn't the sanctity of life even more so?  Isn't continuing the fight against terror crucial, too?

Swallowing some pride and supporting John McCain will be tough for many Republicans.  But like it or not, in the battle for the country, it's the right thing to do.

And I don't mind getting yelled at by some good people who call themselves conservatives.  I'll take a licking for the good of my country any time.....

My wife had a worried expression on her face this morning as I was leaving for work.  "I'm really sad that I think i'm starting to forget how 9/11 felt", she said.  She went on to express a deep concern that like many Americans, she perhaps is starting to forget the anguish, the pain, the heartache, and even the anger of that awful, sunny September morning in New York and Pennsylvania.

I was in the Empire State Building in midtown-Manhattan at 9:00am that day.  As the world as we knew it came crashing down, we tried to stay on the air, stupidly worried more about a radio show than our families.  Our wives and kids only wanted us to come home, which we eventually did.

The town I lived in, an idyllic, beautiful community on Long Island's north shore, lost 63 people that day.  To this day, Manhasset residents cringe at remembering what we went through.

And yet, my wife is right.  There is a sense of forgetting, of allowing time to numb the pain and grief.  I suppose a degree of that is invevitable.

But as thousands of American families wait for their loved ones to return from the battle, we simply must never forget why we fight.

We fight to seek justice for those who perished on 9/11.  We fight to stamp out terrorists who want nothing more than a lifetime of 9/11's inflicted upon Americans.  We fight because it's the right thing to do.

On the wall of the study in my house is a framed newspaper photograph of my son Micah and his then-girlfriend.  The local community newspaper featured a story of a candlelight vigil that was held in the city park a few days after 9/11.  The photo showed our son and his girlfriend at that vigil, holding candles and American flags.

The look on my son's face in that photo  is one that will haunt me forever.  This cheerful, happy-go-lucky kid, who was 17 years old at the time, was changed forever.  His face is shown full of sorrow and agony, anger at what they did to us, grief over his friend's fathers who were killed.

May we never forget that loss of innocence that our children and our nation suffered that day six years ago.

And may we never lose the will or courage to fight back.

Jerry Lewis is in some hot water -- evidently, during the waning moments of the 2007 MD Telethon, he tried to joke around with a cameraman and called the cameraman's son, "an illiterate fag."  The invevitable reaction from gay activists occurred and the 81-year-old  comedian decided to apologize.

We see the same tired old cycle these days:  someone in public life says something stupid, they feel a need to apologize, but then seem to have no ability to offer a sincere apology.

Here's what Lewis said in his written statement:  "I apologize to anyone who was offended."

I love that.  "To anyone who was offended."   So what does that mean for those who WEREN'T offended?  That he's NOT sorry?

I am fascinated with these defiant, non-apologetic apologies.  There seems to always be the qualifying, "If anyone was offended" or "to those who were offended." 

Why can't people like Jerry Lewis just say, "I'm really sorry.  I screwed up."   And leave it at that?

Between a local and national radio show, I do five hours of solo radio a day.  Occasionally, i make a mistake.  I say the wrong thing, I treat a caller badly.  I don't say, "If anyone was offended at my error, I apologize."

I say, "I'm sorry."

What's so hard about that?